8:38 am, May 28, 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.

  • 14

  • Performance Pay
    In my agency just about everyone received Outstanding ratings. It was more about the money....making sure everyone got something than it was about performance. It has been my experience that ratings had nothing to do with performance in my 30+ years (now retired).
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • It has been my experience that ratings had nothing to do with performance in my 30+ years (now retired).
    The Original Joe S
    EXACTLY what I was going to write. Most of the work I've observed doesn't lend itself to measurement in the manner they want. It boils down to a popularity contest. I'm out, and I don't miss it!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Hey me too!
    I am retired after 36+ years at NIH and I can testify that there is absolutely no correlation among performance, performance ratings, and awards.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Blindsided
    The NSPS rating system was extrememly damaging and enforced the GOP radicals being in charge here. Can you guess I work for DoD? People were labelled as having a "bad attitude" (especially Democrats) and those that are labelled have never recovered as being part of the organization. People are doing extra things for the organization and they are not even valued. This if from the NSPS shakedown we received. As far as money goes, all of the employees in my section were told under NSPS, through reducing their evaluations at the pay pool level, that their job duties and efforts are not valued here. Now that we are back on the old rating system, the prejudice continues. Even people they depend on are still labelled as having a "bad attitude" from NSPS (especially Democrats). The GOP in charge here got a chance to see who wasn't "on board" with NSPS which was really a GOP initiative. If you are GOP, you may eventually recover the higher ups perception of you, but if you are DEM, forget it! Pay for performance plans without any way to measure productivity is a GOP thing.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Teachersson
    deployed decoy
    Not sure I agree that political party impacts a rating. That would violated the Hatch Act, you know. I do agree NSPS was an experiment that spoiled in the lab before it ever started. I am in the process a class action naming the Sec of Army and SECDEF. Some 15 career fields in several specail rate overseas foreign positions got screwed going back to GS. Never mind Army violated the law terminating NSPS, the CFR on special rates going back and OPM mandatory pay setting instructions in the process. Thus anyone else that was outside the USA when they went back to GS, please get in touch with me. Heck they lied to us going into NSPS. It was only when I was that valued performer and hit 5% over my former GS grade step 10 I learned of pay ceilings in NSPS that were far lower the YA range. Making it worse both OPM and DOD falsely testified that what happened to all us overseas never happened and never could. And, yes I still have a bad attitude about it. And, yes I have suffered for it. I did get the highest rating I have received in 4 years last year though. I refused to sign the document because neither the rater or HLR were in my chain of command until a couple weeks before the end of the rating period. Least the team that failed to rate most of us received real good ratings and military awards when they left work unfinished and went back to cold beer and round door knobs.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • political party vs. rating
    You may be encouraged that in my corner of the DoD, I don't know of any staff who feel their ratings were related to their political affiliations. It may be something peculiar to your location, or a dynamic that's imagined but not real.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • What about the poor performers?
    Taxpayer Too
    And then there's the manager who give the poor performing employee a great write up and high numbers just to get rid of that employee! So there's the justice in this?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Performance appraisals
    A usually little noted phenomenon contributes mightily to employee angst over the perfromance apparisal (PA) process, i.e., raters' subjectivity and resulting inconsistency in assigned ratings. Except for those relatively few straight production-type occupations, such as Data Transcribers, where performance can easily be objectively measured quantitatively, as in keystokes per minute within predetermined acceptable error rates (all trackable by specialized software), things tend to get murky when it comes to jobs where quality of work performed is at least as if not more important than the quantity of widgets turned out. Here is where you see the value judgmental adverbs and adjectives proliferate in performance standards (with at best vague explanations or examples provided), the interpretation of which is left open to individual rater proclivities and assumptions. The subjectivity factor in PAs goes up with the complexity of the work supervised, and results often in very disparate rating outcomes for like work duties by different raters. Raters quickly become known as hard/demanding or easy/complacent, even when applying generic performance standards across work unit lines. Employees working for the raters in the former category complain about their peers in other work units receiving on average much higher ratings for the same level of performance (in their view) in their own. The well known "halo effect" bias also rears its ugly head, as those employees who because of one positive or negative behavioral trait or instance of good/poor work performed tend to be viewed generally more favorably (or negatively as the case may be) in the PA process across the board. The bottom line is that subjectivity, with the best will in the world, cannot be abolished in the PA process, and vocifereous claims to the contrary elicit only employee cynicism and convictions that "the system" is rigged. The use in many agencies of a higher level review process of draft PAs prior to final approval, often intended to try to harmomize raters' disparate ratings of like peroformance, usually only contributes to the cyncicism and perceived favoritism, especially when employees see their own tentative ratings ratings being lowered in the process. We've set up a PA system that, as constituted, promises what it can't really deliver as outcomes: complete onjectivity and absolute fairness. This has always been the case since passage of the 1978 CSRA legislation, which was supposed to bring this about. The later factoring in of PA data into the RIF retention register standing process in the '80s has only intensified employees' negative perceptions of the overall PA process.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Totally agree with
    Sunna W
    "A former Air Force employee said that while he was under the ill-fated National Security Personnel System, they didn't have official quotas, BUT "after I rated my folks, they would all be submitted to the 'pay pol'...who reviewed everything. They would then return the evaluations to us and ask us to downgrade our ratings..." to save money!" At Navy, I had that exact same conversation with my *MILITARY* supervisor! I was told, "I had to downgrade your performance on X to get you aligned with what the executives administering the pay pool want me to do... since we're converting back to GS, some people under the NSPS system are "underpaid" and they need the money to bring those poeple back up to where they should be." It didn't matter that I was working 11 to 12 hour days on a premier Agency program addressing National Defense Policy and saw more of the flag aides than my own family for more than a year, or that I ran the office by myself. In addition to downgrading my performance, this rating effectively screwed my ability to look for another job since some agencies want to see your whole package. Despite my rating, I had the last laugh… I walked, and, got a promotion. More people need to do less complaining and more walking…
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • dont shoot the messanger
    deployed decoy
    However, what we do with the guilty yet TBD. As I said I exceeded my former GS12 step 10 by 5% and that last year did not get most of my raise. Because of Control Points, they elected to invoke after the fact. The real kicker is I did that with the Valued Performer 3.00 rating, in a pay pool that average 4.20. Given that meant a lot of god like role model rating got past that pay pool cut is simply amazing. I got screwed by around $16,500 while in NSPS in base salary. But because that was special rate. I did not get any of it back, while other folks that were getting paid GS9 salaries got converted back as GS13. Who ever said NSPS was pay for performance was a liar. It was pay your friends, give the special ones another 5% after the rating cycle raises are handed out with in house moves and screw everyone else.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }