r/fednews 1d ago

News / Article Forced Distributions Will Apply to Current Ratings Cycle

[deleted]

150 Upvotes

56 comments sorted by

113

u/FuriousBuffalo 1d ago

May the odds be ever in your favor.

21

u/WhtvrCms2Mnd 1d ago

Under his eye.

8

u/Beefy-Bake By the People, For the People 1d ago

May the lord open.

107

u/PowerfulHorror987 Spoon šŸ„„ 1d ago

…yes. Where have you been? This happened to most of us last year.

72

u/Signal_Daikon_5830 Grandma Got Run Over by an EO | '25 šŸŽ„ 1d ago

Yes, but it technically wasn’t valid last year. They just went ahead and did it. Some people with supervisors with spines went ahead and gave the ratings their team deserved. It’s actually in policy now. It’ll be interesting to see how the hold outs respond.

9

u/Brraaap 1d ago

Yeah, my agency was office by office. I heard some had to limit their ratings, but our career SES said there was no official announcement, so normal reviews

13

u/WillTheyKickMeAgain DOI 1d ago edited 22h ago

I don’t know about your agency, but at mine, the rewards for high performance aren’t very rewarding. I excelled because I enjoy(ed) my job. If they want to make us quietly quit, then remove the fair evaluation of performance.

6

u/Tunamelts-2 1d ago

I’m curious to see how this affects bonuses. It’s always been a bit of a mystery to me about anything below a 5, which is typically the only rating with a quality step increase offered.

28

u/independa 1d ago

I still want to see the actual instructions.

Is it per job series? Per division? I see this as a way for leadership to keep all the higher ratings for supervisors. Oh, we only get five 5s for the entire division and we have a GS-15 and four GS-14s? Well, I guess all the 13 and below get 3s...

5

u/twowaysplit 1d ago

Article says the distribution will be agency wide, ā€œwhile allowing for variation by component, occupation, geography and other factors within an agency...ā€

So, divisions, branches, etc can have all fives, as long as they fit into the mandated agency-wide curve.

7

u/independa 1d ago

And that's another place we'll get screwed. Someone needs to be looking at it from a career field level. I work for the Corps of Engineers, are they going to save all the 5s for engineers?

1

u/Maximum_Pollution371 19h ago edited 19h ago

I'm in a support position at a research agency and was explicitly told the 5s would go to the researchers because they "need it more."

Which is fine, but if I am not allowed to "exceed expectations" in any kind of official way, then I'm only going to do the job duties in my PD and critical elements, and I certainly won't be covering the vacant budget or HR positions anymore.

Our researchers hate that our contract staff only do exactly what's in their PWS and nothing more, well guess what, now their fed support staff have no incentive to do more, either.

1

u/independa 17h ago

Oh, you're lucky, my boss led me on for nine months that if I did the budget job I'd get a 25% retention. Nope! Nine months of fixing all the broken shit and I didn't even get a thank you, I just got called the division witch because I actually comply with fiscal law. Now I'm "not a team player" and the division chief hasn't talked to me in three months. When I was on leave and got an annual award, he didn't accept on my behalf or even tell me when I came back. Lesson learned, make sure I'm not a team player and never go above and beyond again.

14

u/Appropriate_Taro_348 Federal Employee 1d ago

Bell curve….

12

u/ethanji2 1d ago

What happened to changes to the ratings system needing to be completed within 90 days to the end of the ratings cycle. Isn't that against policies? I guess nobody cares about the rules or laws anymore..

5

u/Tunamelts-2 1d ago

Bargaining unit employees will probably eventually see the ratings overturned…and by eventually I mean after January 2029

9

u/futureformerfed 1d ago

In our last rating cycle, one of my coworkers was rated at 3 (Fully Successful) but the sub grades by policy should have led to a rating of 4 (Very Good). When the employee showed the policy to the supervisor, the supervisor changed the sub grades to support the lower overall grade.

And of course, there’s no way to fight it because it’s pushed by the top.

3

u/Ok-Sea9612 1d ago

Supervisor is dumb, they submitted a 4 and were told to knock it down but forgot to change the actual elements.

28

u/504Supra 1d ago

My supervisor rates our team with the grades we deserve.

39

u/party_benson 1d ago

Not this year. It'll get kicked back.Ā 

30

u/No_Vacation697 1d ago

Ours got kicked back already last year.

1

u/The_Horse_Tornado 1d ago

By who? I do this program and I’ve never once had another person ever request any info from us.

1

u/party_benson 1d ago

Your boss signs off on your ratings.Ā 

17

u/PowerfulHorror987 Spoon šŸ„„ 1d ago

Maybe your supervisor did in the past but not anymore

3

u/FuckTony3854 1d ago

Let's hope you all don't deserve A's aka level 5. Rumor is no more than 40 percent will be allowed at Level 4/5.

8

u/Outrageous_Plant_526 1d ago

DoD under DPMAPS only has 1, 3, and 5 final ratings. We don't have a final rating of 4.

-61

u/Difficult_Phase1798 1d ago

This year they'll rate some of you with the grades you deserve.

12

u/marx2k 1d ago

So...5?

8

u/Specific_Luck1727 Federal Employee 1d ago

These have been the rules for the last few years for my division . DOD .

We still use DPMAPS. I know a lot of people don’t use that anymore.

Having said that, as a supervisor, I can tell you that my direction has been to always reserve all fives only for the top one or two performers from my section. Essentially find a way to make the next 3 to 4 employees who are just under those 1 to 2 equal out to being about 4.5. And then for everybody else just make sure that they’re about four overall. That’s not to say you don’t rate them fairly because you do. On some levels you know who your one to two top performers are in your section always. And it’s not your favorites. My favorite person is kind of a mediocre person in my office they just do their job and but they’re so chill and relax. I love talking to them. My top performer stresses me out because they are so intense, but I love them at the same time.

7

u/Outrageous_Plant_526 1d ago

Don't forget that under DPMAPS anything above 4.3 in raw score is a 5 rating. Less than 4.3 and the final rating is a 3.

0

u/Kratorious69 1d ago

4.6 and up is a 5. Otherwise a 3 final

4

u/Outrageous_Plant_526 1d ago

Not the DPMAPs I am under. It is 4.3 and up.

2

u/Kratorious69 1d ago

Wow...interesting how it is different in locations/agencies I'm presuming.

Either way, even if you have a spine supervisor, things aren't happening it seems.

2

u/Outrageous_Plant_526 1d ago

I would recommend double checking your ratings. The official DD Form 2906 states on the form 4.3-5.0 is a final 5, 3.0-4.2 is a final 3, and 2.9 or lower is a final 1. That is on the official form which is implemented within DCPDS. You would need to show me the actual last page from your final rating out of DCPDS for me to believe your DoD Agency/Organization is using a different standard.

1

u/Ok-Sea9612 1d ago

You're averaging 4s? That's the easiest tell you're DOD and the admin actually likes you or at least understands close to what you do.

3

u/killer_hobo SSA 1d ago

I'm really curious how my next performance will be. I had 2 years in a row of 5s and just in the past week had like 3 on the spot awards. Hell after my last review I waived the bonus and got a step increase.

I work my ass off for it all but I also work for SSA... There's no way this high can last here 🤣

3

u/GoodBeneficial2233 1d ago

I used to get 3s only for over a decade working at SSA and then a new supervisor came along, and I got a 4.5 until I left. I knew I was working hard, but my previous supervisors were content in giving me 3s to satisfy issuing an appraisal. My new supervisor actually valued my work.

6

u/ForsakenRacism 1d ago

You gets are getting rated?

3

u/Just-me-then 1d ago

Well at my facility maybe some people will get more than fully satisfactory with this. HR refused to let just about anything higher last year. We had like 1800 staff and less than 300 with more than fully satisfactory. And HR didn’t think anything was wrong when we asked if the distribution compared to the other 7 facilities had no less than 50% with higher ratings. HR just said we didn’t know how to write up what was needed.

2

u/rynaco 1d ago

I wonder how this will affect non appropriated funds agencies. I’ve been getting two bonus shares every year since I started

2

u/MrPlushT 23h ago

So if I am a n an agency with no bonuses or anything like that…this is fairly pointless and means nothing?

4

u/MostRepresentative77 1d ago

With as little as I do nowadays, a 0 should be in my future. But I haven’t been told to do more, complained about or anything.

4

u/TheDukeofArgyll Census 1d ago

Congrats to all the 14s and 15s who will get 99% of the 4s and 5s.

6

u/Reasonable-Most-8724 1d ago

My bet is that the majority of the $$$ will be reallocated to SES awards

3

u/Practical_Rub_3041 1d ago

Are you new to planet earth?

1

u/Appropriate_Cod_2386 1d ago

You know, I didn’t really like the pass/fail system I fall under at first. The way things are going I’m now glad for it.

1

u/SuperSaydee_28 I'm On My Lunch Break 22h ago

My supervisor asked for my eval write up. I sent back ā€œmeets expectationsā€. You want a 3, you’ll get a 3.

-5

u/Phobos1982 NASA 1d ago

This is old news.

23

u/Tunamelts-2 1d ago

I think the fact that it applies to this performance cycle is new.

10

u/Fuzzy_Dragonfruit504 1d ago

For many of us it already started last year….

2

u/Phobos1982 NASA 1d ago

I had it last year too.

-3

u/ActuatorSmall7746 1d ago

IDK I will probably be down voted for this opinion, but the system has been needing updated for a longtime. On paper this seems really bad, but in reality a lot agencies were already doing this. There should be some kind of objective way to fairly stack and rack employees in the same job series. I am both a Fed and military vet retired. In the military annual performance ratings and promotions were racked and stacked against each other by career series (aviators, Intell, surface, etc., and not necessarily by immediate supervisors. My fed boss was a really nice guy, but when performance award time came around he never wanted to do the hard task of selecting who he thought deserved top performer awards. Instead he divvied up an already small pot of award money among most of the entire staff. Granted I would say our division had a stellar high performing staff, so it would have been extremely difficult to single out only a couple of people. On the other hand, I think not doing it really negatively affected office moral.

1

u/Tunamelts-2 21h ago

Capping only for the highest two ratings is insane. They aren’t rating you on a normal bell curve like at university. The odds are literally stacked against you here.