Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here…. I don’t really know what to do based on this thread… usually over time some sort of consensus emerges but I’m not seeing that kind of advice here.

Game it out. Let's say you win and get the language or even the rating changed. You've made your supervisor and their supervisor who signed off look bad. Now your manager has a year to start accumulating data points to give you the same bad rating (or worse), but with much better documentation

Also, my supervisor is not this vindictive/personal, I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here…. I don’t really know what to do based on this thread… usually over time some sort of consensus emerges but I’m not seeing that kind of advice here.

Game it out. Let's say you win and get the language or even the rating changed. You've made your supervisor and their supervisor who signed off look bad. Now your manager has a year to start accumulating data points to give you the same bad rating (or worse), but with much better documentation

No… it hasn’t been finalized yet, we haven’t had our discussion. One of my colleagues verbally challenged the rating at the discussion meeting (which for me is at the end of the week) and the supervisor changed it. So we’re not at the people looking bad stage yet.

Basically I am hoping to get out of this job this year, it’s not the worst but there are a lot of issues. My biggest concern is this review damaging my chances to get out.

Anonymous wrote:OP here…. I don’t really know what to do based on this thread… usually over time some sort of consensus emerges but I’m not seeing that kind of advice here.

Game it out. Let's say you win and get the language or even the rating changed. You've made your supervisor and their supervisor who signed off look bad. Now your manager has a year to start accumulating data points to give you the same bad rating (or worse), but with much better documentation

OP here…. I don’t really know what to do based on this thread… usually over time some sort of consensus emerges but I’m not seeing that kind of advice here.

Anonymous wrote:I contested once. In the year I took off to have a baby. I was downgraded, but served 9 of the 12 months before taking off 3 to care for my child. Ridiculous. The review said I wasn’t available for the full review period. I couldn’t believe they were that dumb.

This isn't surprising at all. In some fed agencies there is little to no accountability. This can work in your favor, but tends to work against you when dealing with mid level management. They can bully you to the point of breaking the law and absolutely nothing will happen to the manager. From the beginning, I saw the writing on the wall and wanted no part in dealing with these dullards. A friend of mine who went to Yale was hired at the same time and he lasted maybe 2 months. My friend was studying calculus in 9th grade and he couldn't wrap his head around the fact that his managers were unable to do basic accounting.

I contested once. In the year I took off to have a baby. I was downgraded, but served 9 of the 12 months before taking off 3 to care for my child. Ridiculous. The review said I wasn’t available for the full review period. I couldn’t believe they were that dumb.

Anonymous wrote:I have heard from more than one Fed that they often only give “meets” rating in the first year after a promotion. One person was directly told that the reason for receiving a meets was because it is the first year in the new position.

+1.

Yeah, I try not to pay attention to this garbage. It's SOOOOO manager dependent, office dependent, agency dependent. I've found it has little to do with my performance in a particular year.

Under the old 5-level system, I once went from Outstanding to Fully Successful in consecutive years - same job, and I thought I was doing the same level of work. When I asked my supervisor about it, he told me the higher up wanted it (the higher up was new), and had given him no feedback as to why. I thought about inquiring further or filing a grievance, which apparently, you're able to do when you drop two levels. But I decided not to "cause trouble," and let it go. Every time I haven't been given the top level rating, I get a different version of crap: we're now told we can only give a few at the highest level, you didn't luck out and have the kind of work that could lead to you have the highest level this year, etc. I think it's pretty purely political. They give the highest ratings to the folks they're afraid will leave and aren't able to pay more. As I'm already one of the highest paid in the office and older, they figure there's no harm in taking me for granted.

I've had to made peace with the fact that the system is garbage. I had two offices that aren't mine give me cash awards for my excellent work this year, which is pretty rare in my agency. In other words, they shared their office's budget with someone outside, taking away from their own employees. One award was over $1000. On another few projects, I was nominated for national awards. My work is regularly recognized by the higher ups in the monthly emails that go out to our wider office. I've volunteered for many projects outside of my lane. Bet I still don't get the highest rating this year!! And that's okay - I've been recognized in other ways and know I'm doing great work.