Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should cull people who were only fully successful too. The 3/5 people. 3/5 means they did a terrible job but their manager is still capturing data on them prior to putting them on a PIP. At my agency we can’t give 2/5 unless the person is already on a PIP.

Even mediocre people get 4/5. Straights 3’s tells you something is up.

This x 100!

This depends on the culture of an agency. Sometimes 3 is what just about everybody gets.

Yeah auditors don't get 4s or 5s just for showing up. They must be exceptional. Doing your job well and I mean getting auditor of the quarter gets you a 3. Lol. Everything is not standardized between agencies or departments or even supervisors. If the job is being done successfully then there's no performance issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should cull people who were only fully successful too. The 3/5 people. 3/5 means they did a terrible job but their manager is still capturing data on them prior to putting them on a PIP. At my agency we can’t give 2/5 unless the person is already on a PIP.

Even mediocre people get 4/5. Straights 3’s tells you something is up.

This x 100!

This depends on the culture of an agency. Sometimes 3 is what just about everybody gets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should cull people who were only fully successful too. The 3/5 people. 3/5 means they did a terrible job but their manager is still capturing data on them prior to putting them on a PIP. At my agency we can’t give 2/5 unless the person is already on a PIP.

Even mediocre people get 4/5. Straights 3’s tells you something is up.

This x 100!

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/

Should have started with this.

They should have this and drug testing honestly that would get a bunch out fast.

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.

Anonymous wrote:They should cull people who were only fully successful too. The 3/5 people. 3/5 means they did a terrible job but their manager is still capturing data on them prior to putting them on a PIP. At my agency we can’t give 2/5 unless the person is already on a PIP.

Even mediocre people get 4/5. Straights 3’s tells you something is up.

Anonymous wrote:They should cull people who were only fully successful too. The 3/5 people. 3/5 means they did a terrible job but their manager is still capturing data on them prior to putting them on a PIP. At my agency we can’t give 2/5 unless the person is already on a PIP.

Even mediocre people get 4/5. Straights 3’s tells you something is up.

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/

Should have started with this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s remind OPM to also look at a list of people who have been punished for misconduct - AWOL, time card fraud, travel card fraud, etc. That’s another list of names that should be ripe for picking.

Shouldn't they have already been fired?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s remind OPM to also look at a list of people who have been punished for misconduct - AWOL, time card fraud, travel card fraud, etc. That’s another list of names that should be ripe for picking.

Shouldn't they have already been fired?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe I read somewhere that less than 1% of the workforce gets a rating of less than fully successful.

Maybe it varies from agency to agency because I’ve heard it’s around 10%.

I’m wondering if someone told them that firing all the probationary employees without cause would result in an expensive and protected legal battle that they would lose, and now they’re pivoting to the lowest performers instead.

They are going after both.

I'm a little surprised/amused by the pushback on this thread. Admittedly, we all only have our own experiences, but people aren't getting put on PIPs out of the blue. And if there's going to be a RIF exercise I'd expect that probationary employees will be looked at to see if they are performing successfully before they move to non-probationary status.

I personally know of two probationary employees that have performance issues - one is on a PIP. I'm not their supervisor, but I highly doubt they will be able to turn their performance around. The other is someone hired with a lot of experience, was hired at a high grade, etc. They don't want to work, and refuse to accept any constructive criticism or direction.

I’m not worried about it being used with historical data. I am worried about how it will be used with whatever performance measures they put in place and how that will be deployed, and who will make those decisions moving forward. So, yeah, I am worried.