Government Accountability Office was tasked to review federal performance management systems across the 24 CFO Act agencies. After reviewing OPM data for calendar year 2013, GAO reported that more than 99 percent of non-Senior Executive Service employees received a rating of fully successful or higher. Federal law requires agencies to develop at least one employee performance appraisal system, with the intent to create a starting point constructive conversations between supervisors and staff, add transparency to the ratings/rewards process; and help employees better understand their strengths and weaknesses.
When interpreting federal employee performance, we tend to assume the worst. If the results were tipped heavily in the other direction, the public would automatically believe the report findings and call for a massive overhaul of the federal workforce, never once questioning the performance system.
When we see high results, we chuckle or roll our eyes and say “that can’t possibly be correct!”
A problem with perception or a problem with performance?
Poor performers and bad agencies do exist, but that is not a reflection of the entire federal workforce. The real problem with how we view the results is a money problem. While a private sector worker is paid through the market, a federal worker is paid by you, albeit indirectly. If you hate to pay taxes, it’s easy to blame the federal workforce.
It is hard to believe that only 0.3 percent of federal workers were minimally successful and 0.1 percent were unacceptable. Either something is wrong with the performance appraisal system or something is wrong with the way the system is being used. Unfortunately, when it comes to performance management, it’s not always an easy fix.
Rating inflation is a common problem – especially in a multi-level system. Additional rating levels rarely provide meaningful information, unless management is well-trained in providing accurate ratings. And within the federal workforce, where paperwork and follow-up paperwork is required to accompany less than successful ratings, overworked managers simply select the easiest option – “fully successful.” Plus, in a 5 point rating system, “fully successful” is actually a passing grade. It does not mean the employee is a star performer. It’s like getting a C.
It’s easy to oversimplify performance management problems. Implementing performance management systems isn’t for the faint of heart – especially when dealing with a massive organization like the federal government. Dealing with people is complex, It is challenging to create a system to measure a person’s value to an organization and time-consuming (i.e. costly) to maintain and operate.
Like many issues within the federal workforce, the problems are less about the workers themselves, and more about the constraints of the system. Checks and balances are important until they become bureaucratic red tape. Until the performance appraisal system is simplified, don’t expect more balanced ratings.
