Anonymous wrote:OP here- so none of you all are able to get 4's or 5's on your performance evals? Even for great work where all the criteria was met? I think that getting a 3 is like getting a C in high school- it's what you get for just showing up.

Nope, where I work most people get 3s. It's been something a lot of people have complained about, but upper management has really pushed that 3 is a great score to keep us quiet. However I worry about it because I'm applying to other agencies and know that a 3 is not looked upon very well in other places.

Sometimes I think they are trying to save money on performance awards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some offices in my agency have production quotas so it's easy to measure your performance in concrete terms. Produce x number of drafts, get a meets expectations; y number, exceeds; etc. Seems fair to me. Quality factors in too, but production seems to drive a large portion of the rating. Of course those offices hate it. Mine is not one of those -- we are much fuzzier -- I am curious to see what the new boss makes of it all.

A friend of mine works in a quota environment. He says most people who do quality work hate it and the slackers who do the opposite love it. And it can be subjective in meeting those quotas if your boss makes it difficult to get approval for the work done to produce the required numbers.

I work in a quota environment, and I have to agree with your friend.

Every agency is so different. In my agency an FS is seen as total failure. In fact, people grieve/go EEO about a single FS in one critical element, frequently, even a Commendable. I'm not saying that's a good thing, far from it.

Anonymous wrote:Some offices in my agency have production quotas so it's easy to measure your performance in concrete terms. Produce x number of drafts, get a meets expectations; y number, exceeds; etc. Seems fair to me. Quality factors in too, but production seems to drive a large portion of the rating. Of course those offices hate it. Mine is not one of those -- we are much fuzzier -- I am curious to see what the new boss makes of it all.

A friend of mine works in a quota environment. He says most people who do quality work hate it and the slackers who do the opposite love it. And it can be subjective in meeting those quotas if your boss makes it difficult to get approval for the work done to produce the required numbers.

Some offices in my agency have production quotas so it's easy to measure your performance in concrete terms. Produce x number of drafts, get a meets expectations; y number, exceeds; etc. Seems fair to me. Quality factors in too, but production seems to drive a large portion of the rating. Of course those offices hate it. Mine is not one of those -- we are much fuzzier -- I am curious to see what the new boss makes of it all.

OP here- we have criteria for meeting our standards. Like to get a 3 I need to do X 85% on time, 95% for a 4 and 100% for a 5. In my agency, standards are supposed to be concrete and measurable...

Hmm, I am at DOJ and in my division, we have unsucessful, meets, or exceeds. I have always gotten exceeds, even this year where I made a fairly significant error in a pleading (that was not caught on review). I feel like my division tries to give you a good rating unless you screw up terribly (one person did, in a way that was really negligent vs. a mistake, and only got a meets expectations).

Anonymous wrote:OP here- so none of you all are able to get 4's or 5's on your performance evals? Even for great work where all the criteria was met? I think that getting a 3 is like getting a C in high school- it's what you get for just showing up.

If you MEET your criteria, you get a three by definition. That's what a three is. It means you're doing your job. Are you exceeding or greatly exceeding your standards?

seems like a lot of people get 4's (exceeds expectations)

Sorry, I should have said no decimal points, not no percentage points.

We don't get numerical scores--and no percentage points. You're either:
outstanding (supposedly no more than 10%)
exceeds expectations
fully successful
minimally satisfactory
unacceptable

They don't mean anything here (sometimes it might help justify a spot award, but we can't give those out since sequestration started) unless you're getting the lowest 2. I've never seen anyone's performance rating come up when we interviewed them either.

OP here- so none of you all are able to get 4's or 5's on your performance evals? Even for great work where all the criteria was met? I think that getting a 3 is like getting a C in high school- it's what you get for just showing up.

Fed evaluations are useless. In my office I was told noone can get a five. Most people are only allowed to get high 3 scores.

I'm surprised you have to submit it when you apply. In my agency only one or two people can get higher than fully successful so fully successful is not seen as a negative.

Curious if anyone has disputed their performance evaluations in the federal government? I expect that once again I will be rated "fully successful" (3/5) and my boss will try to tell me that it is a great rating and means I'm doing everything I'm supposed to be doing.

Truthfully, I deserve at least 4.5. I was rated at a 3.6 last year and when applying for new jobs, I'm frequently denied due to my low rating. Or when it's brought up in interviews they ask about my "low performance eval rating."

Boss offers no solutions for improvement and also includes many things on my position description that he never asks me to do/ wants me to do. Also includes things that are out of my control (such as getting things done 100% of the time when I must rely on others who hold up my projects). Also, absolutely every one of boss's 8 direct employees gets a 3 (therefore, no bonuses and also he doesn't have to put anyone on PIP).