AQA Reviews

Cons

Can be reactive in approach

Cons

Expertise not appreciated. Feel like my job role is quite siloed.

Cons

Work is very repetitive.
Hard to find parking

Cons

Lots of pretending to want change, but no desire to do what's necessary to get there. Ultimately, the noble purpose of doing good in education is stuck in the industrial revolution

Cons

Can be repetitive work, though this is alleviated by good working relationships.

Cons

Non that I can think of currently.

Cons

Senior management transparency is difficult, making difficult to understand their strategy. A lot of internal politics may sometimes delay progress and delivery. Too many managers with less and less doers.

Cons

Reviews
1. Consultations on colleagues performance irregular - affecting conclusions. Positive service feedback unreported.
2. Review process done wrong - wrong issues included, ie health, others not, long term goals. No mutually agreed reports
3. Vague goals/ negative ‘constructive’ feedback– consistently insufficient detail on performance related to goals, affecting ability to improve. Management told, just said improve, little training. Comments - negatives written, positives turned negative/ ignored. Positive corrections (wrong actions, no positive feedback) considered good review approach.
4. Actively used to replace existing staff, knowledge/abilities ignored.
5. Review meetings irregular/rare – no time to correct behaviours. Management view final, implication read and sign forms, input unwanted, answering back. No real discussion.
6. Management failure to resolve issues – unable to recognise, seek solutions for months, despite told. Stated unwillingness to train. Some issues resolved by others, others never.
7. Email comments by staff – management happy to say situation different if gives their desired impression/ fail to act on them. No clarification sought.
8. Judged negatively for failing to do jobs not done at all/ or hardly due to lack of opportunity.

Training - Multiple requests for external training.
1. Only in-house - If external desired, own time/self pay. Research from TV/ online.
2. Automatic training requirements following reviews - fail to inform staff
3. Staff training – not recorded or discussed after, any issues wrote refer to training.
4. No one departmental approach to jobs – all doing differently, one way, one person fine, another wrong. Seen in multiple tasks.
5. Admitted inability to teach essential skills – to senior management when judging staff for lacking skills. Some training only provided by colleagues.
6. Training – hands on avoided, verbal short, then go, no written departmental targets.
7. Reluctant to invest in training/MBTI/Learning style assessments – time away from work

Unsupportive management
1. Outgoing management kept quiet – officially following viewpoint required by those staying, quietly saying they were helping, they and others say staff doing well, substantially improving, rarely officially raised or recorded.
2. Job description changes, staff unaware - Management unconcerned, despite having judged staff on unknown changes. No investigations/apologies.

DISABILITY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT/ MANAGEMENT
Even supported management made little effort to communicate with staff different from them.
1. Rigid Official Review performance targets - naturally biased against many disabilities, don’t recognise strengths due to communication styles.
2. Disabilities - unable to understand effects of Autism/similar conditions. Judgement on ability to do work based on assumptions.

Attitude changes - no safety issue, no preventative action
1. Sharp, ANGRY management corrections – apology given, say will positively correct if see others doing same thing, in same way as just been corrected. Suddenly no issue.
2. Correction for actions - displaying flexibility due to others action’s. Manager enters, no questions, one person blamed, another takes blame. Suddenly no issue, manager sharply says do properly, leaves.
3. Wrong correction by official trainer – they apologised, issue not raised in recent training.

Good relations management relations not encouraged – unapproachable, untrustworthy
1. Negative service comments from customers – not acted on
2. Negative comments when systems introduced – at times avoiding potentially life threatening/ unpleasant reactions, following training. Told to stop, time wasting.
3. Angry/sharp/aggressive management style - if not get desired responses, or when help sought. Reasons not sought. Experienced by many.
4. Consistency sought by Managers – managers routinely inconsistent - opposing approaches. Desired approach changes, staff not told in timely manner.
5. Incorrect/negative information given by management - to staff concerning others, affecting departmental relations, corrected by team members. No comment on improvements.
6. Unknown issues - Staff considered failing for not providing solutions, these not sought once told, negative written comments.

Poor Management – Higher management aware of issues. No attempts to clarify.
1. Unable to calculate increasing workload - reduced staff, at full stretch, told to cope.
2. Output more important than health – health issues causing time off/affecting work considered valid negative review issues. Management concern - staff stressed, not reasons.
3. In-house medicals, flu jabs etc – managers don’t tell you, attend in own time.
4. Approved holidays not recorded - multiple overlaps, short staffing, stress. Consultation avoided further clashes. Staff falsely blamed for not following procedures.
5. Rarely recorded contributions – not pass on changes in contribution requirements in timely manner, contributions not recognised.
6. Communication poor/non-existent - targets, meetings, procedures etc. Negative feedback, different systems, inability to prepare for meetings, stakeholders not told of changes.
7. Communication flexibility not required – If initial approach fails, other person blamed.
8. ‘Discussions’/ Mentoring’ one way - from manager. Only very precise phrases acceptable.
9. Poor Staffing/ work/ life balance – Staffing levels insufficient, temporary staff avoided. Stressed staff told to cope. Overtime essential (pressured to) in quiet times.
10. Solutions – Only management ways wanted, others discouraged, including previous good systems. Ideas led to accusations of inability to cope, and blaming staff for failing.
11. Management felt unable to listen by staff due to confidence loss – therefore did not raise issues/give explanations, denied it was their problem.

New management lacking essential knowledge
1. Failed to know staff - assumed abilities/learning styles - wasted time ‘teaching’ unnecessarily. Staff (perm & Temp) leaving, with useful information.
1. Tried to hide mistakes - even when made aware. Resolved by speaking to higher management. Multiple mistakes.
2. Management told something possibly not know – regular, sharp responses.
3. Claimed issues not raised with them when they had – they had dismissed issue.
4. Removed systems preventing issues - commented when re-occurred, solutions not sought.

Favouritism
1. Staff made official first aiders, receiving full external training before probationary interview.
2. Some temporary staff retained once not needed, most go immediately.
3. Some if they hate a task, removed from it. Others must do as allocated.
4. 3 month probationary reviews – Most done after 4 months, favourites promptly, noted.
5. Manager away, very new staff put in charge of team, despite lacking knowledge.
6. Some staff offered chance to attend events, others not. Some on weekdays, some weekends. Others not even asked.

Cons

- There are none!

Cons

There aren't really any cons