Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 29
Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4
« Previous | Next »
Performance Appraisal and the Federal Employee
Total Comments: 29
Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.3609 | +0.0019 | +1.84% |
| F | $14.2053 | +0.0462 | +6.53% |
| C | $13.2035 | +0.0008 | -0.11% |
| S | $17.4727 | +0.0439 | +6.15% |
| I | $17.6449 | -0.1281 | -4.81% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $15.7814 | -0.0140 | +0.94% |
| L 2030 | $15.6316 | -0.0119 | +1.11% |
| L 2020 | $15.5072 | -0.0103 | +1.22% |
| L 2010 | $15.4959 | +0.0004 | +1.81% |
| L Income | $14.1434 | +0.0004 | +1.89% |
July 30, 2010
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Performance vs Position Descriptions
USFS
Wed Sep 9, 2009 9:17 AM
Post Reply
We need to fix the performance system, before we base it on something else. People are not working under the PD system. When people are under a foresters position description (PD), but work 100% for the union. How can performance be fair?
Re: Performance vs Position Descriptions
IRS
Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:27 AM
pay for performance reform
retired
Wed Sep 9, 2009 9:51 AM
Post Reply
When the last performance methodology was revamped in my agency, and trainers came out to go over how to implement successfully, they essentially said that all performances had to meet the Bell curve and that no more funds were allocated to the bonus pot. So essentially the beans were just counted differently, but there were no essential changes from the last method. This doesn't give a lot of credibility to the process - and this is from a person who always did very well under whatever system was in place. So all that money was spent on contractors to explain the new system, with no real changes. What a waste of money and time for all involved.
To much time
DOD
Wed Sep 9, 2009 10:01 AM
Post Reply
is required to document objectives, it is one thing to work under a pay-for-performance system. When the government gets involved in one the documentatoin for the system guickly becomes unbearable. Far to much time is required documenting for NSPS, taking me away from my duties. I need a performance objective stating that I will spend 30-40% of my duty time making this albatross work.
PfP
DHS
Wed Sep 9, 2009 10:22 AM
Post Reply
I've worked under a 'so-called' pay for performance system in industry and found that many times the performers got very little while the managers rewarded their favorites and received large bonuses - even when the company was losing money. The son of a high ranking foreign official received triple the average raise (raises were capped due to poor corporate earnings). This individual admitted that he did not deserve the raise and was leaving the company anyway so it provided no incentive or reward. The GS system allows for removal of lower performers and provides for cash incentives and early promotions for those who excel as long as the managers put in the effort to use the system. The GS system also eliminates the need to curry favor with managers in order to get a raise. If all raises/promotions were at the whim of a political appointee nothing would ever get done. You won't get rich, but you get a satisfying job keeping the Nation safe, secure, & operating effectively.
Performance Appraisals
DCMA
Wed Sep 9, 2009 10:40 AM
Post Reply
There is only one thing to say about Government Performance Appraisals, awards, promotions and bonuses: They are all ruled by favoritism in the past, now and forever.
Everyone is OUTSTANDING
Yes
Wed Sep 9, 2009 11:15 AM
Post Reply
At Dept. of Homeland Security, EVERYONE in Human Capital and Training is OUTSTANDING.
There is no differentiation of performance. So if you know you are going to be OUTSTANDING and get a performance award of several thousand dollars every year, you have no incentive to do better or be creative.
Thus, the organization is dumbing down and performance is substandard. There is no credibility of HCT in the eyes of program managers because they know that GS-14s would find it challenging to work as a GS-13 anywhere else.
The whole HCT organization is broken beyond repair, as was validated by OPM Culture Survey. They should do a complete housecleaning of its leadership and examine the classifications of each position to determine if they are grade supporting.
The set up they have resembles waste, fraud, and abuse in my eyes.
Re: Everyone is OUTSTANDING
Yes
Wed Sep 9, 2009 12:44 PM
No performance evaluation system will meet all int
Fed
Wed Sep 9, 2009 11:17 AM
Post Reply
Research and experience has proven it. There will continue to be poor performers who are rated satisfactorily so managers can avoid the cumbersome adverse action processes. There will continue to be managers who abuse the system to reward favorites. There will continue to be managers who believe a pay check is a reward. There will continue to be quota systems because the "pay" for performance is linked to a pool.
The idea of pay-for-performance is good. However, implementation is never seen as successful except by those who benefit from it.
Re: No performance evaluation system will meet all int
ICE
Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:22 PM
The PPs who do get MINIMALLY or UNSATISFACTORY ratings, or are place on PIPs, use up so much Union time that no one really wins.
We've been fortunate to terminate or remove from their positions several PPs in the past 16 months. I spent so much time with ELR and Union reps that the job I was actually assigned to do took second (or third) place.
No good.
Ah, it's part of the job....