3:12 am, February 27, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 31
       

  • Absolutely
    Skippy
    At my last agency only one of the four supervisors reporting to the manager could get an outstanding. Guess who usually got it? Her friend that she went to lunch with every day. This isn't new, happens often.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • What's all the fuss?
    obscurechemist
    The only important issue is how the performance ratings are used, or not used. What is the point of a high performance rating if all the award money goes to other people. After 36 years at NIH, I can testify that there is no correlation whatsoever between performance ratings and awards. Most years I received the highest performance ratings possible but received very few awards. So I can't really take this discussion seriously. In fact in one year (2006), my "supervisor", Elaine Jaffe, Lab of NCI, NIH (you're darn right I name names) never spoke a single word to me the entire year and even failed to interview me to set the parameters of my work for the year. I published four peer-reviewed papers that year, two-thirds of Feds got an award, and I got nothing.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Quotas....I wish
    Redstate-Fed
    My experience has been the complete opposite. EVERYONE is AWESOME! The rating system is over-inflated and relatively worthless in most areas as it is impossible to point to productive outputs for any individual. If you show up more times than not and occasionally answer a phone or email...you're a 3. If you show up on time, don't make waves, take 30 minutes for lunch and depart at the prescribed hour...you're a 5. Unless you are below a "3", you're getting something (And nobody is below a 3 because that would require WORK to do the paper)....that's the institutional attitude. Suggesting otherwise is frowned upon and you are seen as a "meanie".
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • It's a zero sum game?
    contrarian
    What some managers have figured out is that if they get all the award budget for all the employees in their group, the other groups will get less. They think that will increase their popularity and prestige as a manager, and get them higher awards. Meanwhile, the employees of the group with the manager rating on the Bell Curver (or worse) suffer in comparison. Call it divide and conquer or the results of grade inflation when not all teachers agree to inflate, but all of this is known to upper management and they tolerate it.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }