Opinion ID: 203405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Progress Reports

Text: While García was on the PIP, she and Vélez met about four times to discuss her progress in meeting its goals. García's first PIP progress report was dated August 9, 2004, less than a month after her first meeting with Vélez. According to this review, García was showing progress: she had issued minutes for three pending projects, submitted Time and Events updates for four projects, participated in the weekly safety meeting, and was applying the stage gate planning process required by the company. García's second review, on September 13, was not quite as rosy. It set forth several areas in which she had not met requirements, but also noted that García had acknowledged the situation and that she had explained that her absence had been due to a death in her family. In early October 2004, García's mid-year review for the first part (January through approximately June) of 2004 was completed. On this evaluation, done by Vélez, García received a rating of Meets Expectations in each of the seven categories being assessed: Leads Strategically, Builds Alignment, Communicates Directly, Drives Performance, Collaborates, Energizes Others, and Develops People. Vélez testified that this mid-year evaluation is initially a self-assessment; García had assessed herself in some categories as Exceeding Expectations and he lowered that to Meets Expectations. Vélez stated that at the time he and García met to discuss this mid-year evaluation, she was doing well on her PIP and he allowed the mid-year evaluation to reflect that: During the first months of the PIP period, I noticed that García had shown some improvement on several areas set forth in the plan, as evidence[d] in her October 18, 2004 follow-up PIP Form. Therefore, in her mid-year evaluation of October, 2004, I rated her overall as `meeting expectations'. A third PIP assessment dated October 18, 2004, documented that García had submitted project progress reports, meeting minutes and updates, and Times and Events updates on active projects. However, it also stated that García was not consistent with respect to her participation in site safety audits, completing only two of four, and she attended only two of five weekly safety meetings. She also had struggled with the stage gate process for two of her projects, but the assessment noted that [a]fter several coaching sessions... progress is be[ing] made towards using the process. The assessment also noted that García had been coach[ed] to align expectations and close communication loops with customers to avoid confusions; that she had demonstrated the capacity to reach for consensus on requirements; and that she had received very strong feedback from her project team. Specific requirements were laid out for the two projects for which she had not followed the stage gate process to assist her in meeting expectations. On November 5, 2004, Vélez and Vanessa Colón from the Human Resources Department met with García and informed her that Vélez had decided to extend her PIP until December 15. A PIP extension memorandum, written by Vélez, noted that García had made progress in her communication with others but needed to demonstrate consistency. As for leadership, she needed to improve on her planning and time management skills and provide more detailed engineering work and alternate plans. With respect to alignment, she had demonstrated the capability to work on a team environment and approach issue resolution in a consensus with the team, but needed to demonstrate consistency. The memorandum stated that García was to resubmit documents regarding two of the projects under her control to management by December 15. Vélez and García did not meet to discuss her performance after November 5; Vélez said that this was because the time period between November 5 and the end of the PIP extension on December 15 was relatively short. Vélez's final PIP review for García, dated December 30, 2004, covered her performance in November and December and was markedly negative. It noted that although García submitted project progress reports for November and December for several projects, she was not able to handle the pressure triggered by unfavorable and controversial issues. She presents an attitude of labeling ... questions coming from stakeholders as personal threats and acts of hostile behavior make[ ] it very difficult to communicate with her. The review also noted that García did not submit meeting minutes and updates on active projects during November and December, nor did she provide evidence of formal meetings with team members on active projects. Although García submitted Time and Events updates during November and December, there was no evidence that García had met with or discussed these updates with the local team, as required. On December 8, she had sent Sánchez an email, without any previous discussion of the subject, stating that a project that had been under her control since June 2004 could not be executed because the equipment purchased was incorrect. The review also noted she was inconsistent in her participation in safety audits, attending only two of four, and she had attended only four out of twelve weekly safety meetings between October and December. Additionally, the review noted that García demonstrated no progress with the stage gate process during this time period and did not meet project milestones for several projects. She failed to deliver the project documentations that had been due to management on December 15. Moreover, the review noted several specific instances that clearly demonstrate [García's] lack of consistent performance when handling projects. For instance, an October 29 communication from García to a supplier stated the terms and conditions for the transfer and storage of a tablet press about which she had not consulted her direct supervisor, a situation which demonstrates her unilateral approach to implementing decisions without consultation to her one-over manager ... that compromises basic company procedures and put[s] at stake the company['s] business relationship with suppliers. On November 12, García had written an email to a sourcing expert telling the expert to proceed with a purchase order for service, again without the authorization of her direct supervisor, and a meeting was set immediately with purchasing to clarify the engineering role and the purchasing role in this negotiation. The review also noted that García had attended two training sessions, one on working with teams and one on BMS Core Behaviors, but she had refused to participate in a project management training because she felt that it was too basic for her.