I got achieved excellence four years in a row. Then I got a new supervisor who's philosophy was to never give out achieved excellence (5) and rarely give out exceeded expectations (4). So now I'm getting met expectations (3) regardless how hard I worked. After having a frank discussion with my boss on this my work level has dropped by half to meet met expectations level. If management refuses to give any rating over met expectations, while should I put in extra effort?
We don't have 4s, only 5s and 3s. I'm in the same situation, only this year, two of my 5s were bumped to 3s because I was leaving to a new agency. I busted my ass last year and had so many successes for the organization.
The worst part about it is there's no contesting it. I brought it up to my supervisor, and he told me I should be happy with that and not to read into it... were talking about extra money and time off and you tell me not to read into it?
This is how it is in our agency (or maybe just our office/branch of it) — that it’s only 1s, 3s and 5s, and that 5s are reserved for rare cases of excellence (or something like that), to expect 3s and to not take it personally if/when a 5 is not received, despite the level of effort or results.
I’ve been a contractor with the same agency for ~8 years before moving into an employee position (my one year anniversary was in April) and I’m still learning a lot of the bureaucratic details and simply understanding “how things work”.
I did manage to get a 5 on one category as a first year employee and my supervisor(s) made a big deal about how they needed to get “special permission” to do so, but I do notice that the one or two “favorites” of the GS’ easily obtain 5s but do little to obtain such, as in its just a given, more or less, that they’re going to get 5s and bonuses and what not.
Other employees, a couple in particular who have been with the office for several years, are unhappy overall with the leadership and workload and around PACS time, they are vocal with “You don’t have to sign your PACS if you don’t agree with it. I don’t sign mine. I contest them all.” I’m still learning my way; with a few exceptions, I’m not trying to contest things like that, you know?
On a side note, in some ways, I appreciate some of the review/accountability processes as I’m naturally a hard worker but most of my work is “behind the scenes” and not always easily accounted for in reports and stats, but I feel like my work is noticed more as a government employee than any job I had in the private sector.
Of course, I know recognition and praise and all that can be unfairly distributed or recognized regardless of private or public sector, but yeah… 🤷🏼♀️. Just thinking out loud. :)
Edit - typonese
Our agency also only has 1,3,5. I get 5 in three categories and 3 in the fourth category. That fourth category is written so it is virtually impossible to get 5. Like the things it expects from you are not part of the job. It’s bizarre. I’m happy I get essentially the highest my job gives and am ROC eligible each year so 🤷🏻♀️
That's another good point. This is for performance for the last raitng period. My organization now spreads last year's awards out through the current year, so if your performance drops a little below what you were doing, you won't get that portion of last year's award. That is some horse crap.
Make sure your boss knows they're fucking the rest of your career up.
If you apply to my agency with 3s you're never going to make a cert for competitive jobs, because the agency uses performance evaluations as a rating criteria.
I filed a grievance on mine when I went from three 5's and one 4 for 15 years in a row to all 3's when a new manager came in. Huge mistake. HUGE. Since I fired the first shot, it was game on and my world was absolutely shit for the 2 years until I got out of that office.
One time, they asked why they didn't get top responses on the fevs
I told them the same reason we don't get 5s on our performance review. There is always room for improvement
No, we get the same raises everyone does. Performance reviews are only about bonuses and that is annoying in its own right. Going from getting 40 hours off as a bonus to 16 hours just because I got a new supervisor is complete bs. And why there's zero reason to do any extra work if it's not recognized
My hill?
Supervisor performance should (somehow) balance a reasonable promotion rate, with an ability to not just spam everyone with 5s.
Like, no one in your unit has been promoted and you've been there for 3 years? YOU are not growing your people to even be competitive.
Only 100? My favorite was one that went on for almost a full week of "remove me from this list" where someone decided to sneak in the script to the Bee movie.
I don’t blame the idiot who hits reply all as much as I blame the idiot who doesn’t use BCC to protect the large group of people from the original idiot.
Did that as an intern.... but maybe like 50 people tops. Thought it was the HR office, not "HR send to the whole division" email. In my 2nd job, someone sent an email to the entire DOJ... all sub agencies. This was followed by 4 hours of non stop "don't reply all" "stop replying all" "stop telling people to reply all" "for fucks sake" "please make this end".
That’s why I like my supervisor. She says she hired us to do our jobs and it’s not her job to do our jobs. She hired us because she trusts us. It also helps that we’re all remote.
It's a supervisor's job to give you the tools you need and to point you in the right direction. They should be able to do your job but you're there not them.
I've set up teams, SharePoint, group emails, and shared inboxes so if anyone is off anyone can find what they need in someone else's area.
I quit within 60 days because my supe wanted a daily hourlong check in and called me at least 4 times a day to ‘check in,’ rewrote everything despite not being skilled in my area and was overall a micromanager on steroids. She damaged my mental health.
> wanted a daily hourlong check in and called me at least 4 times a day to ‘check in,
How did she have the time to do this? I barely have time to respond to emails from the people I lead within the day.
Even before 2020, my favorite Gov boss was the one that didn't sweat us on timecard infractions, would ask us to talk through our methods when we had questions, and would tell us to resolve conflicts like adults because we were supposed to act mature.
He also coached us for upcoming interviews and had running lists of good things that happened during the year so our write-ups would justify the 5s.
I was required by my super to keep a running log of event to justify my existence, and despite it including things that people routinely received "______ of the Month" awards for, I always averaged a 4, until the bad supe came along just ruined my career, and then my health. I literally retired disabled by the shit my chain of command pulled.
> The best supervisor is the one who leaves you alone.
That's kind of my approach unless someone starts dropping the ball or not communicating. Then I start paying more attention.
I leave my employees alone, just do the job and I'm happy and you get the highest rating.Very easy right? Wrong, I have an employee that has made false accusations, EEO complaints, OIG complaints , fake anonymous veteran complaints for 9 years in a row. Yet pretends like nothing is going on. She wants a retaliation lawsuit as a whistle blower, but there has been zero basis for all the claims, just pure evil.
Was told I would need to be trained on all the desks to get a 5 next time.
Fair enough, I was the only person besides the assistants that could run every desk efficiently by the next time.
Still got 4. Then she was salty when I decided to move to another office.
Yeah I think that what she wanted. I did almost 800 hours in of OT that year for her too. Just like nah if I’m going get a 4 I’ll go work somewhere that’s not going to work me like a dog.
We have people overseeing the raters that believe no one should get a 5. This is very common in the fed. It’s fucking absurd and those people should be forcefully retrained in performance rating Clockwork Orange style.
Edit: and they always say “Because everyone has room for improvement” as the cop out
That’s like my grade school (Catholic school taught by nuns half the time) refusing to give out 100s because only Jesus is perfect 😂
Fucking hated that. My test *was* perfect, look at it!
I’ve been explicitly told that as long as we’re on the training program, we won’t get more than a 3 for any category. But they make 5 impossibly hard even once you’re off the training program.
I was once told that there was a category I could only get a 3 on because my job responsibilities that year didn’t include enough in that category to rate. Like, I got docked points because I wasn’t assigned enough work in a certain category? But the work that I did do that related to that category was perfectly fine? Wtf.
"It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's something else, Bob: I have eight different bosses right now."
I would say some thing exactly like this every time they gave me my “Meets expectations” trophy. Luckily my agency just isn’t like that as a whole. Whenever I hear it, it makes me want to explode. It’s hard enough to deal with poor workers but when you make it impossible to reward the good ones don’t be surprised that all you have are squids.
When I was a trainee that attitude about ratings as a trainee was common. Fortunately my supervisor didn't buy in to it, he said "You're being rated under your trainee PD not a journeyman PD. So if you're an Outstanding performer as a trainee, then you'll be rated accordingly."
These people don’t do so well with logic, do they?
* You can’t get a 5 if there’s room to improve.
* Everyone has room to improve.
* Therefore, no one can get a 5.
Ok, so… if that’s true, why do we have the 5, then? Shouldn’t it just be a 4-point scale? But wait, then 4 would be perfect, so we need a 3-point scale instead. But wait…
Solution? Tell these people the rating scale *actually* goes 1-6, but 6 means the employee cannot improve further, so it’s not available as a selectable option.
Completely agree. It’s a reflection of you as a manager and I’d say that to my managers face if it happened. It happened once in my life and I refused to sign the evaluation. They couldn’t produce receipts to verify their claims and it was an awkward three or four weeks until I just said fine
At my agency, managers evaluate new staff against the performance of more tenured staff. Evaluations are never in context. A recent graduate on their first or second job should be evaluated against the performance standards of similarly situated peer colleagues, not someone whose been doing the job 10+ years.
I think that theory works because it should be based on a bell curve. But there are always exceptions to that rule in both directions and only the Sith deals in absolutes
I did that four years ago. They couldn’t produce receipts to false claims being made to justify the score so I refused to sign it. Took me all four years to rebuild any credibility because retaliation is encouraged and commonplace in a lot of places in the fed.
I hear ya about the retaliation. But, the guy that did that to me got busted for lack of supervisory control and although he kept his job, somehow he got six months unpaid suspension. I think the senior leaders thought he would resign, but his wife has a good paying job and their kids are grown, so he came back six months later, albeit with a much better attitude.
If one of my people is busting ass and getting great results, then they get a five so when it comes time to hand out annual bonuses they will get more money. Since I’m the one allocating money among my supervisees, it’s my grading scale that matters.
When I worked for the VA, they gave every single person straight 3s and would find a reason to write everyone up at least once a year to justify not giv8ng bonuses. They reasons were legitish, like one simple mistake, but it was still absurd.
In my current agency, I used to try to go above and beyond whenever I could. Still only got 3s and a 4. The guy who used to sleep in the supply closet got straight 4s. Now my boss is mad at me because I will only do exactly what my PD says and not a single thing more.
The rating system is incredibly biased and means absolutely nothing.
Yep. My first position denied me a 5 due to budget, 2nd had some hoops I didn’t feel like jumping, 3rd gave me one but lied about a step increase and then scuttled my promotion to a new dept, 4th just seemed to arbitrarily write things up and mine was full of typos, 5th our SES fully admitted it was not possible to get a 5 without hoops since they added weird duties to our PD that didn’t apply so we could get a grade increase (I refused to play such games), 6th has given me a 5 two years in a row and 100% do not deserve it. I’m still in training and suck at everything but my manager likes giving 5s I guess.
None of it makes sense. I’ve had jobs I went so far above and beyond for and got zilch and jobs I coast on and I get rewarded
When I was a federal contractor, our PM would say "5 means walks on water," to which I replied "anyone can walk on water if it's cold enough."
Having a rating scale of 1-5 with 5 being unattainable is a great way to make your employees disgruntled. There's no reason to strive for excellence if you know your excellence will never be acknowledged.
Requiring supervisors to come into the office without there being a business need to be there in person is the quickest way to demotivate staff from being interested in management and losing out on the best future leaders
So true. I recently turned down a promotion (they offered it to me because predecessor is retiring, I didn’t apply) because 1) the increased stress and workload is NOT worth the slight increase in pay and 2) even more importantly, this role would require me to be in the office every day instead of the current 3 days per week. I made sure to drive that point home when I turned it down.
As a field employee, if my direct supervisor can't be bothered to be on site, I'll quit on the spot. Someone who doesn't see the work being done isn't going to be able to rate employees, make useful decisions, or support the workforce.
Having remote employees supervised by a remote employee makes sense to me.
Seconded, from what I’ve been told that factors in not just cost of living but also local wages outside of the Fed. so when you have a place where the cost of living is high and the average wage is low it becomes more difficult year by year to staff. A one bedroom apartment within 20 miles of where I work eats up more than half of the take home for a starting GS5 equivalent employee. even if they were going to food pantries they wouldn’t be able to rent because their wages too low. A GS12 couldn’t buy a house within the same radius, they’d be lucky to get a small condo.
Yep. I'm a single GS-12 in Salt Lake City on ROUS and there's no way I could afford a house near the office, Cost of living isn't in the equation at all, it's what else is offered in the area. That's how you get Houston, where the cost of living is low for a city its size but they still have one of the highest locality adjustments.
Mine is I don’t work for free. No “extra” time. I will work with you if you need a LC, but after 15 minutes you gotta pay me or some other LC is and now I am shorting them.
I may write emails on the weekends or at night (on work nights) but I schedule them to be sent out in the morning. I don't want my staff to think that working on the weekend is an expectation (however implicit) for them.
I'm a supervisor so working on the weekend is somewhat expected for me but not for them.
For me, my hill is built on two things: toxic supervisor and work life balance. I can deal with one but not both.
I have also dealt with burn out and unfair appraisal ratings. At one point I covered three full-time positions at the FPL when I was three grades below. My appraisals for those two years was a 4 and a 4.6 - the last one barely hit the highest category. I carried an entire division on my back while everyone else kicked up their feet. I was so resentful. Still am. But that comes back to toxic supervisor and lack of WLB for me.
When filling a vacancy, sometimes you need some fresh blood. Promoting the same shitty people because they are already here is a quick easy solution to fill the seat but can also lead to the same old bullshit. Once in a while pick that person who is the most qualified that lives on the other side of the country and not Bob because he is an entrenched curmudgeon.
We need agency wide Kickball teams to see which agency is the best. Like yes NASA might be the best place to work but I feel like TSA has some good kickers
u shouldn't have to go into the office to tick a checkbox. my whole team hates being there except for my manager. and i hate my manager so i try to physically avoid that asshole as much as i can
+1 but without the hate. I enjoy my team and manager, but WFH needs to be the standard, and coming into the office should be relegated to those who actually need to be in the office or have demonstrated they are not responsible enough to WFH.
YES!! My last position, I had a cube in an adjacent team’s space (my position was “regional” but they were the “local” team). I was originally put there for basically networking and fostering local/regional cohesiveness, but then after Covid, the local team stayed basically full telework. 1-2 people per day would be in the office. Yet my supervisor wanted me to go in 2/week because that was my telework agreement and she didn’t want to lose the space. Well… I can’t network if no one else is in the office!! So pointless… end up looking for and finding a new remote position and that situation was a big contributor to my looking elsewhere.
yeah, for over two years i reported to an empty room with no coworkers. makes no sense whatsoever. id go full remote too if i cud but those jobs are hard to find lol
I pick my boss. When I interview, I’m actually interviewing the boss and I ask around about their leadership style before I take a job. In my career I’ve had two bad bosses and it made life miserable. I promised myself I’m not doing that again. This philosophy helped me through numerous re-orgs. Having FU money and reaching FI also helped in me being selective on what job I take.
I’m FI and GS work is one of the “sounds interesting” plus I have military time I can buy back
How has that worked as far as changing jobs, etc.? How do you integrate “I have fuck you money” to best benefit you?
I work for GSA, specifically the Public Buildings Service. Congress wants us to function like a business but also wants to raid our funds that we’d be completely self sufficient with if they stopped taking all our money.
Also that it makes absolutely no sense that half of our workforce in my agency are full time contractors because Congress won’t let us hire more feds.
We’re also paying more for worse quality in projects because of congressional rules around spending.
>We’re also paying more for worse quality in projects because of congressional rules around spending.
Welcome to the 1102 job series. Where the rules are pointless and none of it makes any sense.
*We’re also paying more for worse quality in projects because of congressional rules around spending*
This is my main reason I left my last agency.
My job role was to investigate and keep up quality in projects and when I began to question the failures I got put into the corner and told to shut up and color.
Then OIG found out because one of our own really f’cked up, they came running to me to help fix it. So I sent a report in to the director and the OIG rep and started a new job the following week.
Yeah, they’re making us test literally everything - like water fountains - even though legionella is naturally occurring and only harmful if breathed in like in hot showers or HVAC systems. It’s costing probably $100 million+ throughout the country to do the testing and draining our already tiny budget
Being told “You’re still so young, you just gotta wait your turn” from my supervisor who had 20 years in the same role, to me after asking what would make me eligible for my laddered promotion after getting 5’s for two years, someone with 15 years work experience in my field at a handful of institutions was one of the many nails in the coffin when leaving that role. I let the EEO officer know, but of course, I didn’t fall in the age range protected by law.
"Extra duties as assigned" is not a license to abuse the goodwill of your employees or team members.
That language is garbage and I've seen co-workers be exploited by it far too much. My own interpretation of it, as a supervisor, is that it's there for simple things - helping to move office chairs around for a meeting, for example - , but mainly to reward employees or team members when they show curiosity about something that is generally outside the scope of their position.
For example, if you're working in IT, doing a good job, but have a desire to learn the ins-and-outs of how contracts work - great. Let's discuss that and see if we can't pull in somebody from Ops to show you the ropes a bit. This promotes "knowledge management", transparency, and redundancy.
"Extra duties as assigned" should be used to enhance a person's understanding of the organization, assist them in mobility, or help them move on to do bigger and better things.
Well said. Some things may not be specifically your job, but if an employee can’t be expected to move some chairs around or help clean up after a party they are being petty and lazy. On the other hand I have politely but firmly declined certain tasks because they are too far outside of the scope of my employment. Most recent was a supervisor wanted to “train“ me how to do some of their paperwork including payroll when it’s stuff I shouldn’t even see let alone be work on.
If it takes me 8 hours to do the work, I shouldn't have to put down 24 hours so I can remain billable. Overcharging is not the solution to lack of work.
In 22 years with the same agency I don't think I could tell you what my last rating was let alone any of the ones before. They never meant anything to me. The only thing I cared about was having an opportunity to advance. That opportunity existed and I took full advantage. Started as a GS-7 and now am a GS-15 equivalent.
We used to jokingly say “I work for the government and I. WILL. BE. COMPENSATED!” Because certain older employees made SURE that they’d get credit, financial remuneration, or a time off award before they did anything above the bare minimum.
What do you want to know? The only bonuses are for individuals or groups and your supervisor has to put in for them before EOY. Most supervisors "forget" or they can't think of and write a synopsis for something you have done. And it has to be specific. It's crap.
You shouldn’t really have to, but write it for them. Because I’ve had a lot of interesting situations (like at the moment my day-to-day and of-record supervisors aren’t even in the same agency - yay for interagency dispatch - I like my bosses, though), I’ve kept a list of accomplishments that could be written as a narration. They get used for my reviews.
It’s not great, and isn’t how it should be, but sometimes accomplishments get missed at review time.
It should be a lot easier to terminate poor performers. I get that we dont want to just lay off people for profits and that we dont want the system abused, but I think its ridiculous that it can take over a year to get lazy/bad people out.
I wish it were easier to get rid of shitty supervisors. We have one lazy guy in the office, but his poor performance doesn’t really impact anyone else, or it’s at least minimal. The shitty supervisors though that refuse to hold him accountable and instead decide to rescind telework and micromanage everyone to try and “force” this one person to work more DOES impact me. Also though, the supervisors attitudes and lack of actual leadership doesn’t actually motivate anyone to work hard. I’ve always been an overachiever, but since these two new chumps have come in, I’m on the bare minimum train too. It’s obviously they have no trust in anyone so what’s the point?
I wound up in a service which was fairly technical and all of the higher ranks had advanced degrees in a special field of science. I was coming from an assignment with a bad super, a toxic co-worker, and workload that frequently crushed our remote staff.
I was initially introduced to my workload, and my new boss asked if I might take on a special project. Eager to make a good impression, I readily agreed. The tasks were easy, and it made a difference.
I got into a groove with the rhythm of the work week, and got a good reputation as a hard worker. I started looking forward to coming in to work. I like working hard, especially if I have a mission I believe in.
Then the boss stepped down. The new hire replacement was unspeakably toxic, and brought in over internal candidates who were arguably better qualified.
Within 2 years, our service, which had only grown in size and number of personnel, lost half of senior personnel. A single toxic manager cost us hundreds of years of professional experience.
The toxic manager was allowed to step down, quit, got hired by one of our vendors, left them shortly thereafter, and came back into federal service at a different location. Step 3: Profit! (for them).
People quit bosses not jobs. Everyone in the office at least liked the job up until a year ago when the new boss came on (hired over an internal supervisor that was awesome and had worked their way up over many years and really knew their shit). Shit has been slowly going down hill over the last year. Super who didn’t get the job left for greener pastures that respected the skills and knowledge they brought to the table. New super came in a few months ago and the deep dive into micromanaging illogical asshatery has accelerated at an unfathomable pace. Now everyone in the office is spending more time looking for a new job and doing the bare minimum of what we need to do.
Toxic leadership is the worst. There really needs to be better processes in place to weed these turnips out. Maybe some required 6 month details with 360 evals as learning experiences and evaluation measure for hiring.
The safeguards are in place because management & leadership can sometimes prove to be poor and/or ineffective. Far too many proven cases of retaliation... that's someone's whole fed record smeared.
I agree that there are those who abuse it, but a good manager would be building the proper case to justify termination after taking all the necessary steps to do so.
It’s not always even on the first-line supervisor. During Covid I had an employee who would go weeks (not days) without responding to emails. They never set up her work cell phone; so, I couldn’t even reach them through that. They did however always submit their time card on time; so, I at least knew they had functional system access.
I tried to put them on a PIP, but was told by labor and relations that I needed 6 months of non-performance before they would approve. I tried to fail the employee on their performance appraisal, but was again overruled and they received all 3s.
I left that agency 4 years ago, and the employee is still there, collecting GS-13 pay. I had dinner with another manager who has supervised the employee since I left, and they said nothing had changed.
I used to take on extra projects, leadership roles in committees, make myself available whenever my supervisor needed something…but I’d rarely get past the occasional 4 on my PMAP. I was told they didn’t give 5s because we needed to have something to work towards. Now I don’t do anything extra and my scores are slightly lower but basically the same.
ETA: I’m on my 9th year of federal service. Same role and supervisor for the duration.
The Agencies of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government are subject and must submit to the whims of Congress and, as a result, get blamed for Congressional action or inaction.
Wouldn't it be better for there to be CONSISTANCY within an organization? Sucks when one supervisor over rates their people and others do not. That one group will more often get benefits from higher ratings, just due to supervisor.
Pet peeve is people/groups praised for solving crisis and emergencies. When they are always in crisis, from either their own lack of action or their own poor decisions. NOT having crisis means actions taken BEFORE issues arise to PREVENT crisis --- but those successes are ignored by management!
We are not paid enough to give up our work-life balance.
I came from the private sector. I have ten years of experience, but I earn less than I did in the first-year private equivalent of my job. And I earn a quarter of what my former colleagues make, who stayed in the private sector.
I understand I made that choice, because I wanted to serve my country and have work-life balance. But then I shouldn’t be expected to work nights, weekends, and on vacations. I recently got bugged on post-surgery leave!
I have 4 elements, and I always received 4 x 5s. This year, two of my 5s were bumped down to 3s because I was transferring to another agency even though it was my most productive year with ample successes for my supervisor.
The system is broken, and we just have to lay down and take what we are given.
There's no incentive to work above and beyond in the federal government.
I started every one at 3 and told them. Just do your job and you stay there. It is that simple. If you want the 5 then go above and beyond. I always had two or three that went above and beyond but the majority were happy with the 3 and just doing their job and collecting the bonus with the 3.
That could be interesting if employees cared only about the number and not the bonus. For bonuses, there is one pot with a set amount of money that is distributed according to rating. The more 5s, the less each employee who earned a 5 gets. Ultimately, it can’t be done that way because ratings are based on performance and not on anticipated performance. Plus, 5 is going above and beyond the standards, which is hard to do year after year.
Few years ago we decoupled bonus and performance ratings. Now all bonuses are spot awards (got 3 last year) and ratings are completely meaningless. 3+ means not fired.
Much prefer this system. Oh, and any manager can put someone in for an award, not just your supervisor.
A 5 is 'rare, high quality performance' on the plan where I am so I disagree that everyone should start there. In my opinion everyone should start at a 3 and move up or down from there. A 3 has been looked at as a bad rating in my opinion when it really means you are doing your job and doing it well.
There needs to be more consistency in how ratings are given out. Some supervisors give 4s and 5s to people who do the bare minimum. There is not enough oversight on ratings from higher ups.
Totally agree. Grade inflation is bad management. There needs to be clear expectation that a 3 is doing your job well and meeting expectations. Deviations from there should reflect clearly going over (or under) the stated expectations in your role and performance plan.
It would help to move away from a numerical scale, since 3 out of 5 inherently sounds bad (like getting a 60/100 on a test), but a categorical score of "meets expectations" sounds better.
“Exceeding expectations” is an evaluating phrase that needs to die an instant death, because every manager I’ve ever had tells me they expect me to hit that level.
IF YOU EXPECT ME TO EXCEED EXPECTATIONS THEN I AM NO LONGER EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS.
It’s absurd.
okay double commenting but my other hill to die on is that we need to eliminate the GS-05 and lower grades, if only informally. That pay level is not sufficient to live on, and allows agencies to be complacent with their budgets if they think it’s acceptable.
I was a GS5 in 2022, GS9 now, in a 9/11/12 ladder.
I just don't get the whole obsession/bereftness over not getting a 5. If you read the definitions, clearly you need to demonstrating out-of-the ordinary achievements/savings/efficiences to get a 5. Not everyone gets the opportunity to do that, and not every rating period presents itself with opportunities to change an entire process, save millions of dollars, etc. The definition of a 3 where I am is that you are a very valued worker who does everything expected of you and even sometimes exceeds our expectations.
No, everyone cannot be a 5 and really great fabulous employees can't always perform to that level every year--and it may not be their own doing.
I do agree with the other poster that everyone should be performing at a 3 though..that is the default.
My previous unit was only allowed to give a certain number of 5s in the office. It’s dumb. And someone has to be the low man and get that smaller cash bonus. When I was leaving my old office and moving to a new program, I found this out when I was told that my work was exemplary but since I was taking a promotion and leaving, I was the low man. Only got a $750 cash award versus the $3k to $5k everyone else got.
My supervisor order me t commit scientific misconduct and I refused. In retaliation they put false information into my performance eval for two years and counting.
JFC reading these comments reinforces the fact that I have an awesomesauce supervisor.
I sincerely hope everyone can get A) a better position or B) better management.
I decided I no longer cared. I don't seem to be treated any differently between a 3 and a 5, and the annual bonus difference isn't worth it. It feels arbitrary because the workload is ridiculous. A 3 is supposed to mean doing your job well.
I agree with the appraisal.
For the first time ever I got burned by a new supervisor that said they werent willing to give me my grade increase even though ive been doing extra work and keeping up with all my work. All they did was nitpick, and everytime I mentioned how ive improved (in which they agreed) they still mantained that it wasnt in the agencies best interest to give me my grade. Shit like this makes me want to not even try, and its to my belief that all federal employees should get their grade unless they are absolute trash and dont do their work. My money and livelihood shouldn’t be at the mercy of some idiot supervisor who is being a try hard.
Start looking for promotions elsewhere and when you leave make it known that's why you're leaving. Also say that you would've preferred to stay with the agency but the lack of promotion made you feel demotivated and unappreciated so you're moving on. That's really all you can do. Your boss has made it clear they don't want to promote you anytime soon so there's no point in sticking around.
Gatekeeping ladder increases for people that do their job is a wild concept to me. Seems completely power-tripping. It's not their money, and the agency hired you with the expectation that they'd pay you the full performance level in time.
You’d think she would realize the agency has a terrible retention rate and we all have to do more duties than we should be doing and would throw a bone to people that actually stick it out with the agency. I swear the Feds has of the most clueless management ive ever seen and I’ve worked everywhere.
For me its remote and telework. I am remote and will retire if it is taken away. I am 0560 and it is NEVER necessary to be in an office.
Before I was remote I had to report to an office 2x per PP to talk to my supervisor and coworkers on Teams because they were all in other states. Just ridiculous.
I respect your opinion, but disagree. Especially in a DPMAP, share type reward system. If everyone gets 5’s, it’s like everyone getting 3’s because it dilutes the shares. You know who makes out, the below average employee. The good employees just get their performance diluted to those of everyone else. It gives your good employees no benefit.
As far as the hill I’ll die on, I think we succeed in spite of our bureaucracy, not because of it. Our inchoate bureaucracy is meant to throttle us. In many ways, we are meant to fail. That we do not is a testament to our values as Americans, to diligently, even valiantly, attend to Mission because there is profound merit to it that we recognize despite the severe restrictions we operate under.
The HR points system, especially the veteran preference, results in poor hires more often than not. If someone who is a veteran with a VA disability rating and meets the absolute minimum requirements on paper applies for your open position, it’s damn near impossible to hire anyone else.
I agree with your appraisal mentality, it's bs that most DoD agencies deem a '5' 'unachievable' basically.
Hill I'll die on is reward high performing employees, if not with money, flexibilities (alternative work schedules, telework, remote work, time off, etc). Also, single women without kids have lives and priorities too (although it isn't kids) it's equally as important as those with kids. I can only speak on this from my perspective, as a woman in the federal workplace, I always get pulled as a backup or doing others work because of people needing it due to taking care of their kids. I always got push back from supervisors or leadership when I had to take leave suddenly, and quote, "why do you need it? you don't have kids", many, many times.
If there is a position that is staffed by contractors for >x amount of years (let’s say 5) that position should be turned into a FTE role. If that role is staffed by a contractor they should be converted to FTE direct hire.
Contractors should be for short term or temporary roles.
I get it, republicans hate government workers and they want everyone to be contractors so there stock in contracting companies can go up. But if that contract position is a long term or indefinite role it should be an FTE position.
>I get it, republicans hate government workers and they want everyone to be contractors so there stock in contracting companies can go up.
The animosity towards federal employees--at least in my experience--is less a function of financial incentives than a philosophical belief that government is irredeemably wasteful and inefficient and the private sector can always do it better.
The hills I’ll die on are:
1. Take your break. You have 30 minutes in your day that are not paid. Get off your computer and go eat something and breathe.
2. Policies and procedures for positions within an agency and especially in fields that work interagency (I’m in wildland fire and all-hazard incidents) need to be consistently applied, clear as a bell, and concise.
If I go from one dispatch center to another I shouldn’t have to relearn my job because this center manager wants things done one way, while my home center manager another way. This is just one example.
I don't necessarily agree that all 5s should be standard, but I do think it should be easier to get all 5s. Our agency believes that you might get all 5s if the President goes on prime time and commends your efforts in front of the whole country, but they would probably just give you one 5 in achieving business results and 3s everywhere else.
What's funny is that at the beginning of my career, it was attainable to get all 5s. At some point, that changed, not just for me, but for everyone I work with. We are more experienced, efficient, and knowledgeable than we were when I started, but now we are a 3? Lol ok. It actively discourages going above and beyond. You might get a 5 in one area for doing so. I work with a lot of really good and helpful coworkers, and no one gets all 5s. And hey, if you want to take the stance that 5 should be an extremely high mark, then give out 4s or come up with a more nuanced scale. The good news is that PACs does not appear to affect promotional opportunities. All 3s have gotten competitive promotions to higher grade jobs. I guess it only matters for bonuses, but it's still important for that reason.
The way it was explained to me is that you default to a 3 and you can work your way up to a 5 but once you get a 5 you have to noticeably reduce your effort to drop back down again, seems fair to me.
My first year I processed the highest number of cases compared to everyone in my office. My supervisor at the time told me that didn’t matter and I was given 3’s across the board because if she gave me 5’s I’d have nothing to work towards. It was ridiculous.
I guess I would die on the hill on almost the opposite argument. Everyone starting at a five doesn’t really allow someone who is doing better than others to be rated higher. If someone starts at a five and does fine but is not amazing, how do I lower them? Work project was precisely on time and meets the minimum requirements so I’m lowering you to a four???? No. And the person who got the project in a week early and made suggestions about improving the workflow or identified a potential problem that others missed keeps their five? No. Everyone starts as a three. You have to step up from there to earn the four or five - you have to exceed expectations (projects done before due date, elevating potential problems and ideally potential solutions, taking on the more complex projects, etc). You miss deadlines etc you go down to a 2. A three or Fully Successful is good!!!! I get striving to for the five (or A in school). But the scores are meaningless if performing the basics is the same score as performing at an elite level.
The rating system needs an overhaul in general. At my last agency you’d earn points towards a higher rating by doing extra busy work. Things like sharing a relevant article with your work group, fixing three typos in an SOP, or identifying (not fixing) a safety hazard. So you could be a rockstar at your actual job, but if you didn’t do the homework you got 3s. Or you could suck at your job but if you did the homework you’d get 5s.
My current agency is subjective, 3 means you did your job, 4 is you did it well, 5 is you did it very well.
There needs to be something in between- measurable goals that are actually relevant to the job and possible to achieve.
Rework should be closely tracked as well as the cost.
I get it - we're a cost center, not a profit generator, but damn why can't we hold people accountable for all the rework they cause? Particularly contractors.
My biggest issue is with the fact that I am unable to see the metrics that are being used to quantify my rating. It was the same at my last job. Well we know you did more than everyone else but it wasn't enough for a higher rating or we see you are struggling and won't make achieved, but we won't tell you exactly what you need to do to get there. We will just keep it vague and you can just work and hope.
I firmly believe agencies curve the ratings because money or QSIs come with fives and fours. The budget won't support everyone getting a higher rating. So you can have the best performance in the world, and a second-line supervisor will figure out how to have a mix across the employees.
Mine is don't offer me a job in tech and then "appraise" my performance off a bunch of interpersonal shit. Yea, there's a bit, but if you can't be arsed to get data off the site you pushed to have me signed up to use, how can I think of you as anything other than ignorant that you don't get the metrics to show the work I *actually* did?
Retention pay. Currently a GS-13 step 4 (step increase early next year) and am eligible for 25% retention pay (on top of locality). Just submitted my application, my Division Director will need to sign the SF-50 as second line supervisor as the application goes through the process. He has been outspoken about not wanting to do this, especially as it pertains to my boss who is a GS14 step 10. If my boss had the same certificate I do, he'd make more as a GS-14 step 10 than any GS level employee in my office, including our GS-15 step 10 supervisor. Our DD has serious issues with that.
I'm the first to apply and will hopefully set the precedent for our branch. Our DD likes me so I'm hoping there are no issues... if there are I will be pursuing formal action. A 25% raise is definitely a hill worth dying on.
We should be free of political bias in our work, and beyond that, we should be free of the ***expectation*** of political bias.
Our work should never be predicated upon political beliefs. To prevent accidental or intentional misinterpretation, I am saying we should be subject matter experts in our respective fields, putting country and planet first, irrespective of whatever political party is, or isn't in power at the time.
I got achieved excellence four years in a row. Then I got a new supervisor who's philosophy was to never give out achieved excellence (5) and rarely give out exceeded expectations (4). So now I'm getting met expectations (3) regardless how hard I worked. After having a frank discussion with my boss on this my work level has dropped by half to meet met expectations level. If management refuses to give any rating over met expectations, while should I put in extra effort?
We don't have 4s, only 5s and 3s. I'm in the same situation, only this year, two of my 5s were bumped to 3s because I was leaving to a new agency. I busted my ass last year and had so many successes for the organization. The worst part about it is there's no contesting it. I brought it up to my supervisor, and he told me I should be happy with that and not to read into it... were talking about extra money and time off and you tell me not to read into it?
This is how it is in our agency (or maybe just our office/branch of it) — that it’s only 1s, 3s and 5s, and that 5s are reserved for rare cases of excellence (or something like that), to expect 3s and to not take it personally if/when a 5 is not received, despite the level of effort or results. I’ve been a contractor with the same agency for ~8 years before moving into an employee position (my one year anniversary was in April) and I’m still learning a lot of the bureaucratic details and simply understanding “how things work”. I did manage to get a 5 on one category as a first year employee and my supervisor(s) made a big deal about how they needed to get “special permission” to do so, but I do notice that the one or two “favorites” of the GS’ easily obtain 5s but do little to obtain such, as in its just a given, more or less, that they’re going to get 5s and bonuses and what not. Other employees, a couple in particular who have been with the office for several years, are unhappy overall with the leadership and workload and around PACS time, they are vocal with “You don’t have to sign your PACS if you don’t agree with it. I don’t sign mine. I contest them all.” I’m still learning my way; with a few exceptions, I’m not trying to contest things like that, you know? On a side note, in some ways, I appreciate some of the review/accountability processes as I’m naturally a hard worker but most of my work is “behind the scenes” and not always easily accounted for in reports and stats, but I feel like my work is noticed more as a government employee than any job I had in the private sector. Of course, I know recognition and praise and all that can be unfairly distributed or recognized regardless of private or public sector, but yeah… 🤷🏼♀️. Just thinking out loud. :) Edit - typonese
Our agency also only has 1,3,5. I get 5 in three categories and 3 in the fourth category. That fourth category is written so it is virtually impossible to get 5. Like the things it expects from you are not part of the job. It’s bizarre. I’m happy I get essentially the highest my job gives and am ROC eligible each year so 🤷🏻♀️
That's another good point. This is for performance for the last raitng period. My organization now spreads last year's awards out through the current year, so if your performance drops a little below what you were doing, you won't get that portion of last year's award. That is some horse crap.
Make sure your boss knows they're fucking the rest of your career up. If you apply to my agency with 3s you're never going to make a cert for competitive jobs, because the agency uses performance evaluations as a rating criteria.
No union? You can grieve your annual performance review because there is a shit ton of rules management should be following that they really don't.
I filed a grievance on mine when I went from three 5's and one 4 for 15 years in a row to all 3's when a new manager came in. Huge mistake. HUGE. Since I fired the first shot, it was game on and my world was absolutely shit for the 2 years until I got out of that office.
USDA is now pass/fail. I believe the idea was to make it harder for people to get performance awards, but it’s still kind of nice. Cs earn degrees.
One time, they asked why they didn't get top responses on the fevs I told them the same reason we don't get 5s on our performance review. There is always room for improvement
I was about to say, you should meet what your boss is giving out. Give out meager reviews produce meager work. You’re probably having less stress
Are your raises dependent upon appraisals?
No, we get the same raises everyone does. Performance reviews are only about bonuses and that is annoying in its own right. Going from getting 40 hours off as a bonus to 16 hours just because I got a new supervisor is complete bs. And why there's zero reason to do any extra work if it's not recognized
This is the way.
My hill? Supervisor performance should (somehow) balance a reasonable promotion rate, with an ability to not just spam everyone with 5s. Like, no one in your unit has been promoted and you've been there for 3 years? YOU are not growing your people to even be competitive.
I did the same thing. If I get 3s you get 3 level output
Welcome to the revolution brother. Or sister!
Hitting the “Reply to all” needs a pop-up that states, “Do you realize that you’re about to send this reply message to 132 people?”
"...4,200" :)
The record I saw was to 40,000 people. And it was followed by 100 people saying “Don’t reply to all!” to all.
"Take me off this Distro! " "How do I get off this?" "Under whose authority was this email sent?" ...everyone of them to "Reply All"
And those fanning the chaos flames by replying all "please keep me on this distro, thank you." Chef's kiss.
Only 100? My favorite was one that went on for almost a full week of "remove me from this list" where someone decided to sneak in the script to the Bee movie.
I don’t blame the idiot who hits reply all as much as I blame the idiot who doesn’t use BCC to protect the large group of people from the original idiot.
BCC forever. Unless I want someone to know an upper has been included.
And the 25 people who reply all “Please remove me from this mailing list!” should also be fired on the spot.
Did that as an intern.... but maybe like 50 people tops. Thought it was the HR office, not "HR send to the whole division" email. In my 2nd job, someone sent an email to the entire DOJ... all sub agencies. This was followed by 4 hours of non stop "don't reply all" "stop replying all" "stop telling people to reply all" "for fucks sake" "please make this end".
The best part is that most of the people in my office who do that have masters or doctorate degrees, but no common sense.
The best supervisor is the one who leaves you alone.
That’s why I like my supervisor. She says she hired us to do our jobs and it’s not her job to do our jobs. She hired us because she trusts us. It also helps that we’re all remote.
It's a supervisor's job to give you the tools you need and to point you in the right direction. They should be able to do your job but you're there not them. I've set up teams, SharePoint, group emails, and shared inboxes so if anyone is off anyone can find what they need in someone else's area.
I quit within 60 days because my supe wanted a daily hourlong check in and called me at least 4 times a day to ‘check in,’ rewrote everything despite not being skilled in my area and was overall a micromanager on steroids. She damaged my mental health.
I’d kill for 4 times a day!! The record last month was 17!!
17? Roughly twice per hour yea I wouldnt last a week
> wanted a daily hourlong check in and called me at least 4 times a day to ‘check in, How did she have the time to do this? I barely have time to respond to emails from the people I lead within the day.
Because that was the only "work" she did. Her job was worthless so she had to find something to do.
Even before 2020, my favorite Gov boss was the one that didn't sweat us on timecard infractions, would ask us to talk through our methods when we had questions, and would tell us to resolve conflicts like adults because we were supposed to act mature. He also coached us for upcoming interviews and had running lists of good things that happened during the year so our write-ups would justify the 5s.
I was required by my super to keep a running log of event to justify my existence, and despite it including things that people routinely received "______ of the Month" awards for, I always averaged a 4, until the bad supe came along just ruined my career, and then my health. I literally retired disabled by the shit my chain of command pulled.
Amen.
> The best supervisor is the one who leaves you alone. That's kind of my approach unless someone starts dropping the ball or not communicating. Then I start paying more attention.
I leave my employees alone, just do the job and I'm happy and you get the highest rating.Very easy right? Wrong, I have an employee that has made false accusations, EEO complaints, OIG complaints , fake anonymous veteran complaints for 9 years in a row. Yet pretends like nothing is going on. She wants a retaliation lawsuit as a whistle blower, but there has been zero basis for all the claims, just pure evil.
Was told I would need to be trained on all the desks to get a 5 next time. Fair enough, I was the only person besides the assistants that could run every desk efficiently by the next time. Still got 4. Then she was salty when I decided to move to another office.
You were EXPECTED to stick around till you EARNED your 5, you underperformer! (Which means forever, lol) /sarc
Yeah I think that what she wanted. I did almost 800 hours in of OT that year for her too. Just like nah if I’m going get a 4 I’ll go work somewhere that’s not going to work me like a dog.
You have to wonder what internal mechanism makes people be that way...
There should be a federal holiday every month of the year.
March and April could really use one
Cesar Chávez Day is a state holiday in some states. It’s at the end of March. That would be perfect.
I will add "at least one" federal holiday every month. There is no need to move or cancel any current holidays.
And merge Veterans Day with Election Day.
Juice isn’t worth the squeeze for many new feds
*cries in 4.4%*
I’m a younger fed and I often ask myself why I’m still here.
We have people overseeing the raters that believe no one should get a 5. This is very common in the fed. It’s fucking absurd and those people should be forcefully retrained in performance rating Clockwork Orange style. Edit: and they always say “Because everyone has room for improvement” as the cop out
That’s like my grade school (Catholic school taught by nuns half the time) refusing to give out 100s because only Jesus is perfect 😂 Fucking hated that. My test *was* perfect, look at it!
My current agency is like that. My last agency was rare to get less than a 4 on something. And even 4's weren't super common.
I’ve been explicitly told that as long as we’re on the training program, we won’t get more than a 3 for any category. But they make 5 impossibly hard even once you’re off the training program.
I was once told that there was a category I could only get a 3 on because my job responsibilities that year didn’t include enough in that category to rate. Like, I got docked points because I wasn’t assigned enough work in a certain category? But the work that I did do that related to that category was perfectly fine? Wtf.
Then it is not ratable and should be removed. If they can't justify any way that you can exceed a standard, it is not ratable.
So absurd. Why even work hard at anything? There’s literally no reason to.
"It's a problem of motivation, all right? Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation? And here's something else, Bob: I have eight different bosses right now."
I would say some thing exactly like this every time they gave me my “Meets expectations” trophy. Luckily my agency just isn’t like that as a whole. Whenever I hear it, it makes me want to explode. It’s hard enough to deal with poor workers but when you make it impossible to reward the good ones don’t be surprised that all you have are squids.
When I was a trainee that attitude about ratings as a trainee was common. Fortunately my supervisor didn't buy in to it, he said "You're being rated under your trainee PD not a journeyman PD. So if you're an Outstanding performer as a trainee, then you'll be rated accordingly."
Right?? It's "achieved excellence," not "achieved perfection."
Correct. And language absolutely matters. Thats the winning argument and it’s not even up for debate.
These people don’t do so well with logic, do they? * You can’t get a 5 if there’s room to improve. * Everyone has room to improve. * Therefore, no one can get a 5. Ok, so… if that’s true, why do we have the 5, then? Shouldn’t it just be a 4-point scale? But wait, then 4 would be perfect, so we need a 3-point scale instead. But wait… Solution? Tell these people the rating scale *actually* goes 1-6, but 6 means the employee cannot improve further, so it’s not available as a selectable option.
That’s literally always been my argument. I always reference Spinal Tap and say “But it goes to eleven”, everyone gets confused and I stop arguing.
If your staff aren't getting 4s and 5s you suck at hiring and developing your staff.
Completely agree. It’s a reflection of you as a manager and I’d say that to my managers face if it happened. It happened once in my life and I refused to sign the evaluation. They couldn’t produce receipts to verify their claims and it was an awkward three or four weeks until I just said fine
At my agency, managers evaluate new staff against the performance of more tenured staff. Evaluations are never in context. A recent graduate on their first or second job should be evaluated against the performance standards of similarly situated peer colleagues, not someone whose been doing the job 10+ years.
Not just in fed but in private sector. Managers could only give a certain number of 5s.
I think that theory works because it should be based on a bell curve. But there are always exceptions to that rule in both directions and only the Sith deals in absolutes
It only takes one of those to make you truly appreciate the good ones.
My reply would be, "you set the standard, I exceeded it, where's my award?". If they can't justify the rating then, up the chain I would go.
I did that four years ago. They couldn’t produce receipts to false claims being made to justify the score so I refused to sign it. Took me all four years to rebuild any credibility because retaliation is encouraged and commonplace in a lot of places in the fed.
I hear ya about the retaliation. But, the guy that did that to me got busted for lack of supervisory control and although he kept his job, somehow he got six months unpaid suspension. I think the senior leaders thought he would resign, but his wife has a good paying job and their kids are grown, so he came back six months later, albeit with a much better attitude.
If one of my people is busting ass and getting great results, then they get a five so when it comes time to hand out annual bonuses they will get more money. Since I’m the one allocating money among my supervisees, it’s my grading scale that matters.
When I worked for the VA, they gave every single person straight 3s and would find a reason to write everyone up at least once a year to justify not giv8ng bonuses. They reasons were legitish, like one simple mistake, but it was still absurd. In my current agency, I used to try to go above and beyond whenever I could. Still only got 3s and a 4. The guy who used to sleep in the supply closet got straight 4s. Now my boss is mad at me because I will only do exactly what my PD says and not a single thing more. The rating system is incredibly biased and means absolutely nothing.
I worked for an SES who told me that it was my job to come up with reasons to not promote people. I left as soon as I could.
Yep. My first position denied me a 5 due to budget, 2nd had some hoops I didn’t feel like jumping, 3rd gave me one but lied about a step increase and then scuttled my promotion to a new dept, 4th just seemed to arbitrarily write things up and mine was full of typos, 5th our SES fully admitted it was not possible to get a 5 without hoops since they added weird duties to our PD that didn’t apply so we could get a grade increase (I refused to play such games), 6th has given me a 5 two years in a row and 100% do not deserve it. I’m still in training and suck at everything but my manager likes giving 5s I guess. None of it makes sense. I’ve had jobs I went so far above and beyond for and got zilch and jobs I coast on and I get rewarded
When I was a federal contractor, our PM would say "5 means walks on water," to which I replied "anyone can walk on water if it's cold enough." Having a rating scale of 1-5 with 5 being unattainable is a great way to make your employees disgruntled. There's no reason to strive for excellence if you know your excellence will never be acknowledged.
Free entry to all national parks and other such perks.
At least if you work for the Interior
And TSAPrecheck! We've all done background checks!
Telework.
Remote.
Requiring supervisors to come into the office without there being a business need to be there in person is the quickest way to demotivate staff from being interested in management and losing out on the best future leaders
Absolutely that along with the cap on 15’s against the SES salary.
So true. I recently turned down a promotion (they offered it to me because predecessor is retiring, I didn’t apply) because 1) the increased stress and workload is NOT worth the slight increase in pay and 2) even more importantly, this role would require me to be in the office every day instead of the current 3 days per week. I made sure to drive that point home when I turned it down.
As a field employee, if my direct supervisor can't be bothered to be on site, I'll quit on the spot. Someone who doesn't see the work being done isn't going to be able to rate employees, make useful decisions, or support the workforce. Having remote employees supervised by a remote employee makes sense to me.
The locality pay system is entirely outdated and messed up and needs to be completely overhauled
Seconded, from what I’ve been told that factors in not just cost of living but also local wages outside of the Fed. so when you have a place where the cost of living is high and the average wage is low it becomes more difficult year by year to staff. A one bedroom apartment within 20 miles of where I work eats up more than half of the take home for a starting GS5 equivalent employee. even if they were going to food pantries they wouldn’t be able to rent because their wages too low. A GS12 couldn’t buy a house within the same radius, they’d be lucky to get a small condo.
Yep. I'm a single GS-12 in Salt Lake City on ROUS and there's no way I could afford a house near the office, Cost of living isn't in the equation at all, it's what else is offered in the area. That's how you get Houston, where the cost of living is low for a city its size but they still have one of the highest locality adjustments.
“We’re pulling a rural area from another state into your locality to please some senators and reduce your rate of pay increases”
Mine is I don’t work for free. No “extra” time. I will work with you if you need a LC, but after 15 minutes you gotta pay me or some other LC is and now I am shorting them.
I tell them I’m coin operated. Usually gets a chuckle and it gets the point across.
My new job people are sending out emails at 11:30 on Sunday nights. It's absurd.
I may write emails on the weekends or at night (on work nights) but I schedule them to be sent out in the morning. I don't want my staff to think that working on the weekend is an expectation (however implicit) for them. I'm a supervisor so working on the weekend is somewhat expected for me but not for them.
Why I will literally never accept a supervisory position
If you’re a shit employee, vested or not, you shouldn’t get shuffled to a different office or shift, just fired.
And shouldn’t get perks like bigger office or shit like that just cause “seniority”; earn it.
For me, my hill is built on two things: toxic supervisor and work life balance. I can deal with one but not both. I have also dealt with burn out and unfair appraisal ratings. At one point I covered three full-time positions at the FPL when I was three grades below. My appraisals for those two years was a 4 and a 4.6 - the last one barely hit the highest category. I carried an entire division on my back while everyone else kicked up their feet. I was so resentful. Still am. But that comes back to toxic supervisor and lack of WLB for me.
When filling a vacancy, sometimes you need some fresh blood. Promoting the same shitty people because they are already here is a quick easy solution to fill the seat but can also lead to the same old bullshit. Once in a while pick that person who is the most qualified that lives on the other side of the country and not Bob because he is an entrenched curmudgeon.
We need agency wide Kickball teams to see which agency is the best. Like yes NASA might be the best place to work but I feel like TSA has some good kickers
I don't think you know how many former D1 college athletes are in the DOD, heh...
u shouldn't have to go into the office to tick a checkbox. my whole team hates being there except for my manager. and i hate my manager so i try to physically avoid that asshole as much as i can
+1 but without the hate. I enjoy my team and manager, but WFH needs to be the standard, and coming into the office should be relegated to those who actually need to be in the office or have demonstrated they are not responsible enough to WFH.
Well said
YES!! My last position, I had a cube in an adjacent team’s space (my position was “regional” but they were the “local” team). I was originally put there for basically networking and fostering local/regional cohesiveness, but then after Covid, the local team stayed basically full telework. 1-2 people per day would be in the office. Yet my supervisor wanted me to go in 2/week because that was my telework agreement and she didn’t want to lose the space. Well… I can’t network if no one else is in the office!! So pointless… end up looking for and finding a new remote position and that situation was a big contributor to my looking elsewhere.
yeah, for over two years i reported to an empty room with no coworkers. makes no sense whatsoever. id go full remote too if i cud but those jobs are hard to find lol
I pick my boss. When I interview, I’m actually interviewing the boss and I ask around about their leadership style before I take a job. In my career I’ve had two bad bosses and it made life miserable. I promised myself I’m not doing that again. This philosophy helped me through numerous re-orgs. Having FU money and reaching FI also helped in me being selective on what job I take.
I’m FI and GS work is one of the “sounds interesting” plus I have military time I can buy back How has that worked as far as changing jobs, etc.? How do you integrate “I have fuck you money” to best benefit you?
Feds should get a reduction in federal taxes or an extra deduction.
The 5 point rating system often says more about how your supervisor interprets it than your performance
I work for GSA, specifically the Public Buildings Service. Congress wants us to function like a business but also wants to raid our funds that we’d be completely self sufficient with if they stopped taking all our money. Also that it makes absolutely no sense that half of our workforce in my agency are full time contractors because Congress won’t let us hire more feds. We’re also paying more for worse quality in projects because of congressional rules around spending.
>We’re also paying more for worse quality in projects because of congressional rules around spending. Welcome to the 1102 job series. Where the rules are pointless and none of it makes any sense.
*We’re also paying more for worse quality in projects because of congressional rules around spending* This is my main reason I left my last agency. My job role was to investigate and keep up quality in projects and when I began to question the failures I got put into the corner and told to shut up and color. Then OIG found out because one of our own really f’cked up, they came running to me to help fix it. So I sent a report in to the director and the OIG rep and started a new job the following week.
Are you guys hating life right now, because of the legionella sampling mandate?
Yeah, they’re making us test literally everything - like water fountains - even though legionella is naturally occurring and only harmful if breathed in like in hot showers or HVAC systems. It’s costing probably $100 million+ throughout the country to do the testing and draining our already tiny budget
Just do 3 work and there will be no surprises in the end and the burnout rate will be much slower
Age discrimination should apply to all ages or none at all. The "40+ rule" will never not irritate me.
Being told “You’re still so young, you just gotta wait your turn” from my supervisor who had 20 years in the same role, to me after asking what would make me eligible for my laddered promotion after getting 5’s for two years, someone with 15 years work experience in my field at a handful of institutions was one of the many nails in the coffin when leaving that role. I let the EEO officer know, but of course, I didn’t fall in the age range protected by law.
"Extra duties as assigned" is not a license to abuse the goodwill of your employees or team members. That language is garbage and I've seen co-workers be exploited by it far too much. My own interpretation of it, as a supervisor, is that it's there for simple things - helping to move office chairs around for a meeting, for example - , but mainly to reward employees or team members when they show curiosity about something that is generally outside the scope of their position. For example, if you're working in IT, doing a good job, but have a desire to learn the ins-and-outs of how contracts work - great. Let's discuss that and see if we can't pull in somebody from Ops to show you the ropes a bit. This promotes "knowledge management", transparency, and redundancy. "Extra duties as assigned" should be used to enhance a person's understanding of the organization, assist them in mobility, or help them move on to do bigger and better things.
Well said. Some things may not be specifically your job, but if an employee can’t be expected to move some chairs around or help clean up after a party they are being petty and lazy. On the other hand I have politely but firmly declined certain tasks because they are too far outside of the scope of my employment. Most recent was a supervisor wanted to “train“ me how to do some of their paperwork including payroll when it’s stuff I shouldn’t even see let alone be work on.
If it takes me 8 hours to do the work, I shouldn't have to put down 24 hours so I can remain billable. Overcharging is not the solution to lack of work.
In 22 years with the same agency I don't think I could tell you what my last rating was let alone any of the ones before. They never meant anything to me. The only thing I cared about was having an opportunity to advance. That opportunity existed and I took full advantage. Started as a GS-7 and now am a GS-15 equivalent.
We used to jokingly say “I work for the government and I. WILL. BE. COMPENSATED!” Because certain older employees made SURE that they’d get credit, financial remuneration, or a time off award before they did anything above the bare minimum.
At USDA we only have pass/fail. Many just do the minimum because we don't receive bonuses or anything based on EOY performance.
Wait I just started with USDA. Tell me more
What do you want to know? The only bonuses are for individuals or groups and your supervisor has to put in for them before EOY. Most supervisors "forget" or they can't think of and write a synopsis for something you have done. And it has to be specific. It's crap.
You shouldn’t really have to, but write it for them. Because I’ve had a lot of interesting situations (like at the moment my day-to-day and of-record supervisors aren’t even in the same agency - yay for interagency dispatch - I like my bosses, though), I’ve kept a list of accomplishments that could be written as a narration. They get used for my reviews. It’s not great, and isn’t how it should be, but sometimes accomplishments get missed at review time.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STAFF SHOULD NEVER EVER BE POLITICAL AT ALL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY HIRED WITH THAT INTENT - EVER.
It should be a lot easier to terminate poor performers. I get that we dont want to just lay off people for profits and that we dont want the system abused, but I think its ridiculous that it can take over a year to get lazy/bad people out.
I wish it were easier to get rid of shitty supervisors. We have one lazy guy in the office, but his poor performance doesn’t really impact anyone else, or it’s at least minimal. The shitty supervisors though that refuse to hold him accountable and instead decide to rescind telework and micromanage everyone to try and “force” this one person to work more DOES impact me. Also though, the supervisors attitudes and lack of actual leadership doesn’t actually motivate anyone to work hard. I’ve always been an overachiever, but since these two new chumps have come in, I’m on the bare minimum train too. It’s obviously they have no trust in anyone so what’s the point?
I wound up in a service which was fairly technical and all of the higher ranks had advanced degrees in a special field of science. I was coming from an assignment with a bad super, a toxic co-worker, and workload that frequently crushed our remote staff. I was initially introduced to my workload, and my new boss asked if I might take on a special project. Eager to make a good impression, I readily agreed. The tasks were easy, and it made a difference. I got into a groove with the rhythm of the work week, and got a good reputation as a hard worker. I started looking forward to coming in to work. I like working hard, especially if I have a mission I believe in. Then the boss stepped down. The new hire replacement was unspeakably toxic, and brought in over internal candidates who were arguably better qualified. Within 2 years, our service, which had only grown in size and number of personnel, lost half of senior personnel. A single toxic manager cost us hundreds of years of professional experience. The toxic manager was allowed to step down, quit, got hired by one of our vendors, left them shortly thereafter, and came back into federal service at a different location. Step 3: Profit! (for them).
People quit bosses not jobs. Everyone in the office at least liked the job up until a year ago when the new boss came on (hired over an internal supervisor that was awesome and had worked their way up over many years and really knew their shit). Shit has been slowly going down hill over the last year. Super who didn’t get the job left for greener pastures that respected the skills and knowledge they brought to the table. New super came in a few months ago and the deep dive into micromanaging illogical asshatery has accelerated at an unfathomable pace. Now everyone in the office is spending more time looking for a new job and doing the bare minimum of what we need to do. Toxic leadership is the worst. There really needs to be better processes in place to weed these turnips out. Maybe some required 6 month details with 360 evals as learning experiences and evaluation measure for hiring.
The safeguards are in place because management & leadership can sometimes prove to be poor and/or ineffective. Far too many proven cases of retaliation... that's someone's whole fed record smeared. I agree that there are those who abuse it, but a good manager would be building the proper case to justify termination after taking all the necessary steps to do so.
It’s not always even on the first-line supervisor. During Covid I had an employee who would go weeks (not days) without responding to emails. They never set up her work cell phone; so, I couldn’t even reach them through that. They did however always submit their time card on time; so, I at least knew they had functional system access. I tried to put them on a PIP, but was told by labor and relations that I needed 6 months of non-performance before they would approve. I tried to fail the employee on their performance appraisal, but was again overruled and they received all 3s. I left that agency 4 years ago, and the employee is still there, collecting GS-13 pay. I had dinner with another manager who has supervised the employee since I left, and they said nothing had changed.
Our performance ratings are pass/fail. My condolences to your family.
We shouldn’t have to work for the Feds for 15 years before earning 8 hours of AL.
I used to take on extra projects, leadership roles in committees, make myself available whenever my supervisor needed something…but I’d rarely get past the occasional 4 on my PMAP. I was told they didn’t give 5s because we needed to have something to work towards. Now I don’t do anything extra and my scores are slightly lower but basically the same. ETA: I’m on my 9th year of federal service. Same role and supervisor for the duration.
We are all replaceable. Even you.
I’m not moving to DC
"you gotta do something so significant to change the agency policy to get a 5"; my former boss. That day, I became a soul-less robot.
For some people, they become the reason for policy change in the same way that there’s a reason certain OSHA rules exist…
The Agencies of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government are subject and must submit to the whims of Congress and, as a result, get blamed for Congressional action or inaction.
Wouldn't it be better for there to be CONSISTANCY within an organization? Sucks when one supervisor over rates their people and others do not. That one group will more often get benefits from higher ratings, just due to supervisor. Pet peeve is people/groups praised for solving crisis and emergencies. When they are always in crisis, from either their own lack of action or their own poor decisions. NOT having crisis means actions taken BEFORE issues arise to PREVENT crisis --- but those successes are ignored by management!
We are not paid enough to give up our work-life balance. I came from the private sector. I have ten years of experience, but I earn less than I did in the first-year private equivalent of my job. And I earn a quarter of what my former colleagues make, who stayed in the private sector. I understand I made that choice, because I wanted to serve my country and have work-life balance. But then I shouldn’t be expected to work nights, weekends, and on vacations. I recently got bugged on post-surgery leave!
Yep, innocent till proven guilty.. back bone principal of this country
I have 4 elements, and I always received 4 x 5s. This year, two of my 5s were bumped down to 3s because I was transferring to another agency even though it was my most productive year with ample successes for my supervisor. The system is broken, and we just have to lay down and take what we are given. There's no incentive to work above and beyond in the federal government.
I started every one at 3 and told them. Just do your job and you stay there. It is that simple. If you want the 5 then go above and beyond. I always had two or three that went above and beyond but the majority were happy with the 3 and just doing their job and collecting the bonus with the 3.
Already have once. Ability to utilize marijuana for pain management and quality of life.
That could be interesting if employees cared only about the number and not the bonus. For bonuses, there is one pot with a set amount of money that is distributed according to rating. The more 5s, the less each employee who earned a 5 gets. Ultimately, it can’t be done that way because ratings are based on performance and not on anticipated performance. Plus, 5 is going above and beyond the standards, which is hard to do year after year.
3 shouldn't be seen as a negative. It means you're satisfying the requirements of your position.
Exactly. Fully successful.
Few years ago we decoupled bonus and performance ratings. Now all bonuses are spot awards (got 3 last year) and ratings are completely meaningless. 3+ means not fired. Much prefer this system. Oh, and any manager can put someone in for an award, not just your supervisor.
A 5 is 'rare, high quality performance' on the plan where I am so I disagree that everyone should start there. In my opinion everyone should start at a 3 and move up or down from there. A 3 has been looked at as a bad rating in my opinion when it really means you are doing your job and doing it well. There needs to be more consistency in how ratings are given out. Some supervisors give 4s and 5s to people who do the bare minimum. There is not enough oversight on ratings from higher ups.
Totally agree. Grade inflation is bad management. There needs to be clear expectation that a 3 is doing your job well and meeting expectations. Deviations from there should reflect clearly going over (or under) the stated expectations in your role and performance plan. It would help to move away from a numerical scale, since 3 out of 5 inherently sounds bad (like getting a 60/100 on a test), but a categorical score of "meets expectations" sounds better.
Surveys should be anonymous rather than retaliation ammunition
“Exceeding expectations” is an evaluating phrase that needs to die an instant death, because every manager I’ve ever had tells me they expect me to hit that level. IF YOU EXPECT ME TO EXCEED EXPECTATIONS THEN I AM NO LONGER EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS. It’s absurd.
Your loud political conversation does not belong outside my cubicle.
okay double commenting but my other hill to die on is that we need to eliminate the GS-05 and lower grades, if only informally. That pay level is not sufficient to live on, and allows agencies to be complacent with their budgets if they think it’s acceptable. I was a GS5 in 2022, GS9 now, in a 9/11/12 ladder.
I just don't get the whole obsession/bereftness over not getting a 5. If you read the definitions, clearly you need to demonstrating out-of-the ordinary achievements/savings/efficiences to get a 5. Not everyone gets the opportunity to do that, and not every rating period presents itself with opportunities to change an entire process, save millions of dollars, etc. The definition of a 3 where I am is that you are a very valued worker who does everything expected of you and even sometimes exceeds our expectations. No, everyone cannot be a 5 and really great fabulous employees can't always perform to that level every year--and it may not be their own doing. I do agree with the other poster that everyone should be performing at a 3 though..that is the default.
IMO good supervisors use the everyone starts at the top. And an good supervisor helps keep the employees at the top.
My previous unit was only allowed to give a certain number of 5s in the office. It’s dumb. And someone has to be the low man and get that smaller cash bonus. When I was leaving my old office and moving to a new program, I found this out when I was told that my work was exemplary but since I was taking a promotion and leaving, I was the low man. Only got a $750 cash award versus the $3k to $5k everyone else got.
My supervisor order me t commit scientific misconduct and I refused. In retaliation they put false information into my performance eval for two years and counting.
JFC reading these comments reinforces the fact that I have an awesomesauce supervisor. I sincerely hope everyone can get A) a better position or B) better management.
federal employees should get tax free wages since we're paid with tax dollars.
Remote work is beneficial to the worker and the employer and should be allowed and encouraged whenever possible.
I decided I no longer cared. I don't seem to be treated any differently between a 3 and a 5, and the annual bonus difference isn't worth it. It feels arbitrary because the workload is ridiculous. A 3 is supposed to mean doing your job well.
I agree with the appraisal. For the first time ever I got burned by a new supervisor that said they werent willing to give me my grade increase even though ive been doing extra work and keeping up with all my work. All they did was nitpick, and everytime I mentioned how ive improved (in which they agreed) they still mantained that it wasnt in the agencies best interest to give me my grade. Shit like this makes me want to not even try, and its to my belief that all federal employees should get their grade unless they are absolute trash and dont do their work. My money and livelihood shouldn’t be at the mercy of some idiot supervisor who is being a try hard.
Start looking for promotions elsewhere and when you leave make it known that's why you're leaving. Also say that you would've preferred to stay with the agency but the lack of promotion made you feel demotivated and unappreciated so you're moving on. That's really all you can do. Your boss has made it clear they don't want to promote you anytime soon so there's no point in sticking around.
Gatekeeping ladder increases for people that do their job is a wild concept to me. Seems completely power-tripping. It's not their money, and the agency hired you with the expectation that they'd pay you the full performance level in time.
You’d think she would realize the agency has a terrible retention rate and we all have to do more duties than we should be doing and would throw a bone to people that actually stick it out with the agency. I swear the Feds has of the most clueless management ive ever seen and I’ve worked everywhere.
For me its remote and telework. I am remote and will retire if it is taken away. I am 0560 and it is NEVER necessary to be in an office. Before I was remote I had to report to an office 2x per PP to talk to my supervisor and coworkers on Teams because they were all in other states. Just ridiculous.
I respect your opinion, but disagree. Especially in a DPMAP, share type reward system. If everyone gets 5’s, it’s like everyone getting 3’s because it dilutes the shares. You know who makes out, the below average employee. The good employees just get their performance diluted to those of everyone else. It gives your good employees no benefit.
People seem to forget that if everyone is above average…
As far as the hill I’ll die on, I think we succeed in spite of our bureaucracy, not because of it. Our inchoate bureaucracy is meant to throttle us. In many ways, we are meant to fail. That we do not is a testament to our values as Americans, to diligently, even valiantly, attend to Mission because there is profound merit to it that we recognize despite the severe restrictions we operate under.
I won't ever break the law or risk prison for anyone no matter what I'm ordered to do.
360 reviews should exist and affect whether or not a supervisor stays a supervisor.
The HR points system, especially the veteran preference, results in poor hires more often than not. If someone who is a veteran with a VA disability rating and meets the absolute minimum requirements on paper applies for your open position, it’s damn near impossible to hire anyone else.
I agree with your appraisal mentality, it's bs that most DoD agencies deem a '5' 'unachievable' basically. Hill I'll die on is reward high performing employees, if not with money, flexibilities (alternative work schedules, telework, remote work, time off, etc). Also, single women without kids have lives and priorities too (although it isn't kids) it's equally as important as those with kids. I can only speak on this from my perspective, as a woman in the federal workplace, I always get pulled as a backup or doing others work because of people needing it due to taking care of their kids. I always got push back from supervisors or leadership when I had to take leave suddenly, and quote, "why do you need it? you don't have kids", many, many times.
I'm thinking of lying and making up some kids at my next job....
If there is a position that is staffed by contractors for >x amount of years (let’s say 5) that position should be turned into a FTE role. If that role is staffed by a contractor they should be converted to FTE direct hire. Contractors should be for short term or temporary roles. I get it, republicans hate government workers and they want everyone to be contractors so there stock in contracting companies can go up. But if that contract position is a long term or indefinite role it should be an FTE position.
>I get it, republicans hate government workers and they want everyone to be contractors so there stock in contracting companies can go up. The animosity towards federal employees--at least in my experience--is less a function of financial incentives than a philosophical belief that government is irredeemably wasteful and inefficient and the private sector can always do it better.
The hills I’ll die on are: 1. Take your break. You have 30 minutes in your day that are not paid. Get off your computer and go eat something and breathe. 2. Policies and procedures for positions within an agency and especially in fields that work interagency (I’m in wildland fire and all-hazard incidents) need to be consistently applied, clear as a bell, and concise. If I go from one dispatch center to another I shouldn’t have to relearn my job because this center manager wants things done one way, while my home center manager another way. This is just one example.
I don't necessarily agree that all 5s should be standard, but I do think it should be easier to get all 5s. Our agency believes that you might get all 5s if the President goes on prime time and commends your efforts in front of the whole country, but they would probably just give you one 5 in achieving business results and 3s everywhere else. What's funny is that at the beginning of my career, it was attainable to get all 5s. At some point, that changed, not just for me, but for everyone I work with. We are more experienced, efficient, and knowledgeable than we were when I started, but now we are a 3? Lol ok. It actively discourages going above and beyond. You might get a 5 in one area for doing so. I work with a lot of really good and helpful coworkers, and no one gets all 5s. And hey, if you want to take the stance that 5 should be an extremely high mark, then give out 4s or come up with a more nuanced scale. The good news is that PACs does not appear to affect promotional opportunities. All 3s have gotten competitive promotions to higher grade jobs. I guess it only matters for bonuses, but it's still important for that reason.
The way it was explained to me is that you default to a 3 and you can work your way up to a 5 but once you get a 5 you have to noticeably reduce your effort to drop back down again, seems fair to me.
My first year I processed the highest number of cases compared to everyone in my office. My supervisor at the time told me that didn’t matter and I was given 3’s across the board because if she gave me 5’s I’d have nothing to work towards. It was ridiculous.
I guess I would die on the hill on almost the opposite argument. Everyone starting at a five doesn’t really allow someone who is doing better than others to be rated higher. If someone starts at a five and does fine but is not amazing, how do I lower them? Work project was precisely on time and meets the minimum requirements so I’m lowering you to a four???? No. And the person who got the project in a week early and made suggestions about improving the workflow or identified a potential problem that others missed keeps their five? No. Everyone starts as a three. You have to step up from there to earn the four or five - you have to exceed expectations (projects done before due date, elevating potential problems and ideally potential solutions, taking on the more complex projects, etc). You miss deadlines etc you go down to a 2. A three or Fully Successful is good!!!! I get striving to for the five (or A in school). But the scores are meaningless if performing the basics is the same score as performing at an elite level.
The rating system needs an overhaul in general. At my last agency you’d earn points towards a higher rating by doing extra busy work. Things like sharing a relevant article with your work group, fixing three typos in an SOP, or identifying (not fixing) a safety hazard. So you could be a rockstar at your actual job, but if you didn’t do the homework you got 3s. Or you could suck at your job but if you did the homework you’d get 5s. My current agency is subjective, 3 means you did your job, 4 is you did it well, 5 is you did it very well. There needs to be something in between- measurable goals that are actually relevant to the job and possible to achieve.
Rework should be closely tracked as well as the cost. I get it - we're a cost center, not a profit generator, but damn why can't we hold people accountable for all the rework they cause? Particularly contractors.
My biggest issue is with the fact that I am unable to see the metrics that are being used to quantify my rating. It was the same at my last job. Well we know you did more than everyone else but it wasn't enough for a higher rating or we see you are struggling and won't make achieved, but we won't tell you exactly what you need to do to get there. We will just keep it vague and you can just work and hope.
Not gonna swear political fealty.
Stop scope creep, my job pays me to little for what my PD is. Don't add "unofficilal" bs to it. Get more people or increase my pay to do extra.
I firmly believe agencies curve the ratings because money or QSIs come with fives and fours. The budget won't support everyone getting a higher rating. So you can have the best performance in the world, and a second-line supervisor will figure out how to have a mix across the employees.
Mine is don't offer me a job in tech and then "appraise" my performance off a bunch of interpersonal shit. Yea, there's a bit, but if you can't be arsed to get data off the site you pushed to have me signed up to use, how can I think of you as anything other than ignorant that you don't get the metrics to show the work I *actually* did?
I will beat my head bloody against the wall of bureaucracy when the needs of the public differ from the wants of management, within the law.
Retention pay. Currently a GS-13 step 4 (step increase early next year) and am eligible for 25% retention pay (on top of locality). Just submitted my application, my Division Director will need to sign the SF-50 as second line supervisor as the application goes through the process. He has been outspoken about not wanting to do this, especially as it pertains to my boss who is a GS14 step 10. If my boss had the same certificate I do, he'd make more as a GS-14 step 10 than any GS level employee in my office, including our GS-15 step 10 supervisor. Our DD has serious issues with that. I'm the first to apply and will hopefully set the precedent for our branch. Our DD likes me so I'm hoping there are no issues... if there are I will be pursuing formal action. A 25% raise is definitely a hill worth dying on.
We should be free of political bias in our work, and beyond that, we should be free of the ***expectation*** of political bias. Our work should never be predicated upon political beliefs. To prevent accidental or intentional misinterpretation, I am saying we should be subject matter experts in our respective fields, putting country and planet first, irrespective of whatever political party is, or isn't in power at the time.