Anonymous wrote:Our agency doesn’t even use that scale. We only have Unacceptable, Successful, and Outstanding.

I think you can figure out how to convert that, right?

This is how they do it at the tech companies and lay off/fire the lowest.

Anonymous wrote:Our agency doesn’t even use that scale. We only have Unacceptable, Successful, and Outstanding.

Ours is binary.

Our agency doesn’t even use that scale. We only have Unacceptable, Successful, and Outstanding.

Anonymous wrote:Create another data call this is so efficient.

Report up in a spreadsheet to be even *more* efficient!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OPM has told agencies to compile and send to it a list of their employees who have received a performance rating below “fully successful” in the last three years and to describe what steps have been taken regarding them.

The requirement to provide that information by March 7 is part of a memo on chcoc.gov on “developing new performance metrics for evaluating the federal workforce that aligns with the priorities and standards” of several Trump administration executive orders.

https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/opm-asking-for-lists-of-employees-rated-below-fully-successful/amp/

I've been thoroughly appalled at a lot of what's happened, but identifying low performers is not an area where I have an issue.

I'll reserve judgement on the rest.

It's not your issue to be concerned with. There is a process, and it works, to deal with low performers. That is all you need to know.

Yep, I've personally gotten low performers through PIPs and turned them around. Training from scratch would be much less efficient.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OPM has told agencies to compile and send to it a list of their employees who have received a performance rating below “fully successful” in the last three years and to describe what steps have been taken regarding them.

The requirement to provide that information by March 7 is part of a memo on chcoc.gov on “developing new performance metrics for evaluating the federal workforce that aligns with the priorities and standards” of several Trump administration executive orders.

https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/opm-asking-for-lists-of-employees-rated-below-fully-successful/amp/

I've been thoroughly appalled at a lot of what's happened, but identifying low performers is not an area where I have an issue.

I'll reserve judgement on the rest.

It's not your issue to be concerned with. There is a process, and it works, to deal with low performers. That is all you need to know.

Create another data call this is so efficient.

Anonymous wrote:What agencies?

Hopefully all of them!

Anonymous wrote:OPM has told agencies to compile and send to it a list of their employees who have received a performance rating below “fully successful” in the last three years and to describe what steps have been taken regarding them.

The requirement to provide that information by March 7 is part of a memo on chcoc.gov on “developing new performance metrics for evaluating the federal workforce that aligns with the priorities and standards” of several Trump administration executive orders.

https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/opm-asking-for-lists-of-employees-rated-below-fully-successful/amp/

I've been thoroughly appalled at a lot of what's happened, but identifying low performers is not an area where I have an issue.

I'll reserve judgement on the rest.

What agencies?

I wish I could rate my fed supervisor "not fully successful" and submit their names for this list. Unfortunately, they will continue to stick around no matter. They are close to 70 and enjoy international travel for work raking in airline and hotel points. Everything else including prepping them for travel falls on employees who are young and either probationary or have not been at the job for a long time. The contribution of fed supervisor to real work is 0% but I guess they have done their time and deserve this.

I know every office is different but for my office, the remaining two not taking the buyouts should be on that list. LOL

so I am beginning to wonder whether we are going to start getting endless emails about how we have to prove some new performance measure. That performance measure will no doubt be ill-defined ("Hardcoreness!") and redefined over 17 emails sent after 5pm every other day. At the end they will threaten you with not being hardcore enough and unless you do ketamine and work overnight you get the X.

OPM has told agencies to compile and send to it a list of their employees who have received a performance rating below “fully successful” in the last three years and to describe what steps have been taken regarding them.

The requirement to provide that information by March 7 is part of a memo on chcoc.gov on “developing new performance metrics for evaluating the federal workforce that aligns with the priorities and standards” of several Trump administration executive orders.

https://www.fedweek.com/fedweek/opm-asking-for-lists-of-employees-rated-below-fully-successful/amp/