Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 38
Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4
« Previous | Next »
When Mediocre is Good Enough
Total Comments: 38
Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.0760 | +0.0011 | +2.63% |
| F | $13.4554 | -0.0007 | +6.95% |
| C | $12.9082 | -0.0394 | +23.71% |
| S | $15.5321 | -0.0625 | +27.24% |
| I | $18.2310 | -0.1403 | +27.89% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $15.2768 | -0.0566 | +22.32% |
| L 2030 | $15.1461 | -0.0487 | +19.99% |
| L 2020 | $15.0617 | -0.0401 | +17.13% |
| L 2010 | $15.0897 | -0.0155 | +9.09% |
| L Income | $13.7765 | -0.0111 | +7.76% |
November 21, 2009
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Minimally successful
Interior bureau
Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:37 AM
Post Reply
As an HR specialist when DOI distributed its draft performance manual chapter, in which it introduced the concept of "minimally successful," I was among many who questioned the level 2 rating option, and suggested eliminating it altogether. My attitude then, and even now (when it doesn't matter), was that if an employee is not fully successful, he or she is unsuccessful. I often wonder how much real life HR experience the people drafting agency policies actually have. Their decisions make life very difficult for managers and field HR staff trying to help them.
When Mediocre is Good Enough
US
Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:16 AM
Post Reply
It sounds to me like you are a supporter of the pass/ fail system which is all well and good but as long as the government keeps placing unqualified people in management positions you will continue to have problems and I don’t care what kind of system you have. Just because someone has the “most” time in doesn’t mean they will make the best manager or supervisor. You should write something on that and you can still title it “When Mediocre is Good Enough”
Re: When Mediocre is Good Enough
DOL
Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:41 PM
Mediocre
HHS
Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:18 AM
Post Reply
Strive for the best. The problem is that management may not recognize the best. High quality work comes from inside the person, not from some carrot and stick approach. Mediocre is never an option; never an option.
It is a privilege to work for the American people. Our country deserves the best.
Rating Systems
DHHS
Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:18 AM
Post Reply
Any five-tier rating system will eventually be rendered meaningless to both management and employees (honest employees, anyway). The unions will always press for Excellent ratings as the norm (one level from the top), including a bonus for adequate performance, and the middle level, Minimally Successful, is simply code for being unable to perform one's work adequately. Managers and employees know this. The government should adopt a basic three-tier system. The middle level, Fully Successful, means you do your job - exactly what is expected of you - and no bonus is deserved or awarded. This is what you get paid to do. The top level, Outstanding, means you walk on water, at least for that rating period, and you get a bonus. The bottom level, Unsuccessful, means you cannot perform your job. Two of these and you should be released. This is my opinion after a decade in HR before I moved into a more difficult program policy area.
Acceptable performance
fed
Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:05 AM
Post Reply
I do disagree with some points in this article.
Nobody is perfect. Everyone occasionally makes mistakes. Under what I read here, that would be minimally successful. I do not believe that is true.
What am I missing?
Re: Acceptable performance
DHS/ICE
Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:44 PM
All elements of the appraisal are taken into account when finalizing rating.
If I do great (Outstanding) in 2 elements and just OK in one (Fully Successful) and horribly in the last (Minimally Successful or Unacceptable), the rating reflects these in the grand total.
Seems to work for me (22 years and going). Any system will have flaws and detractors...
Most Managers...
FAA
Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:35 AM
Post Reply
... would rather sweep the problem under the table than deal with it. This fosters a mediocre attitude among the troops. Why should I work hard when Bob there does the minimum amount and we both get pay raises
Pay for Performance isn't the answer either. I've seen numerous examples of how the good old boy network runs. I've also been on both sides of the coin when it comes time to awarding "good" work
Personally, I don't have the answer on this for anyone. I don't believe in the reward system except for extreme cases. I've had lots of dozens of awards (honorary, cash, time off), but I've made it clear that my paycheck every 2 weeks is suficient for me to come in and do what needs to be done. Give somebody else the cookie if you need to show off how employees are awarded (I've actually said that to mgmt)
Witholding any cash increase (including COLAs) is the only way to motivate some people
Re: Most Managers...
gov
Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:38 AM
reflects a person's work and skills. Thus, to get promoted, you need better than mediocre.
VERY SUBJECTIVE
ARMY HRC
Tue Sep 15, 2009 8:51 AM
Post Reply
In the mid eighties, I was a contract specialist whose supervisor was determined to get rid of me. I was doing the same work as contract specialists around me. They were experiencing the same problems I was. After I was removed, I appealed, and as they were getting ready to cross examine my former suervisor who was not too bright, the judge called a recess until the next day. At that time, he was fully coached, and I lost my case. There was no quantitative way to measure performances.