Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 10
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Performance Improvement: Addressing the Real Problems Without Getting Bogged Down in the Most User-Unfriendly Program Around
Total Comments: 10
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.6972 | +0.0013 | +3.40% |
| F | $11.9749 | +0.0219 | +0.38% |
| C | $8.6601 | -0.6223 | -47.70% |
| S | $9.4250 | -0.7684 | -52.37% |
| I | $11.4821 | -0.6136 | -53.63% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $10.4314 | -0.5746 | -42.81% |
| L 2030 | $10.7668 | -0.5171 | -38.16% |
| L 2020 | $11.2461 | -0.4459 | -32.46% |
| L 2010 | $12.8789 | -0.2531 | -16.70% |
| L Income | $12.1740 | -0.1561 | -9.62% |
November 21, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Waiting for details ...
AF
Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:32 AM
Post Reply
Bob, I'd really hoped you'd put some more meat in here when I started reading -- don't leave us hanging. After 30 years I've only had one employee who was beyond help and truely needed to be fired. On the other hand I've head multiple others who came to me as problems and often left with promotions. Even though they came from different organizations, a common theme was they employees were not, initially, self directed individuals. I didn't say not motivated -- they were. They simply needed to be told what was wanted. Too many managers tell the employee "go off and do good things" without telling the employee what those "good things" are. Now I admit we're not talking the self actualizing "A" grade future leaders here, but neither are they failures. These are solid, B employees who will give a full days work if they know what it is. Give them the right leadership and direction and they will give you back years of solid service.
Re: Waiting for details ...
DOE
Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:32 PM
Re: Waiting for details ...
OCC
Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:49 AM
Unfortunately a few bad apples do spoil the barrel but the extent of the problem seems to be exaggerated in the press when it comes to government. I fortunately work with several A employees but we have also have some hardworking B employees that perform their jobs in a fully successful manner.
I'm happy to see some readers putting this is proper perspective.
Truth to tell
Treasury
Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:52 AM
Post Reply
"Existing performance systems do a lousy job of addressing the real problems supervisors face in getting the job done." says dad. "Carol Bonosaro, president of the Senior Executives Association, told lawmakers that SES performance pay has resulted in a host of problems, ranging from low morale to a hastening of the retirement wave." Let's see?! Neither the old system or the new PFP system appears to be working by and for the experts they are designed for. Truth to tell is that managers in the federal service are exceptionally over-burdoned and performance management is the main sacrificial lamb. Many managers (if not most) are actually doing work that their manager should be doing. It does not matter what tools you have or what courses you take if your are not allocated enough time to manage and develope your employees appropriately.
Management's role in employee problems
HUD
Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:54 AM
Post Reply
Management in the office in which I work does not care if the job gets done adequately. They are far more interested in promoting functionally illiterate Hispanics.
The director of the office is a Puerto Rican female. Several years ago she promoted a grade 7 secretary to a grade 11 "construction analyst". The secretary was of Puerto Rican descent and did not have a high school degree. She later became a grade 12.
This is but one of many examples I could cite.
What does this do to the morale of others?
At HUD this is not an isolated situation, it is common throughout the agency.
Lack of Appropriate Supervisory Skills
Navy
Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:49 AM
Post Reply
"hold mandated progress review meetings (ain't those fun?); and get your annual ratings in on time (right!)".
This quote from the article clearly seems to mock the serious duties a supervisor may well be faced with in the course of their supervisory tasks. This is in fact, one of the large weaknesses in the supervisory realm. Many supervisors only take the job because they want the power, sense of importance, etc.- only the more savory aspects of the job. They'd rather just ignore the rest, & often succeed at doing just that, thereby failing to properly conduct their duties. They aren't interested in the part of the job that calls for coaching, mentoring, counseling, rewarding, performance improvement, etc. Or in ensuring that their employee's performance ratings get done on time. Fiddle dee dee they'll just get around to it when/if they're pressed, or have to do it. No surprise such a quote is in the article. It sure reinforces the widespread failure of supervisors.
Employee Performance (or lack thereof and Supervis
DCMA
Fri Mar 7, 2008 8:07 AM
Post Reply
My humble observation of the situation you just described is that while you have some very nice ideas, I have never seen them employed. The usual course of action is: Hire the employee in - This is usually done from afar as we are so decentralized and scattered you seldom get to even meet the workers in your own command unless you are a Supervisor and attend meetings at the HQ Command. (The comment about visiting the HR Department was amusing. I can't tell you where our HR Department IS now - I've been at this station 7 years. I have yet to even SEE 90% of my fellow workers who are scattered across 3 states.) You are given several days or, if you are lucky, 3 or 4 weeks, to "Catch On". If you can't perform to top specs, you have assignments either taken from you until you find another job in disgust, or you are placed in increasing difficult physical assignments until you either are forced to retire due to medical reasons or you get the message and find another agency.
How well do you know the Employee's job
DCMA
Fri Mar 7, 2008 8:18 AM
Post Reply
In 35 years with this agency, I have yet to work for a Supervisor that EVER knew what my job description said --or even cared. Most were there to either (1.) Reduce the number of employees (thus cutting costs and attaining some sort of "quota" only they and the Commander were knowlegable of...) (2.) Springboard to a higher grade at HQ,(3.) transition from Military retirement to an additional Civil Service retirement with as little incident as possible,(4.) all of the above. Since starting with this agency, the only accomplishment I have noted is that they have significantly reduced the number of employees and have increased the workload of those lucky enough to survive while reducing the attainable grades. Your job doesn't matter - only the goals of the Managers, which seems to be to eleminate as many positions as possible and to get the power to MDR those remaining with no recourse available to the transferred employee (and no benefits either - no PCS, Housing Allowance, etc.)
Re: How well do you know the Employee's job
ICE
Fri Mar 7, 2008 7:00 PM
Don't Forget the Employee Assistance Program
HHS
Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:54 AM
Post Reply
When performance problems are the result of an emotional, work/life, or addictions problem, it is important to involve the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in any intervention or performance improvement plans. Every Federal agency is mandated to have one. The program can provide the supervisor with invaluable coaching about whether the performance problems are related to personal concerns, how to approach the employee, how to write a memo of referral to the EAP, and so forth. If the performance problem is related to a substance abuse concern, agencies are required to offer assistance (under the Drug Free Workplace mandates) before the person is terminated. The EAP can also partner with the manager to provide training and education on issues that may impact the performance, health and wellness of the worksite such as a downsizing, death of a co-worker, etc. The EAP is a valuable tool and partner in managing the performance of any worksite.