fed? If you aren't getting a bonus that is thousands or tens of 1000s, then stop sweating it.

Same here, your first year you get a flat, average rating. Then next year, game on. Don't worry, you're first year efforts and work are naturally factored in to your first ever rating.

Meanwhile, stop complaining, be pleasant, and do high quality work.

PP - I'm also a fed btw

OP. Actually your supervisor is wrong. You're only suppose to be rated on the time you've been there regardless of whether or not it was the full year EXCEPT if you've been there for I THINK less than 90 days.

I went through something similar except I was on FMLA for a couple of months and my supervisor told me I couldn't get the highest rating even though I worked my butt off. HR informed me that I'm only rated from xdate - xdate and that should have no bearing on whether I didn't work a full year or not. Was I able to complete what was expected of me during the timeframe I was there? If the answer is I "met" expectations, then I got a a "meets expectations" but if I exceeded expecations during that timeframe, then, there's absolutely no reason why I couldn't get an "exceeds expectations" rating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a meeting with my director, it was mentioned that I might not be able to achieve the highest rating because I started partway through the year. The highest rating is accompanied by a bonus. I have not received any negative feedback about my performance and have received several accolades on major projects. Because the discussion was accompanied by the statement, managing my expectations, I was very taken aback and not ready to respond. I feel like the sacrificial cow, no matter what my actual performance is, I cannot achieve the highest rating.

Yes, but this is how it works nearly everywhere. You need to start by X date to be eligible for Y. It sounds like they are saving the highest rating for someone who has been on the job for the entire performance period, especially if it is the type of company where only a certain number of people can receive certain ratings. It just honestly seems like you started at a bad time. This does not reflect on you or your performance at all.

OP here. Thanks, I really needed your last sentence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, but this was not explained after I stared the position. There were ample weekly opportunities to explain that this federal agency does not rate people on the full scale until someone is in their second performance year. There is nothing in writing about this policy.

And that's what happens at most jobs. In bringing people on to a new job, letting you know you can't get a bonus or the highest score the first year is not a big deal. Forgetting to tell you that your hours might change a lot, you have less leave, the salary changes are all much more reasonable reasons to be upset. I don't think it's that big of a deal. This type of thing is not usually written in policy. If you don't like the job that much, maybe you should look for another one.

I can accept that to some extend in private industry but not as a Federal employee. I am already NOT compensated for the extra hours, do not get reimbursed for funds spent on team building activities, and have to deal with dead weight that I cannot fire. And trust me, I have fired multiple Feds.

Mostly, I am just venting. I realize what I need to do. I thought for a second that I would somehow reap the rewards of bringing about change.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, but this was not explained after I stared the position. There were ample weekly opportunities to explain that this federal agency does not rate people on the full scale until someone is in their second performance year. There is nothing in writing about this policy.

And that's what happens at most jobs. In bringing people on to a new job, letting you know you can't get a bonus or the highest score the first year is not a big deal. Forgetting to tell you that your hours might change a lot, you have less leave, the salary changes are all much more reasonable reasons to be upset. I don't think it's that big of a deal. This type of thing is not usually written in policy. If you don't like the job that much, maybe you should look for another one.

OP here. Yes, but this was not explained after I stared the position. There were ample weekly opportunities to explain that this federal agency does not rate people on the full scale until someone is in their second performance year. There is nothing in writing about this policy.

At my job, supervisors have been told that they can't give out the highest rating. It would require way too much justification so the second highest score is the highest possible score in reality. Employees accept it. That's how things are done at a lot of jobs. Some jobs don't let you get a bonus if you haven't been there the entire period to earn the bonus.

Anonymous wrote:In a meeting with my director, it was mentioned that I might not be able to achieve the highest rating because I started partway through the year. The highest rating is accompanied by a bonus. I have not received any negative feedback about my performance and have received several accolades on major projects. Because the discussion was accompanied by the statement, managing my expectations, I was very taken aback and not ready to respond. I feel like the sacrificial cow, no matter what my actual performance is, I cannot achieve the highest rating.

Yes, but this is how it works nearly everywhere. You need to start by X date to be eligible for Y. It sounds like they are saving the highest rating for someone who has been on the job for the entire performance period, especially if it is the type of company where only a certain number of people can receive certain ratings. It just honestly seems like you started at a bad time. This does not reflect on you or your performance at all.

That's how it works at my company, too, though everyone but those with the lowest rating gets some sort of raise.

You'd have to walk on water or win a national award to get the highest performance rating at my agency. It's not common and I don't think I know anyone who has ever had a perfect 5. 90% of us get a 4-4.75.

Anonymous wrote:What's your question?

+1

What's your question?

In a meeting with my director, it was mentioned that I might not be able to achieve the highest rating because I started partway through the year. The highest rating is accompanied by a bonus. I have not received any negative feedback about my performance and have received several accolades on major projects. Because the discussion was accompanied by the statement, managing my expectations, I was very taken aback and not ready to respond. I feel like the sacrificial cow, no matter what my actual performance is, I cannot achieve the highest rating.