Skip to main content

Performance Reviews and Confidentiality: Why It's About More Than Just Paperwork

For many employees, a performance review feels like a one-way street—a formal, often nerve-wracking meeting where a manager delivers an assessment. But what happens after that meeting? Where does that information go, and who gets to see it?

The answers to those questions are at the heart of a critical, and often overlooked, ethical duty for managers and human resources professionals: confidentiality. When you break it down, a performance review isn't just a record of your work; it's a reflection of your professional identity.

The Ethical Foundation of Confidentiality
Think of the relationship between an employee and their manager as a professional partnership built on trust. Just as a doctor or a lawyer has an ethical obligation to protect your private information, a manager has a similar duty to safeguard your performance data.

This isn't just about following rules; it’s about creating a healthy, respectful workplace. When an employee knows their performance review and any related disciplinary write-ups are confidential, they're more likely to:

Trust the process: They'll feel comfortable having an honest, candid conversation with their supervisor, knowing the feedback will be used to help them grow, not to be a source of office gossip.
Feel secure: They won’t worry about colleagues or unauthorized supervisors seeing their private records. This psychological safety allows them to focus on their work, not on defending their reputation.
Engage honestly: It empowers employees to share their own struggles, ask for help, or express career aspirations without fear of public judgment.
From a managerial perspective, maintaining confidentiality allows you to be an effective coach. You can provide constructive criticism and honest feedback without worrying that it will be used to humiliate or harm the employee.

The "Need-to-Know" Rule: A Simple Guide
So, who needs to know about an employee's performance? The answer is simple: only those with a legitimate, business-related reason.

The Employee: This one is a given. It's their record.
The Direct Supervisor: The person who conducts the review and is responsible for the employee's development.
Human Resources: HR serves as the official record-keeper and advisor on all personnel matters. They ensure consistency and fairness in the process.
Upper Management (in some cases): Sometimes, senior leaders need access to review team performance, but this should be on a limited, "need-to-know" basis.
What about a colleague, a manager from another department, or even a different member of the employee's own team? They should have no access. Sharing this information, even casually, is an unethical breach of trust.

The Real-World Impact
Let's imagine a scenario. A manager, Jane, shares details from an employee's performance review with a colleague, Mark, in a different department. Mark, in turn, mentions it to a coworker. Suddenly, private information becomes office gossip.

This seemingly small act has a ripple effect. The employee who was reviewed finds out and feels betrayed. The trust they had in Jane is gone. Other team members see what happened and become wary of having their own performance discussions. The entire team's morale suffers.

The legal risks are also very real. Disclosing an employee's personal or performance information can lead to legal action, particularly if that information is used in a way that is discriminatory or defamatory.

In short, guarding an employee’s record isn’t just about following a policy. It’s a fundamental ethical practice that builds a foundation of trust, respect, and professionalism in the workplace. It shows every employee that they are valued not just for their work, but for who they are as a person.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT OF SIX SUBCONTRACTING COMPANIES AND THEIR OWNERS IN MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR FRAUD

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictments of six subcontracting companies and their owners for colluding with LEHR CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (LEHR) in a multimillion dollar scheme that defrauded numerous construction clients over the past decade. See, related story. The announcement comes one day after DA Vance announced LEHR and four executives were indicted on crimes including Enterprise Corruption, the New York State Racketeering law. GODSELL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and its owner ARTHUR GODSELL are charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. JT ROSELLE LIGHTING, INC. and its owner JAMES ROSELLE, LIBERTY CONTRACTING CORPORATION and its owners GEORGE FOTIADIS and KEVIN FOTIADIS, PJ MECHANICAL and its owner JAMES PAPPAS, SUPERIOR ACOUSTICS, INC. and its owner KENNETH MCGUIGAN, and SWEENEY & HARKIN CARPENTRY and its owner MICHAEL HAYES are charged with Grand Larceny in the Third Degree.[1] "The defendants in this case cheated clie...

Mortgage Fraud

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced today the indictment of 13 individuals and a mortgage origination company for perpetrating over $100 million in mortgage fraud over a four-year period in the New York City metropolitan area. In addition, 12 individuals have already waived indictment and pleaded guilty to felonies relating to their participation in the mortgage fraud scheme. The indictment charges 13 individuals and the mortgage company, AFG FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., with enterprise corruption, grand larceny, scheme to defraud and conspiracy involving 19 fraudulent mortgage transactions. The defendants include the principals and a number of employees of the mortgage company, as well as bank employees, appraisers, and three attorneys. Two other attorneys are among the defendants who already pleaded guilty. The crimes charged in the indictment occurred between June 2004 and April 2009 with the bulk of the fraudulent closings occurring from mid-2005 through the end of...