Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 28
Page 1 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Federal Employee Performance Appraisal: The Good, Bad and Ugly

Federal Employees Apprasial system

Personnel Scty Specialist
AFISR
Wed Oct 7, 2009 9:05 AM

Post Reply

If folks thought the old apprasial system was bad, just wait for the new one to kick in (DCIPS), it is really going to hinge on the "Good Old Boy" program. I have been in this business since 1955 and believe me, i have seen the changes come and go and so far, I have not seen one that I would really rave about and that includes the APR, EPR systems. I was around when the initial APR came out (1958) and it seems like it has gone down hill since. Please note, this is only my personal opinion. Thanks

Re: Federal Employees Apprasial system

Registered Nurse
W.G. Bill Hefner VA Medical Center
Wed Oct 7, 2009 6:51 PM
Regardless of your contributions and qualifications, you will NOT receive a raise, if you have filed EEO charges!

Re: Federal Employees Apprasial system

Civ
Navy
Thu Oct 8, 2009 6:11 AM
We don't get raises; we get annual pay adjustments. And the only way you won't get one is to be no longer employed. What are you talking about?

Reality reflected

DO
DHS/ICE
Wed Oct 7, 2009 9:22 AM

Post Reply

Sadly, INS and now ICE has always done these surveys and then totally ignored the results (which have never reflected a positive image of the agency.) I am sure it is the same throughout the government and not just in my agency. The folks at the top ask for our input and tell us to be honest and then when we are they reject it and spin it and do nothing positive.

Leaning on the Shovel

Petroleum Engineer
BLM
Wed Oct 7, 2009 10:04 AM

Post Reply

After reading this article and the recent email from Bob (WY SD) concerning a certain group of persons just "hanging around collecting a check", it makes me wonder if we're really going to do something. I suggest starting with EPAPs. (Employee Performance Appraisal Plan)

My opinion is that if we're going for it, why not go big...not just the EPAPs will be changed to quality and quantity but also manager training on how to write, review and discuss EPAPs with employees. We have over 3 million co-workers most of which from this questionaire lack direction and formal reviews. (Question 1)

We need to change the public perception of federal workers. This is an oppurtunistic low budget fix. A change in EPAPs COULD change 3 million people's work ethics. If it doesn't, well there's always the possiblilty they could work for someone else.

I'm tired of being a hard-working federal employee while my friends in industry teasing me that I just stand around leaning on a shovel.

Feedback

IT Specialist
VA
Wed Oct 7, 2009 10:13 AM

Post Reply

All of the following are true:
Pre-determined quotas prevented accurate ratings from being approved;
Budgets for PFP systems limited the number of high ratings;
Favoritism among supervisors/managers influenced performance ratings;
Subjective standards lead to subjective ratings;
Lack of management familiarity with the job being evaluated;
During my last performance eval, my supervisor informed me that everyone will get one item mark off as not "outstanding" even if it were true due to quotas from his boss.
And my answer is "yes" for the following:
7: "Was your last performance rating affected by supervisory favoritism?".

Re: Feedback

Consumer Safety Inspector
USDA
Wed Oct 7, 2009 11:19 AM
You are right on target. We were told by our district office this year, that no one would get a higher rating because of their budget deficits... Regardless of performance. I guess they don't have any money to hand out for bonuses to us peons.

Re: Feedback

Older Fed
US Gov
Thu Oct 8, 2009 6:09 AM
I remember when the supervisor, who is located in the same office you work in and actually interacts with you, had the final say as to how you were rated. We are not under the PFP system, yet my particular position is now limited to nothing higher than "Fully Successful". The new rating system put into place two years ago is so complicated, one little half point will knock you down considerably.

Rumor, unfortunately there's nothing in writing, was that management would not rate my position any higher while the other positions could go to the top. Now exactly what does that tell you? Last year my supervisor rated me at a certain level unfortunately the final say is held by management in D.C., who does not work with me on a daily basis. They knocked my rating down, did not inform my supervisor and when he tried to talk to them about it he was informed that "it was not open for discussion".

Message I received? Quality of work does not matter, the rewards are for the chosen.

bell curve

dizzy2
NIH
Wed Oct 7, 2009 10:32 AM

Post Reply

The last time the method to determine performce was changed at the NIH, the contract "trainers" who were doing seminars to assist people in writing the objectives by which they would then be rated in the future, stated publically in all the "training sessions" - when pressed, that there would be a Bell curve distribution of award $ and that in the new system, no additional funding was provided, the grading system was just changed. How much more clear can it be that this type of distribution of award $ is alive and well?

Favoritism

Engineer
BOR
Wed Oct 7, 2009 10:44 AM

Post Reply

Talk about favoritism!! Back in 1994, during the RIF and Golden Hand Shake Buy Out, the group that I had worked in was transferred into a larger group that was managed by a supervisor from that group. We were and still are the whipping boys and girls in our new group as far as promotions, awards, and performance appraisals, etc. If you don't believe that favoritism is alive and well in the government, please come to work in our group.

Re: Favoritism

Older Fed
US Gov
Thu Oct 8, 2009 6:17 AM
Yes indeed, you speak the truth. The problem is, if you complain they just knock you down a little further. The "Good Old Boy" system is alive and well and always will be around no matter how the system is changed. Humans will always find a way to reward their favorites. As was written by someone else, if you go submit a complaint to EEO, well you just put yourself into jeopardy as far as any hope of any good rating afterwards.

The rewards are not always for those who deserve it. Your position, and possibly education (i.e. if you have a degree), determines whether you will ever be considered for a higher rating and consequently higher "reward". The position I hold used to qualify for the highest award (Outstanding) until the "new system" was implemented two years ago. Now we can never get anything higher than a "Fully Successful" (unless you get chummy with management). If asked why, they just brush you off and tell you they cannot discuss it. They have no valid reason.

Re: Favoritism

Fed
Fed
Thu Oct 8, 2009 12:06 PM
...And try to go talked with your EEOC officer about this, all you will get is mouth talk and nothing else. At my place of work the new managers came in from other areas, hired all the people they new from their old offices and left the "Original" employees out in the cold, this is wrong and heck, but what can you d about it? I've got the age and years to retire, but I'm sticking around for another one of those RIF notices that scared all the new people that was getting bump down the list because of their limited years of services. Wishful thinking! Just dreaming!

Thanks

Nameless, Faceless Nobody
DON
Wed Oct 7, 2009 10:49 AM

Post Reply

for the discussion of each question and a clear intent to be as open to what the data showed rather than to "spin" the results.

I missed answering this one, between travel, leave, and my home system tanking...but I found the discussion interesting.

Total Comments: 28
Page 1 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.