Re: dealing with under-performing employees

Sorry, but this is a plain failure on the part of a gutless management that permitted the employee to lay around. The only reason this occurs is generally because management failed to construct a positive case, built up on progressive discipline, that would stand up to scrutiny by third parties, beginning in-house and working outward to the final appeal. Certainly, there are those instances where the courts may toss them back on the agency, but that is not the agency's fault always; sometimes you get a bleeding heart judge. But to say he was left to moulder because of the fear of lawsuits leaves the agency one option to follow.

Sit back, let him do his thing, and never, ever, ever, ever,......, ever, whine about what he isn't doing again.

The creator of the monster has little room to cry over it later. And no sympathy due either.

Re: A Different Angle

I agree with Fed Peasant, it's a two-way street. There are too many people in supervision that don't belong and are allowed to move up the ranks in a clear "good ol' boy" network, or as we refer as incestuous hiring practices.

So to blame pi**-poor-performance, on workers, many times is not the case. A certain amount of charisma and motivation is required on behalf of management, as opposed to those that use obsolete micro-managing techniques to compensate for their own shortcomings as a true leader.

Re: A Different Angle

You both hit the nail on the head. They just hired a supervisor over my section with no prior experience or training. The last supervisor I also had to train. This person was promoted to make up for the many times they did not promote him/her. The politics of the system is damaging our federal workforce. Something will have to give and at what price, who knows?