2:54 pm, May 30, 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.

  • 10

  • Funny one Mike
    From Peer review to spouse review? Not sure how this would work out but I'm sure the florists would make out like bandits. In reality, communication is the key to all successful relationships but the employer/employee relationship take many different forms. Some like the master/slave version while others consider themselves partners. As we know, this variety happens within similar organizations where one group manager is a dictator while another is consensus driven. Both types can succeed or fail at meeting the mission goals. In any case what can we do but stay flexible and flee from the tyrants, while making sure that everyone knows how bad they really are?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • An Evaluation of Performance Evaluation
    Lisa Lisa
    I dont think we will ever find the right mix as long as humans have a hand in it. I do however always have liked the USAF's evaluation and that is..a test as well as some SPECIFIC measured actual performances completed on the job. I realize that this would take most likely an eternity to formulate, but in order to eliminate the human edge of it, it needs to be cold-that is..test and a check mark if you will of other accomplishments leaving no judgements on the part of your supervisor as a factor. After all success and failure is a measure determined by what your boss thinks you succeeded or failed in and that can sway depending how he/she likes you. As for NSPS-been there done that..it was a disaster of biblical proportions costing so much money that the money spent could have gone to feed the world 3 times over.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • No job here move along
    Why did Carter administration institute job evaluations? Well the history of the thing is that back in the 1950s nobody in industry considered employee evaluations. If you did a good job you kept coming back. Then in the 1970s corporations came up with performance evaluations - immediately hated by most people because of perceived unfariness and the boss not valuing what you do. It is likely that the government, which always copies from industry and academia decided they must have employee evaluations too. Remember NSPS was based on the new "pay for performance plans" that were being tried out in industry and academia. When you copy industry and academia, you are simply implementing all the "experimental" and "new" initiates that are being tested in industry and schools. Sometimes, industry and schools will pull the rug on that plan before you do. It is not good to simply copy someone else but that is what the government does. They assume industry and academia is on the leading edge and they are not. Some pay for performance plans were actually good at letting your boss know what you did during the rating period - like if you are a salesman and your boss is unaware of how you got your sales and some great feats of salemanship that you managed. During NSPS, government employees kept on mentioning that what works in industry does not work here. Pay for performance evaluations, if they last for any number of years, must measure something fairly - and so you have to make sales or widgets for it to work. Something that can be tallied up. But sales or piece work does not apply to government in the same way if at all. It is troublesome that the new GEAR plan is in the works and being tested at 8 different places. NSPS was supposed to be tested beforehand also, but obviously it was not. The pay pools ran out of money after two years. So the testing was not log enough or comprehensive enough.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • NSPS was better than what we had
    While NSPS had some problems (extremely time consuming for all involved), it was better than any performance evaluation/award system than I have seen in my years as GS employee. There was an ability to suppress growth in pay for poor performers. There was the ability to leverage award to higher performers. And most importantly, as used in our organization, the review boards did some leveling of awards/ratings between generous, stingy, or indifferent supervisors. Now we are back to a meaningless system.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I constantly shake my head...
    David L
    I am always amazed how the federal work force views reviews that are standard in the private sector. Every time this issue comes up, I am reminded of a quote in the Post that came out after Bush attempted to implement reviews: "How will I know I have a job," a fed lamented. "I might come to work and find out I have been fired!" Those of us in the private sector live this life EVERY DAY. One day you are the star, the next day you are meeting with HR and being shown the door. Reviews, done by others, are routine and unless you are a total screw up, you are likely to at least keep your job long enough to maybe step up and improve (or be put on a Performance Improvement Plan). Good reviews mean you will be kept around, poor reviews mean either you better shine up your resume or pull up your pants and get serious. That is how it works in the real world and it isn't hard to implement in the Federal work space.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Dear Shaking Your Head
    Do you really think the government can run like corporations? Where is the profit to be made? Where is the sales to be run, and the commissions from sales? Where is anything ventured and anything gained? Where is winning something? Do I get stock options? --> If we institute GEAR, which is like NSPS with performance measurements and quarterly meetings (like how much more like NSPS could this be?), and the performance standards are set, and the employees are told exactly how to "knock it out of the park" - here is the problem - they will make sure that they "knock it out of the park" - and they will expect real bonuses for increasing their production the very first year and all subsequent years. I'm sure (as in absolutely positive) that the money for any significant bonuses will NOT be there, and that in itself will be the end of GEAR. Nobody will try anymore after they surpass their objectives by 300 percent, only to get a few hundred dollars before taxes. The rest, who can't measure widgets or sales numbers or papers written, will get nothing because their boss knows they are out of luck anyway. Either way, every employee will give up on performance ratings for bonuses. So then you have to get them to perform up to the level of not getting fired as the only way to keep performance up. Why not just threaten everyone with firing constantly - that would work better than trying something like bonuses that the government cannot fund and cannot afford. Dangling a too-small, anemic carrot isn't going to work. The GEAR is already broken.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • David L doesn't understand
    The metrics are different in public sector. Oh well. I was hoping Lisa Lisa was going to give the metrics how she measures her spouse (from head to toe?) but I think she was talking about NSPS.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }