Shows & Panels
Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- American Readiness: Renewable Power and Efficiency Technologies
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal News Radio's National Cyber Security Awareness Month Special Panel Discussion
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- Government Perspectives on Mobility and the Cloud
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Mitigating Insider Threats in Virtual & Cloud Environments
- Modern Mission Critical Series
- The New Generation of Database
- Reimagining the Next Generation of Government
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
Search Tags: performance ratings
Following complaints of widespread discrimination, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is overhauling its system for evaluating employee performance. The financial watchdog's performance-appraisal system resulted in "systematically lower ratings" for black and Hispanic employees, employees over the age of 40, employees located in field offices and those employed at lower pay scales, according to report on the performance-appraisal system published by the agency earlier this month.
Some HR practitioners say the process of identifying some goals, setting multiple levels of achievement, then judging employee performance annually is a best practice. That may be true, but that doesn't mean it is a good practice.
Current performance rating processes affect more than 1.8 million federal employees, cost a fortune, often harm morale and productivity, and generate few benefits. So, why do agencies do them, asks Jeff Neal, former CHCO at the Department of Homeland Security.
Whether we admit it or not, most of today's performance rating processes are designed to tell employees they are not as good as they think they are. But what effect does that approach have on people? Former DHS Chief Human Capital Officer Jeff Neal explains why he thinks the process is destructive and is in need of an overhaul.
How would you like it if your spouse or significant other rated your performance, then made his/her findings known to friends and neighbors? In this fantasy world, you would naturally hope your performance would be rated as superior, Senior Correspondent Mike Causey says. But what if you were rated less-than-satisfactory? Would you vow to get better, or would you really rather not even know?
Is the performance-rating system in your agency rigged? Does a bear shed in the woods? Despite its noble intent, many workers say performance ratings where they work measure just about everything but performance, Senior Correspondent Mike Causey says.