298 votes
Rank8
Idea#36
...the supervisor's performance appraisal/rating.
I believe that the current rating system allows most supervisors to exploit the well-being of their employees for the pursuit of "management's" goals. Good managers get the "job" done without sacrificing those they lead.
I absolutely agree with this idea. We have a lot of incompetent managers, managers that continually exhibit innapropriate behavior, and that are incompetent. The employee feedback should work to get these bad managers out and would provide for a significanlty better work environment. Some managers are pushed through the ranks because of friendships rather than competence. The government needs to review how leaders are put in place and set up a mechanism to remove leaders that should not be in the positions that they are in.
It seems to me that part of management's responsibility is to make or enforce the tough decisions that their employees will not appreciate. I am guessing the proposed rating system will be a bit skewed. I am sure there are other less biased measures that could be put in place to evaluate managers in the USG.
"It seems to me that part of management's responsibility is to make or enforce the tough decisions that their employees will not appreciate. "
That is true. But, a good manager should be able to articulate their "tough decisions" in a way that their "biased" underlings can appreciate as being the right decision.
Absolutely ! I have supervisor who knows nothing about IT and she is with the agency for the past 30 years.Please stop this kind of promotions where a well qualified person have to give tutorials to bosses on how to do job..
To the second responder--
"I am guessing the proposed rating system will be a bit skewed."
Skewed how? You mean, skewed more towards something resembling a democratic workplace?
Skewed because if a manager disciplines a delinquent and ineffective employee, my guess is the rating would be plummet. I understand that a good manager should be able to articulate in a way that employees appreciate the right decisions, but in some cases the right decision depends on which end you are on. There are other metrics that can and should be applied to evaluate managers. In addition, there are supposed to be ways within the gov to apply feedback (anonymous) to a supervisor's supervisor.
"...in some cases the right decision depends on which end you are on. "
Spoken like a real manager. And when you are on the wrong end and you are the employee with the poor manager--there is no real means to address the problem. And besides, this recommendation suggested that the emplyee rating become PART of the manager's performance appraisal.
"There are other metrics that can and should be applied to evaluate managers."
It sounds like you might have something to be worried about if such a rating system were implemented.
I can honestly say that I do not rate employees nor would I be concerned about being rated and, in my situation, I respect my management. Your insult is read loud and clear however.
I understand what this idea suggests and truly am not trying to take away from it, I was trying to add to it.
As a federal employee, I think public service is an honor and I am quite frankly tired of taking a beating in the press. However, the reality is that there are a few federal employees that match the stereotype being propagated and they are a my concern in this scenario. Someone that is comfortable with working three hours a day yet getting paid for 8 1/2 hrs probably is not qualified to evaluate anyone.
To that I agree. Well said. I am sorry if I insulted up--that was not my intention.
The crux of my suggestion is this--in some places, we underlings do not have a voice or a channel to use it. Some supervisors abuse their power--I am merely suggesting a means to offset that abuse.
In too many places and situations, incompetent mangers rate employees based on favoratisms and whether the employee always agrees with them.
Where I work we do a 360 degree assessment where our coworkers, supervisors, and people we supervise rate us. We have to do this every two years. If used correctly, it can help a supervisor show an area they can improve upon.
There are bad employees at the management level AND below the management level. I do think most people are good workers. The question is how to get rid of the blatently bad ones who don't care and won't try to improve.
The most competent supervisors already do this if not formally then informally. Unfortunately most supervisors do not even consider evaluations/ effeciency reviews until told that they are due then mearly due the minimum to get by. This is endemic within the federal government and can only be fixed with time and effort. Legistation or simple changes to the forms will only result minor correctios of the behavior at best.
With similar policies the universities received a negative impact due to the fact that quality of teaching was lowered to get high scores from the students. Employees should be allowed to rate or make open suggestions to the operation without compromising the supervisor. This way he will get involve and be responsible for his comments
There is suppose to be a program called 360 and supervisors/managers can participate if they choose to. I have only had one do this and she of coarse was the best supervisor I have ever had. It would be nice to see a reduction to the mulititude of hiring authorities, since having so many allows managers to hire anyone they choose, but using the authority that best fits "their" candidate.
The same idea, #441, complements this one. Too many supervisors in the Federal service are promoted based on nepotism and a lack of evidence that they can truely lead. Let the employees be a judge of their supervisor's ability to be a leader and to receive justified compensation for their truely outstanding work.
I have had to live with an abusive, untrained, unprofessional and incompetent supervisor for years now its not a good feeling to go to a job that you otherwise love, knowing its quite possible that you will be harassed and/or treated in a disrespectful and unprofessional manner by the person you report to. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a 360 degree perfromance for supervisors. How can it be a true evaluation if it only comes from the person above them, where the behavior in this case at least, is completely different. I think most people are willing to be honest and fair when it comes to rating thier supervisors but its too bad that staff working in non-supervisory roles can't say the same thing. Performance evaluations or EPPES are too often a tool for retaliation and reprisal. Not for providing fair, objective and uplifting performance appraisals. I've seen so much managerial abuse of power and for that reason, I have no faith whatsoever that I will be treated fairly in accordance with my performance and not who plays office politics the best. When I did receive an amazing evaluation, I cared less, it meant nothing. Because my work was no different.
"I have had to live with an abusive, untrained, unprofessional and incompetent supervisor for years now its not a good feeling to go to a job that you otherwise love, knowing its quite possible that you will be harassed and/or treated in a disrespectful and unprofessional manner by the person you report to. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a 360 degree perfromance for supervisors. How can it be a true evaluation if it only comes from the person above them, where the behavior in this case at least, is completely different. I think most people are willing to be honest and fair when it comes to rating thier supervisors but its too bad that staff working in non-supervisory roles can't say the same thing. Performance evaluations or EPPES are too often a tool for retaliation and reprisal. Not for providing fair, objective and uplifting performance appraisals. I've seen so much managerial abuse of power and for that reason, I have no faith whatsoever that I will be treated fairly in accordance with my performance and not who plays office politics the best. When I did receive an amazing evaluation, I cared less, it meant nothing. Because my work was no different."
Yes. I know your pain. That is why I made this suggestion--and believe that it is very important.
It's hard to do the right thing--when you know darn well that if do or say the RIGHT thing--it could ruin your career.
For years, when I managed in the non-profit sector, I had the employees I supervise rate me, just as I rated them and as my supervisors rated me. This gave me invaluable insight into my own effectiveness and to ideas for ways to improve my management style, the program I supervised and promoted overall better communication across all organizational levels. I am all in favor of seeing this implemented in the government employment sector.
My presumption is that all employees would benefit from a 360 review.
But for managers/supervisors, how else would they get valid feedback from those who work under them if they do not have something like a 360 review.
I agree that managers and supervisors require rating and the rating needs to be a part of their performance evaluation. I had the recent experience of an individual being named as a supervisor. To begin with, the individual had no relevant experience for the position he was placed in. He sat in this position for four years, during which time every employee working for him left; some quit the government, some moved to other organizations. Some went to other centers or locations in order to get away from him. BTW the individual was not abusive or difficult to work with; he was simply imcompetent and had no interest in the work the organization was responsible for. I was told by the office chief that "he is loved by the other managers; everyone thinks he's doing a wonderful job". After 4 years he was laterally moved to another position in which he similarly has no relevant experience.
I really like this idea. At my previous private sector organizations, we had upward feedback and the managers really appreciated the comments and used them to make changes in their management style. Managers need feedback too and it should come from all people who have contact with them. With proper training, feedback and self awareness anyone can be a good manager.
There are so many poor managers who abuse their employees through overt actions - passively of neglect, or actively my making major issues out of minor ones. Most are into covert and subtle retribution and attribution. If the supervisors knew that even a part of their apprasial depended upon the ratings of their subordinates, then would vastly improve many offices environments all across the federal government. As it is now, some of our best and brightest feel powerless against Peter-Principle and Dilbert-Principle managers.
I concur, it is time for managers to get their review. To long careers have been stifled by a supervisor with a grudge. Just yesterday my supervisor lied to me to get me out of the room. Only to have to find me and tell me that someone back in the room wanted my help with the problem at hand. There is nothing that I can do to say my supervisor is playing dirty. Other than documenting yet another transgression.
HUD employees must be able to rate those in HUD Management who have authority over them, and these ratings must be part of Management's Performance Ratings. Non-performing members of Management must be removed for waste, fraud, mismanagement, and for breaking any law or legal agreement. Some members of HUD Management regularly lack integrity and honesty, and violate the AFGE-HUD Agreement, the Merit System Principles, the Prohibited Personnel Practices, the laws against discrimination, et. al. HUD Management tends to be arbitrary and capricous in making decisions that effect the employees they manage. They regularly are personal and subjective, but they should be fair, professional and objective. Upper level HUD Management do not properly monitor HUD Field Office Management. Some members of HUD Management are above the law. Members of HUD Management regularly agree with other members of HUD Management regarding disagreements with non-management staff, without proper discernment of the facts. Taxpayers are paying the large salaries of many members of HUD Management who are above the law, bullies, dictators, bigots, and they also fund the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development that historically supports these abusive members of HUD Management. My way or the highway is the HUD Management leadership standard. Upper level HUD Management must correct or remove the abusive members of HUD Management in the Field Offices. Usually people who lack integrity, honesty, ethics and morals, cannot change for the better, thus they must be removed from positions of authority over others. They probably should even be removed from positions with HUD, because some members of HUD Management in the Cleveland Field Office who were removed from their Management positions continued their abusive ways and manipulations. They were even supported by existing members of HUD Management by being selected as acting members of HUD Management, although they were previously removed from HUD Management. Many abuses occur within HUD's Cleveland Field Office in Ohio. Some staff members who shop during the day during work hours, and do not complete a leave slip, receive overtime pay. The work existed for overtime because they did not complete their work during an 8 hour day, or 40 hour week, because they were shopping on taxpayer time. Some members of HUD's Cleveland Field Office received FLSA (Federal Labor Standards Act) funds after having submitted false claims for alleged overtime work. Additionally, some members regularly abused HUD's garage access cards by utilizing them to take their cars out for breaktimes, and not having to pay for exiting and re-entering the garage. The garage access cards are for employees while utilizing a government vehicle to exit and re-enter the garage when they are conducting Field trips that are work related. Local HUD Management tends to hire from outside HUD, especially when they do not want to promote experienced Field staff they personally do not like, whether for discriminatory beliefs, plain subjectivity, favoritism, and/or hatred. It has been said that local HUD Management likes to hire talent from the outside, yet there is talent from within, and when alleged talent from the outside is hired, that fact supports the existing failure of HUD Management to meet its responsibility of assisting staff in their growth, development, and in reaching their full work potential. By law non-management staff have a right to question HUD Management when a reasonable belief of waste, fraud, and/or mismanagement occurs, but in reality, many members of HUD Management punish those who question or debate them, and they strongly oppose the right of non-management staff to contact upper level HUD Management. Obviously, when issues cannot be resolved on one level of HUD Management, then the upper levels of HUD Management must be contacted. There is a tendency for some judges with the U.S Merit Systems Protection Board or the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to favor Federal Agency Management, including HUD Management, because of bias, prejudice, discrimination, and a tendency for authority figures to favor other authority figures. Historically, dictators are defeated as in World War II, now we must realize that dictators must be removed from authority positions within the corporate world/private industry, Wall Street, and within Federal, State, and local government agencies. The Cuyahoga County government in Ohio is not the only entity that has or had abusive personnel, the Cleveland Field Office of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is rife with abusers.
There is merit to this. It should have a heavy emphasis on qualitative measurements, written narratives and balanced with leadership AND management training to all supervisors. Additionally all subordinates, in order to qualify for participation in the supervisory evaluation process, must have the leadership AND management training too, so that they have meaningful and relevant criteria on which to make objective judgments.
In the past I have seen this to the point that she also took care of her friend who was incompetent.
We should all need to be accountable.
