In previous years, employees already received a rating in their review report indicating whether their performance over the past year was above, below, or in line with expectations. That part has not changed. What is new – introduced UT‑wide last year through the AFAS HR system – is an additional score on ‘employability’, meaning an employee’s (future) labour potential. Employees are now classified on a scale ranging from ‘stable’ to ‘high potential’.
OPUT opposed
This has struck a nerve at OPUT, the consultation body of local union representatives. ‘We oppose the idea of an employer assessing someone’s labour potential in this way,’ says chair Robin van Emmerloot. ‘It effectively places a label in someone’s personnel file. It also evokes almost dystopian scenarios: what will the UT do with departments full of – to exaggerate – low potentials? Are they at greater risk of being reorganised? We see this fear among staff, even if employment law technically forbids such consequences.’
OPUT has received multiple signals, Van Emmerloot adds. ‘Also from middle management. Even the standard performance rating is somewhat subjective. This additional score is even more so, and heavily dependent on the relationship between employee and supervisor. There are units that actively refuse to use the new review form. That says a lot.’
‘Good conversation’
One of those units is the largest service within the UT organisation: the Centre for Educational Support (CES). All seven supervisors refused to use the new employability function in the review form, including service department director Lieke Schreel. ‘First of all, I’m happy with the new online tool. It’s far better – also from a privacy standpoint – than shifting documents around. But I don’t believe a strategic HR instrument belongs in this setting. The annual review is meant to support the good conversation: how are you doing, and in what direction do you want to grow? The strategic element is important for managers, but it stands apart from that good conversation.’
For now, the issue seems to have eased; HR has made the employability score optional instead of a mandatory field in the review form. That settles the matter for Schreel.
‘Not a value judgement’
HR director Hans Oeloff acknowledges that there is ‘friction in some places’. ‘The starting point was improving the digital support for annual reviews. We also saw a link with the recognition and rewards movement and strategic workforce planning. Moreover, employability is explicitly mentioned in the collective labour agreement (in article 6.7, ed.). That is why we included employees’ potential in the annual assessment alongside their performance.’
Oeloff says the concept ‘perhaps should have been explained more clearly’. ‘In principle, it’s simply the question of whether someone is in the right place, purely from a career‑planning perspective. There is nothing dramatic about it, nor does it have to be a value judgement.’
Addressing concerns
Regardless of the change and its later adjustment, OPUT is dissatisfied with the process. ‘We are always open to pilot projects, but we believe we were insufficiently involved – especially given what appeared to be an intention to roll this out UT‑wide,’ says Van Emmerloot.
Oeloff disagrees with that observation. ‘Various bodies were included from the start, including the choice for this functionality. The evaluation of the new setup is now underway, so I’m hesitant to draw early conclusions on whether we should keep this feature. We are certainly not blind or deaf to the need for clearer explanations of the term ‘employability’. I believe that alone can ease many concerns.’
