Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 41
Page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 4
"So, Mr. Einstein, what do you plan to come up with next year?"
Total Comments: 41
Page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 4
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6432 | +0.0012 | +2.96% |
| F | $11.9243 | -0.1231 | -0.05% |
| C | $10.4442 | -0.8603 | -36.93% |
| S | $12.4303 | -0.9943 | -37.19% |
| I | $14.2858 | -0.7200 | -42.30% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $12.3436 | -0.7348 | -32.33% |
| L 2030 | $12.4331 | -0.6468 | -28.59% |
| L 2020 | $12.6288 | -0.5442 | -24.15% |
| L 2010 | $13.5738 | -0.2956 | -12.20% |
| L Income | $12.5694 | -0.1823 | -6.69% |
October 10, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Job Objectives
DOD
Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:15 AM
Post Reply
Good article. I hope many managers read it.
Introducing elements such as those in the article as job objectives on an employee's appraisal which the employee can at best only succeed at will have an averaging or reducing effect on the other job objectives which the employee may excel at.
If the original purpose was to lower the appraisal then using such objectives is very effective.
Absurd Ratings and NSPS
Army
Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:20 AM
Post Reply
This article is too kind and makes a straw man arguement that absolute standards are only inappropriate for Blue Collar workers. These absolute standards seem endemic to NSPS, and NSPS doesn't even apply to blue collar workers yet. Abosolute standards are inappropriate at every level. For example, how can an office worker in a cubicle exceed a safety standard? How can a supervisor exceed an EEO or safety standard beyond perfection? Rating people on things they cannot affect is inherantly unproductive, but clearly the focus of the NSPS system. Likewise, NSPS has taken all meaningful rewards and concentrated them into the annual rating process. So really, all meaningful rewards have to be joined to annual appraisals. The observation that "asking for creativity isn't always in management's interests" is insightful. Under NSPS, the behavior demanded in the standards actually offends local management, and can result in a lowered performance evaluation.
Pay-for-Performance
U.S. Probation
Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:06 AM
Post Reply
The Bush administration's goal is pay-for-performance. Let's just look at Iraq, Katrina, Social Security, and Valerie Plame.......if the government paid strictly on performance, these guys would never get a raise. They would have to discipline, if not terminate, themselves. How's that going to work?
Re: Pay-for-Performance
dod
Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:39 AM
And just what does your opinion of Bush have to do with employee evaluations??
Re: Pay-for-Performance
DHS
Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:03 PM
Answer: I hate Bush!!!
Question: Regarding safety violations, how do you think they should be accounted for in the employee evaluation cycle?
Answer: I hate Bush!!!
Question: How should the occasional outstanding achievement impact employee evaluations in later years?
Answer: I hate Bush!!!
Give it a rest probation officer… it’s getting really really old.
Rating on a Curve
IRS
Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:03 PM
Post Reply
The writer's grasp of the obvious is quite amazing. The fact of the matter is that agencies have linked their appraisal system to pay-for-performance, and are forcing ratings onto a curve. In my agency, the midpoint of the curve is Exceeded on a 4-level system (Not Met, Met, Exceeded and Outstanding). Each executive is budgeted 6 points for each rated manager. They are charged 4 points for a Met, 6 points for an Exceeded and 8 for an Outstanding. One need not be a mathematician to see where this leads. For each Outstanding there has to be an off-setting Met. Now comes the best part. We don't have "steps," just a minimum and maximum for each pay band that directly correlates to Step 1 thru 10 of the corresponding General Schedule grade. The agency decides how much they want to dole out each year then they tell their executives how many Outstanding ratings they have.
Appraisals
Dept. of Veterans Affairs.
Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:16 PM
Post Reply
In their wisdom our HR people are now telling us what percentage of our employees should be rated at a particular level, but I will never rate a stump higher than he or she deserves.
Re: Appraisals
DOD
Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:05 AM
But will you tend to rate the solid, capable worker, the backbone of your organization well, or just consider them "stumps" worthy only of being rooted out.
Will you fall prey to the idea that you can have only ONE outstanding? Will you favor one or two, who have been able to shine in large part because the "average" capably handles the large part of the daily work?
Or will you realize that if you have one superstar and a bunch of "stumps" that YOU must be failing as a leader?
Pay-for-Performance
Treasury
Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:20 PM
Post Reply
Pro-Off actually has it absolutely correct. Bush is the one who has pushed PFP and look at his!? His own party is running from him like he is a plague victim. Like it or not he is the poster boy for PFP and all you need to do is check ANY polls relative to his performance to see what sort of a raise he would get. So yes, Bush IS responsible for PFP while he has utterly failed, by all accounts mind you, in his performance as a President. The truth should never be given 'a rest'.
Re: Pay-for-Performance
dod
Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:55 PM
RE: Pay-for-Performance
Treasury
Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:40 AM
Post Reply
Man-DOD, sorry but you are the one missing the point. Bush is the one who is stumping for this process and he is the perfect example of why it is doomed to failure in this incarnation. His job performance is what I, and most Americans, find negative and I clearly stated that. It is not an opinion as polls that specifiy his job performance are what I am referring to. Another example is Gonzales who had 30 top executives ready to resign at one point, unheard of by all accounts, and how do you think the President would have rated him? By his own words of support for him he was probably rated 'outstanding' when in reality he was clearly inept at best. Do you not see that this example, and many others Doan-Hatch act violator etc., is not looked upon by the rank and file with the idea that it is not performance but who you know that counts? No, partisan politics are not my argument as the facts speak clearly for themselves.
Re: RE: Pay-for-Performance
DFAS
Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:52 AM
Re: RE: Pay-for-Performance
Small agency
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:33 AM
Now, can we please have an intelligent conversation about reforming the Federal civil service without the politics? Employee DHS has it absolutely right...we can't actually discuss anything anymore without hearing the "i hate Bush" mantra.
Re: RE: Pay-for-Performance
DOD
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:36 AM
Re: RE: Pay-for-Performance
dod
Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:34 AM
The article specifically raises the issue of how employees should be rated on safety and security, and whether ratings on these categories affect a department’s budget. The article specifically raises the issue of EEO and other regulations are taking priority over other measures of employee evaluation. Another issue raised is whether or not the occasional outstanding achievement should affect future evaluations of an employee, and does this artificially set expectations based on one incident. Is discipline taking on a role in employee evaluations when it may be more appropriate in day to day functionality? Despite all these issues (and more) raised for discussion on the topic of employee evaluations, the only conclusion we can gather from your responses is that you don’t like Bush. We have no idea what your thoughts are on the topics of discussion that were actually raised. Talk about missing the point, you better look in the mirror.