Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 88
Page 1 of 10
Page 1 of 10
« Previous | Next »
The Future of Pay-For-Performance Under Pres. Obama
Total Comments: 88
Page 1 of 10
Page 1 of 10
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2033 | +0.0011 | +0.64% |
| F | $13.5947 | +0.0048 | +1.95% |
| C | $13.6927 | -0.0027 | +3.59% |
| S | $17.9723 | +0.0233 | +9.18% |
| I | $18.5302 | +0.1287 | -0.04% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1474 | +0.0291 | +3.28% |
| L 2030 | $15.9136 | +0.0249 | +2.93% |
| L 2020 | $15.6956 | +0.0208 | +2.45% |
| L 2010 | $15.4351 | +0.0080 | +1.41% |
| L Income | $14.0647 | +0.0064 | +1.33% |
only a 3
Navy
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:17 AM
Post Reply
And no matter what I do as a low level manager I will get 3's. so what's the point? Why should I strieve harder next year?
Pay-For-Performance Stinks!
USPS
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:19 AM
Post Reply
The system was supposedly designed to make the appraisal process more objective, but -- by including so-called "core dimensions," such as communication, organization, etc., as a major part of the evaluation, it allows subjectivity right back in. I came out alright, but a colleague who consistently outperforms everyone got a lower rating so that an insufferable suck-up slacker could get the extra point. There is also the influence of budget. Our entire office is limited to the "Contributor" range, even though we are the top -- of 9 -- office in the country, because the agency lost money last year, even though we made money for the company.
Pay for Performance
Department of the Army
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:20 AM
Post Reply
I am a huge fan of Pay for Performance. It's about time we said to civil servants that you must do more than come to work and have a pulse in order to receive a top block rating. Pay for Performance forces sets the bar much higher and rightfully so. I do understand that it's time consuming and labor intensive for supervisors, but then we pay them to supervise and that is now part of the job. I, for one do not advocate going back to TAPES, where everyone got the same rating because supervisors didn't want to do their job and were too afraid to accurately rate their employees. It might take a couple of years to work out the kinks, but I believe anything worth doing is tough and we owe it to our employees to demand the best from them and reward accordingly.
Re: Pay for Performance
Dept of the Army
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:13 AM
Re: Pay for Performance
Air Force
Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:02 AM
1.2% rated 1 or 2
53% rated 3 (valued employees)
40.3% rated 4
5.5% rated 5
Seems to be a real motivator when a componet in effect says, "we consider any of you "valued performers" right down there with the bottom 1.3% of our employees."
Those who receive a rating of 4 may be motivated but the "valued employees" are certainly not.
Re: Pay for Performance
VA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:35 PM
Re: Pay for Performance
DoD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:56 PM
Re: Pay for Performance
Defense Commissary Agency
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:37 PM
Re: Pay for Performance
DOL
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:52 PM
That's the reason why the 3's feel slighted. Its the taxpayers who have a right and expectation to insure their CS perform properly
Re: Pay for Performance
U.S. Border Patrol
Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 PM
Pay for Performance
Government
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:30 AM
Post Reply
One of the major problems is evaluations. The problems start with criteria. In my job they are and must be subjective as my work is not bean counter type of work. It evaluates certain things which is a subjective job. Based on the issues and the complexity of the issuesinvolved, the case could take a short period of time or a long period of time. Therefore, the manager must do a subjective evaluation.
The problem here is that some managers, either are not
competent enough to do this type of evaluation, listen to their managers about quantity issues, or just does not like the worker. So the evaluation is lower and based on baloney.
For this reason, I would not like my annual increases or step increases to be based on my evaluation.
I exceed, but am not outstanding. Therefore, I believe DOD workers raises should be civil service raises.
Performance
Army
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:31 AM
Post Reply
Those that do perform still get less. Those who don't still get reward. When are managers going to deal with documenting bad performance.
There are too many people now that are not working that would appreciate a job in the gov't and be glad to perform.
This is what would improve the gov't workforce.
PFP
Southwest Civilian Personnel Operations Center
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:32 AM
Post Reply
For the last almost three years I have been under NSPS and being rated a '3' for all three years. I know people such as STUDENTS are receiving '4' therefore getting more shares than that of the actual workforce. Maybe it is just my organization but people who work with the pay pool manager fair better than those actually performing the duties. Why should I work hard, have a 99.5% goodness of data just to be rated a '3'? My managers all are very pleased with the personnel service that I give their organizations but that doesn't set me apart from lower performers and they get more shares than I. Something is definitely wrong with NSPS.
Future of Pay Performance
Civilian in Kansas
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:33 AM
Post Reply
I am an NSPS employee, I just received my rating, it was a "3". In the NSPS world that is considered to be a "Valued Employee". In the real world it means, no matter how hard you work, how many managers give you the thumbs up, the PAY POOL MANAGERS decide your fate. I know this because I had received emails from different managers telling how I went above the call of duty for their employees. I put this in my self assessment rating and received a "3". So even with this kind of input, I received a "3" because that is what the HIGHER PAY POOL MANAGERS who decide the rating and the amount each person gets has decided I am worth.
So to your PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM, I say, GO AWAY.
Re: Future of Pay Performance
DOD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:40 PM