Re: Peformance Appraisals

Your insights are well reasoned and voice the most common critique of "STEPs" from the HR community.

While I agree that many managers can be successful simply by motivating (especially if/when they inherit fully competent staffs) I differ somewhat when it comes to first level supervision.

If the supervisor doesn't have the capacity or inclination to help staff/team members improve, then why pay them more than the members of that staff/team?

We throw the term "micro-management" around as if were the ultimate sin, yet I had remarkable supervisors who made the small suggestions (especially concerning my work habits) that made me a better Labor and Employee Relations Specialist than I would have been absent their input and direction. I wasn't incompetent but did (and still do) have room for improvement.

The best boss I ever had wasn't necessarily better in my profession than I -- she was just able to "make" me better. I think that's what supervisors are paid to do. Otherwise, we're promoting our best folks so they can take up valuable time doing administrative work instead of the engineering or legal or specialist or sheet metal or customer service job in which they are most skilled.

The belief that "A manager is a manager is a manager." (regardless of where we put 'em) may work for the upper tiers, like commissioned officers in the militariy, but in the trenches I'd prefer a competent "micro-manager" who can show folks how to work better/smarter... then get out of my way and let me do it.

Re: The New Pay for Performance Program

...and no doubt someone would be commenting here about you or me, should we be in a leadership job. I've yet to meet a manager who initially admitted to favoritism and having "pets". Their staffs often see things otherwise.

I remember asking a local union president who had been alleging that a supervisor "was out to get" and "had an agenda" regarding a particular grievant, "You're probably right, but do you know why?" Supervisors came from the ranks. They are not inherently irrational. They are ill-trained (see previous article) and need support/guidance if they are to be any good over the years.

If you reject "hard number", "soft prose", and "STEP" standards for evaluation then what's left other than pessimism and defeat? I'd like to see supervisors given "STEPs" aimed at improving their leadership styles. Yes, I still hold out hope.

Re: The New Pay for Performance Program

OF COURSE every supervisor has his/her favorites: those with good conduct and performance. Those that make the supervisor and the unit look good. Those who are cooperative. They like these people on both a personal and professional level because they are admirable.

They also have "have it in" for those who need constant supervision, for whom getting a simple assignment from is like pulling teeth, those who are disruptive and can't work with others, etc.

At least that is how a good supervisor functions. I grant you that there are some who actually do prefer someone with subpar performance/conduct based upon some personal compatability: but they are much in the minority in my experience.

Re: FAA Core Compensation Plan

Does the FAA rate by "hard numbers" (and maintain metrics on employees) or "soft prose" (and base determinations on subjectivity) or some other method/technique for evaluation?

Re: FAA Core Compensation Plan

There are 2 ways for which employees may obtain pay increases:
1. Organizational Success Increase (OSI). Every Dec/Jan, most emplioyees receive an increase to base pay provided the FAA meets its performance goals during the previous year. The amount of increase is determined by the FAA Administrator.
2. Superior Contribution Increase (SCI). Every Dec/Jan SOME employees receive an additional indrease to base pay based on their superior contribution as determined by their supervisor and approved by their manager. And yes, the supervisor does keep track of the metrics.

Some employees believe this system is flawed and unfair. There are GAO reports on this - Also, Federaltimes.com had an article on this back in Dec, 2004. BTW, we all got switched from competitive service to excepted service to give the agency more flexibilty in designing and administering incentive programs, but many feel this can be a double edged sword.

Re: It's Even Worse...

Thanks for your wise observations. I have advised many a union leader, "Beware of asking management for objective standards!" After all, the grades your math teacher retained were usually beyond dispute/argument. If you were to say, "I think I deserve an 'A'", s/he could just open the book and count the beans.

Rather than look for the perfect appraisal system or the perfect pay system, I've oriented my thinking toward "How can each of us be better at what we do?"

I'm no big fan of P4P. Nor am I a fan of "pass/fail" systems of performance evaluation. I am a dedicated adherent of government service.

Re: Making Pay-For-Performance Pay Off (Part 3)

Amen! Unlike many in private sector HR these days, I believe the PD/JD is a valuable document when it gives me and my supervisor an impression of what I'm being paid to do. In that sense, "current and accurate" PDs are helpful.

In the GPS seminar, "Making Appraisal Work", I feel obliged to take time out to discuss inaccurate (outdated, inflated, generic, etc.) PDs and how they make it difficult to determine a useful set of "critical elements". We can get around 'em, however, we must first acknowledge the problem(s) you have identified.

Re: Making Pay-For-Performance Pay Off (Part 3)

PD's are probably the hardest part of the HR process for supervisors, next to performance appraisal, because they do become outdated as job, mission requirements change. In fairness to the current system, the practice of writing & classifying generic or standard PD's was begun in many agencies as a reform & attempt to bring consistency to position management. As one who has made a living trying to make sense of PD's, I think they should be taken with a grain of salt and judged as a "snapshot" of the position, or class of positions, at a given point in time. They are one part of the process, but will only be accurate & current for a limited time