Despite the relative freedom employers are afforded during this process, there are a series of slightly trickier issues that could arise. 

For instance, in some lower-skilled roles, detailed performance metrics may not be available as they would in more sophisticated or more easily measurable fields. In these cases, assessments may have to involve a subjective analysis of the qualities and the skills of the person. This could be done by breaking down performance into subcategories and assessing each individually. If assessment guidelines have already been provided, the scoring is often carried out by more than one manager to eliminate the possibility of bias or animosity.

In this instance, the employer must always make sure to consult with the employee as regards the scores, allowing them a fair opportunity to respond. Following this, individual scores may need to be amended; if an employee has reasonable and compelling grounds for scoring higher, it should be adjusted accordingly.

That said, it’s worth noting that an employee’s ability to challenge their score in a Tribunal is relatively limited. Tribunals do not typically intervene when it comes to the minutiae of how individuals are scored, nor do they participate in re-scoring employees (barring cases where biases or obvious mistakes have occurred). 

Finally, the use of a ‘competitive interview‘ as a means of selecting for redundancy has gained popularity over recent years, particularly as it is difficult for an employee to challenge at Tribunal. However, this method should be limited to situations where employees are applying for new, different roles rather than being interviewed for what is effectively their current job.