 |
Articles recently moved to topics
|
Are ratings more meaningful and justified this year? After all the hype this year, is it another let down? Business as usual, same old stuff, right?
| Let's talk about PMAPs | Log-in or register a new user account | 16 Comments |
|
| Comments are statements made by the person who posted them.
They do not necessarily represent the opinions of the site editor. |
Re: Let's talk about PMAPs
(Score: 1, Interesting)
by Anonymous on Feb 20, 2009 - 04:49 PM
|
|
Mine is justified...guess what it is?
|
Re: Let's talk about PMAPs
(Score: 1, Interesting)
by Anonymous on Feb 20, 2009 - 06:01 PM
|
For the same reasons that were discussed on CDC Chatter last year at this time, the rating instrument is structrured to the disadvantage of an empoyee. Among its flaws:
* There are no weights on the separate rating categories. Each category receives equal weight regardless of the distribution of an employee's work responsibilities.
* The summary rating is stilted against a democratic result. Example: On a PMAP with 6 rating categories, 4 exceptional ratings + 2 fully successful ratings = fully successful overall.
* Some categories are forced into some PMAPs whether or not an employee performs the coresponding functions. Example: An employee works in a technical area and is forced to have "administration" included as a rating category. At the same time, the employee cannot obtain anything higher than fully successful because he/she does not do much administrative work. Ever read Kafka?
|
Re: Let's talk about PMAPs
(Score: 1)
by syphilologist on Feb 20, 2009 - 09:41 PM
(User information
|
If there were no bonuses associated with the PMAP, would we be discussing it? No.
Let's change the title of the topic to: "I Didn't Get A Bonus", and start over.
|
Re: Let's talk about PMAPs
(Score: 1, Interesting)
by Anonymous on Feb 21, 2009 - 10:15 PM
|
There was a piece on NPR recently about how some businesses/institutions are moving away from static, formal, prescribed annual performance evaluations for all the myriad of reasons, limitations, and flaws that have been discussed over and over again here on this blog and elsewhere. Many believe that less formal, continuous feedback is much more helpful to the employee and institution. Duh. One of those things your grandmother could tell you but PhDs in human relations take 50 years to learn.
Given that I can't imagine that government will ever allow itself to do anything that is flexible and useful with evaluations, I hope that we eventually go to 360 degree evaluations. It's the only formal mechanism that has any hope of fairness and usefulness because all are held accountable from all directions. The trick is that the 360 degree evaluations have to be reviewed at least one level above the supervisor so that feedback from employees and peers doesn't get buried there.
|
Re: Let's talk about PMAPs
(Score: 1, Interesting)
by Anonymous on Feb 22, 2009 - 01:14 AM
|
|
I am not even on a PMAP myself. But I think a lot of the bureaucratic requirements actually come from HHS, not from CDC. Unfortunately this is one of the factors that make the plan very distant from what the employee actually does. This makes it easy for management to just give whatever rating they feel like and practice any kind of favoritism they like, since when the plan doesn't match your duties, everything becomes pretty arbitrary. Unfortunately this also seems to be done differently in different divisions and in different centers, so one center may end up with a lot more excellent ratings than another just depending on how that center did its appraisals, not because the employees in that center are so much better than another.
|
how do you rate someone who has worked for less than 90 days?
(Score: 1, Interesting)
by Anonymous on Mar 10, 2009 - 06:31 PM
|
Apparently the rule says you can, but common sense does not. Below what we got for a brand new person:
Extending the Appraisal Period
The rating period will be extended if the employee has performed for more than 45 days, but less than 90 days, under a plan (i.e., one-half the minimum appraisal cycle) prior to the end of the appraisal cycle. For example, if a performance plan is established for an employee on November 1, there would be more than 45 days left in the appraisal cycle, which ends on December 31. In this case, the appraisal period would be extended until January 31, to allow for a full 90-day period on which to base the appraisal.
The rating period will not be extended if the employee has performed less than 45 days under a plan (i.e., one-half the minimum appraisal cycle) prior to the end of the appraisal cycle. For example, if a performance plan is established for an employee after November 15, there would be less than 45 days prior to the end of the appraisal cycle, December 31. In this case, the employee would not receive a rating for that cycle.
|
|
CDC Chatter
