Return to Article: Details emerge on Pentagon performance management system
-
19676
Dear DDF,
Not all government supervisors are bad, but if you are unfortunate enough to get a bad one -- as I have while working for the Defense Department -- you will be demoralized every day and constantly documenting things in case you have to prove something later on. Then, you will dread those occasions where the supervisor can exercise his/her discretion while taking any action that involves you (performance reviews and promotions). In other words, their discretion becomes their wrath. Don't expect a promotion or a good rating if you ever had a disagreement with this person, even if the incident is ancient history. Also, if you have a bad supervisor, as I have, it will be impossible to take official action against them or move within the organization, because bad managers at the Defense Department stick together. Even if a bad supervisor has died, the "brother and sisterhood" typically honor the dear departed's grudges, as I have witnessed.
Nevertheless, I know when I'm beat. I left the government. That's all.
Dis-gruntled.
-
19580
Absurd -- What a waste of the taxpayers' money. So much yammering, yammering, yammering all in an effort to justify a system that has done nothing but adversely affect the defense employees. This is a Bush initiative. It is time for us to start writing to our congressmen and tell them to stop this madness. I have to say, after 35 years of service -- it is difficult to learn that I was not being paid for performance. Bottom line, the Defense Department did not implement in accordance with its very own regulations. First off, they simply placed all employees of a particular grade into a standard pay band without considering the functions required of those positions.
Write your congressman. Even though Congress authorized this creation two years ago, it was a different Congress then and Congress will be more rigorous about the oversight of this system.
Let's work towards ending NSPS.
-
19458
Lawyers must be drooling at the prospect of full NSPS implementation. You can bet that if my rating doesn't meet my expectations, it is clearly a case of discrimination. There is a good reason why performance-based compensation was not considered before NSPS - it doesn't work. Prediction: Government will abandon NSPS, sooner or later.
-
19422
To Taxpayer...
It is apparent you have no faith in your supervisor. As many employees don't, I understand perfectly and that is unfortunate. I can only wish you the best in the future to work for a professional and trusted supervisor some day.
Regardless, I would hope that the purpose of the regular discussions would provide you the opportunity to personally monitor and ensure that your supervisor is on track with your assigned goals and your progression for a matter of record if nothing else.
I would prefer to have written proof, on a quarterly basis, to show my progressive accomplishments than to complain later that I was not properly compensated with only one annual progress meeting for record of proof.
That's all!
-
19413
Here the government goes again; our civilian counterparts have found that "pay for performance" isn't working, and they are backing off from it. It doesn't seem to be working well in those government agencies trying it, so let's just keep charging ahead because of few of our political representatives have their heads firmly implanted.
-
19394
This new performance management system, Mary Lacey's NSPS reminds me of a proverb -- that is, "Never confuse change with progress."
It's all an expensive attempt to relieve government employees of hard-won pay and benefits. If they stopped this effort, they would have the money they need to keep the system the same.
Enough said.
-
19379
DDF, please don't help. I do not want to waste any more time talking about my job performance with a manager who does not even know what I do or why I do it. He is not capable of evaluating of my performance because he does not even have the slightest background to be able to judge the quality of what I do. Unless and until there is a way to improve the quality of the top management in the Defense Department, there is no reason for me to have to put up with the stupid worthless review meetings even on an annual basis. The workers doing nothing -- or really bad jobs -- stay employed and are at higher ranks, and we get their work because they are incompetent. Heaven forbid the manager would get rid of them and pay us or even promote us to their level. We have one guy that sits at this desk and sleeps most of the day and he just keeps going like the energizer bunny.
-
19347
You can't rip people off if they know what is going on. Keep them in the dark. That way they will get exactly what they deserve, nothing.
-
19342
I guess the White House and Pentagon still don't get it. The system isn't broken and we don't want to be under our supervisors' thumbs. So no matter how good you think your congressman or senator are, you had better vote on Nov. 7 and tell your family and friends too.
-
19338
Automated Performance Evaluation System - APES. Like the people who made it up!
-
19328
This is all a bunch of crap (Commonly Respected & Appropriate Personnel). The current evaluation process is not significantly different other than the quantitative measures addressed in the article. The evaluation is to result in pay changes but the article does not show that each evaluation has to go to a "pay board" before it is given and the "pay board" can have the evaluation changed or can ignore it and assign what it believes is appropriate over the requests of the supervisor. The employee has no alternative or appeal from this final decision.
The Defense Department and services need to make managers manage and not be "super" workers. There is no management in the Defense Department or the services. If there is to be management the services need to stop changing managers (military) every two years and start having mangers manage and stay in a position at least five years! There is no reason on earth that is valid for moving an engineering manager to a different job every two years!
-
19323
What! Supervisors are only required to meet once with the employee during the year to discuss performance.
Why in the world under such a new system would a one time employee/supervisor discussion requirement only be set? There should be a mandatory quarterly meeting between the two to ensure that everyone is on track with the employee and the new system.
Requiring a "once only performance review" will certainly set up failure with so many when the final performance ratings come around. But again, that is likely the intent of this new system.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.