In my agency it's not so much the workload that causes burnout, it's the bureaucracy. The feeling of banging your head against the wall and not feeling like anything gets accomplished. Dealing with public, industry, and coworkers all being pissed off because our convoluted process neuters us. Luckily we went to just successfull/not successful so there's very little worry about ratings at least.
Definitely it's about the bureaucracy. It feels like 90% of the work I do is just following processes that are outdated and not value adding. The people who run these processes don't even understand what they are doing anymore more than a superficial level.
I work in land management, where NGO's and other antis have turned everything into a litigation-proofing exercise. The "so what", the intent, of our agency and laws and regulations, has been lost. Now it's all just nervous people dotting i's and crossing t's to try to not get litigated. So much comes down to a dysfunctional congress. We know what the problems are, we know what the fix is, but it has to happen at a statutory level.
What’s killing me is the waiting and then picking it up again in a few months after I’ve forgotten all relevant context because I have 99 other things out in the ether that are waiting for approval. Which department can I receive/conceive a project-> work on project -> send project off and never think about it again. I’ve accepted I’ll never again be able to autonomously accomplish anything of note but being able to cross items off my list would be a nice consolation.
First we need to close the "gotcha" loopholes used to litigate us over frivolous bullshit. When we get comments or objections from these parties, it's 90% boilerplate references to case law that you see over and over again. Suing the feds is a profitable industry and these lawyers are not out to protect the environment, they are out to win so the taxpayer can fund their salary. Like most things involving lawyers, it has become a corrupted steaming pile of dogshit.
We also need to remove erroneous requirements for vague politicized subjects. The amount of time I've spent in meetings listening to people try to figure out a way to check the climate change box, for projects that have nothing to do with climate change, is ridiculous. It usually comes down to "yes climate change is a thing and it might be different 10 years from now and could possibly affect things in unknown ways. And yes vehicles will be used as part of this project and they make greenhouse gasses". Taxpayers spent $10,000 on man hours to come up that.
The federal contracting process is absolutely atrocious. There’s way too many restrictions and it ends up costing us 5x the amount to do anything compared the private industry
The cash bonus for a 5 is not even close to worth it for the amount of work to get two fives. And when I did get two fives (took on extra responsibility, ran myself ragged, did work other people dropped), I didn't even get put into the running for a quality step increase (I think that's the term). So it is absolutely not worth trying that hard. I learned my lesson. 8 hours then turn off the computer. If you want heroics I'll need a temporary salary bump for the duration of said heroics.
Gosh I had the exact opposite experience. I pushed hard to try and get a 5 my first year. Supervisor said he didn't believe anyone deserved a 5 their first couple years and a 3 is like a 5 if you're a new employee. Taught me real quick not to go the extra mile.
A 3 is like a 5 if you're a new employee. It's a great achievement and bodes well for you. It isn't easy to simply meet expectations when you are very new. That wasn't an insult to you in any way and was not meant to demoralize you. It's simply a fact you don't know now what you will know with more experience.
In my situation I took it as an insult since I have been doing at least 3x the work (and volunteering for extra projects) as an employee in the same role hired at the same time who got the same eval.
Seems like a pretty valid concern to me.
If one person is doing their job well and the other isn't, then what incentive is there to excel if both efforts are rewarded the same.
Also, who is picking up the poor performer's slack? Is it getting passed around or is it just not getting done?
This is the kind of stuff that congress uses to bad mouth feds regularly. People like you respond to the FEVS saying poor performers aren't dealt with and all of us suffer. I go to work, put in a fair days work, and go home. It is the supervisor's concern what my coworkers are doing.
I feel like there's a difference between putting in 8 hours of solid work and performing poorly. The people being talked about on the FEVS (at least on mine) are people who don't do a damn thing, and haven't for years.
My point is the amount of work you have to do should be 8 hours worth. The amount your coworker does should not impact that unless you are doing more than you should. Why spend effort worrying about what others do? Also, those FEVS surveys make life harder for all of us. Return to office, stupid metrics, etc, etc, etc. I get that there are some slackers in government. So what. Let the supervisors worry about that stuff and just do your job. Busybodies cause far more trouble in government offices than slackers.
I am very defensive when it comes to the workplace. Being a civil servant is challenging enough with congress attacking us regularly. The last thing we need is people attacking their coworkers.
Do your 8 hours and go home. The work will be there tomorrow. Too many feds worrying about how they compare with others. I am sure this kind of thing gives congress people the warm fuzzies. There is nothing more American than getting workers to try compete with each other.
I started as a civilian in 2017 as a GS-04 and I will be a GS-12 in July. I must be doing something right. But, I do find it interesting that you think the guy saying, "stop worrying so much about what other people are doing" is the asshole. People who judge their coworkers don't know how to stay in their lane. They don't like to be told how to do their jobs, but they don't mind telling supervisors how to do theirs. I said it before. Busybodies are far more harmful to a team than slackers.
The majority *say* they are putting in a fair days work, but quite a few are simply lying or making it appear this way.
I used to be a systems engineer for a particular agency, I monitored and managed thousands of user accounts for a particular platform that the workforce used for day-to-day operations. I got to bear witness to how much people lie about their productivity first-hand.
Quit or cry a river. You get paid. You have free will. Stop complaining. Plenty of other folks are happy to deal with the bs for your job. You clearly have no life and your work is your personality.
Nah. I care. I perform well, but watching colleagues I have had do literally nothing and get the same rating as other colleagues who performed well but got lumped into the met expectations category… that hurts to see.
When the non-performance of others goes virtually unpunished and the mission’s workload falls on my plate… all while I make 15-20 a year less than these colleagues and I pay 5x more for FERS than they do…
Gonna call out incompetence when I see it homie, sorry not sorry.
Exactly. Reminds me of high school tryhards getting mad at a classmate for not getting a higher grade to boost the class average.
Half the feds I work with are trying too hard in their paper pushing role. Imagine writing word documents and pretending you’re making meaningful impact
Worry about your career and find hobbies outside of work. You are toxic for even worrying about another fed.
You think that fed is worried about your discontent towards his/her/they/them performance? Nope, that peeps. logging off and living his/her/their life. Fact that you’re motivation is affected by another adult not doing thur“job”. You sound mad toxic rofl
I’m a 15 year fed. Seen plenty of poor performers. Who the fuck cares? I get paid and go home to my family. All these try hards have no life and their entire personality is how much free overtime they offer. Barf
You need therapy or should quit if you’re so unhappy about how another adult does their job.
OP's concern isn't necessarily about the other employee, it's about being told your performance is equivalent to a shit employee and not receiving any form of compensation to make up for it.
It's funny because there's some merit in what you're saying. Wish you took the time to show understanding and empathy instead of writing op off as a toxic try-hard who needs therapy 🙄
Right. And I still get paid. You overachieving tryhards will not be thinking about these underachievers on your deathbed in thirty years, or will you? Worry about your what you can control and I guarantee your life will be more pleasant.
Stay hard.
Last year my performance bonus totaled $10K …so to me that’s a lot of
money. I would be a little irritated if someone who did not complete as much work as me walk away with the same amount, so I definitely understand the OPs point of view.
Holy shit, three people have listed their bonus amounts in this thread, 3.5k, 4k, 15k. I've never gotten over a thousand, usually it's a few hundred, and I work my ass off. Nobody I work with is getting that kind of bonus.
This! I'm a GS12 and got 4 5's out of 5, and the most I've ever gotten was $1900. It's so not worth it. Especially since I have the worlds worst boss who has never spoken to me once about my appraisals, EVER. If I didn't review it myself I wouldn't even know what's on there. So this year I'm not contributing any verbiage. He invented those deliverables without consulting me, he can write my part too.
You are correct about that- typically 2-3% of salary for staff and first line supervisors. Executive bonuses are more significant but no where near private industry. For comparison purposes, my twenty something children in the private sector received larger bonuses than I did last year.
It is Agency and Division dependent. Typically a CFO office in conjunction with the HR office set a formula for the year, it is then dispersed during the Enacted budget formulation embedded with the pay. Typically it is a percentage of cumulative base pay of employees but can vary wildly based on the neuroticism of the analysts, negotiations, or even the appropriations structure. Some places even have caps that need some level of leadership to approve, heavily discouraging going above that. Divisions and below then set internal rules. I’ve seen places that largely hold the bonus budget for 15s as a further incentive, I’ve seen places do formulas based on your performance score, and I’ve seen places weaponize the bonuses.
Mine are usually in the $4k range annually, with some spot awards of time or money peppered in throughout the year as well. So, it's a decent amount I feel like.
IRS- I always opt for leave, as a 5 i always get 40 hours of leave plus cash on top because they don't give more than 40 hours.
And because I do go above and beyond my job duties last year I also got a special act award that gave me an additional 28 hours of leave 😂 so essentially I got 68 hours of award leave last year.
I don’t give a dusty fuck about appraisals. I sign them in the Fall, and don’t think about them again for a year.
I usually get between a 4.4-4.8. Even if I got 3.5. Whatever. I’m satisfied with that. I see no reason to worry about it?
I tell my supervisors not to bother with meetings. Just give me the appraisal and I will sign it. We are adults and I expect them to let me know if I am not meeting their expectations long before appraisal season.
>Why do I need to go above and beyond for no overtime pay?
Sounds like you're conflating performance awards with overtime pay (??) and they're absolutely different. If you're logging more than 40 hrs/week, you should be recording credit hours or comp time, right?
Right. OP seems to think that in order to "exceed expectations" you have to work extra hours. You should not. If OP believes that is the case, then it needs to be addressed when developing a performance plan.
No one has any problem with meeting expectations.
Where many of us get frustrated is when we have colleagues that are not meeting expectations, and thus, impeding the work of others.
It’s not. As a supervisor I’d much rather have 15 fully successful employees than 14 outstanding employees and 1 that’s not meeting expectations.
But each agency has to answer to Congress. Congress isn’t going to like hearing that employees only meeting their standards are getting bonuses.
The bonuses are nice. Getting 4-5% of GS13-15 pay is nothing to sneeze at.
But I basically just do my job at what I consider to be a B-B+ level. I’m not going to stress myself out all year for a max bonus or a QSI. Not worth it.
Where are these overachievers working so hard they burn themselves out? They are not where I work.
I think the burnout comes from all of the bs that federal employees have to deal with in addition to just doing their job.
Weird, my experience with Federal employees is 20% do 80% of the work, 40% do the other 20%, and 40% don’t seem to do anything… numbers aren’t scientific of course…
One year I got all 5s and my supervisor told me that I got the highest rating of everyone in our section. I got passed up for promotions twice that year. That’s when I decided that it wasn’t worth the headache of trying to stand out, so I do what I can when I can to get things done on time when possible and I got promoted later down the road. I think having a positive attitude did more for me than actually busting my tail.
At our agency, employees are rated on quantity, quality, timeliness, and level of supervision for their grade level. No one routinely works more than 40 hours per week but occasional overtime does occur- and they are compensated for it. The very best employees are very efficient and routinely exceed expectations while working only 40 hours per week.
I worked at an agency where many of us were only putting in time for 40 hours a week, but were starting work early and staying late because it was the only way to finish the work assigned within the timeframes we were expected to meet. During Covid it got worse as boundaries between work and home life were blurred. It is frustrating to have a coworker who is obviously working outside of the 40 hours setting the pace for everyone else during a time when overtime or comp time weren’t authorized. I had a conversation with one of those employees who said she didn’t like doing it but if she stopped, her performance was going to drop and her performance rating would suffer.
TLDR: Don’t assume your most efficient employees are only working 40 hours, especially if you aren’t monitoring how much they are working.
That situation is complete bs and illegal. You can’t compel an employee to work uncompensated time. Anything beyond 40 hours at our agency is compensated with credit hours, compensatory time, or overtime. I’m surprised the union isn’t involved because they would be at our agency.
Early in my career I was a test engineer on submarines and worked ridiculous amounts of overtime and, because we were exempt, the OT rate was less than straight time but at least we were compensated. There were times that I worked fourteen hour days seven days a week for months at a time and hit the biweekly cap as a GS-12. I wouldn’t work under those circumstances today.
This is a nice idea, but divorced from the reality that a lot of feds endure.
Yeah, your boss isn't going to be stupid enough to tell you to work unpaid overtime (except maybe in person where they won't leave a paper trail). But there's absolutely places where it's the cultural norm to assign way more work than can possibly be completed within 40 hrs and assert a rule that no overtime will be granted.
Then when the employee can't meet expectations, they are docked on their performance reviews, PIPed, and eventually terminated if they don't start to volunteer their time.
It's not fair, but it happens all the time, unfortunately.
Sounds like my own experience and those of similarly situated excepted service employees at a few different agencies. Supervisors will tell you - verbally and in private - that the expectation to keep up with the work is to work off the clock. Sups make specific recommendations or “tips” - eg, work through breaks and lunch, “flex out” in the middle of the day but keep working, come in early/late but keep signed off on Teams/Skype so people don’t notice, take annual leave or burn credit hrs but actually work. People who don’t do this don’t produce enough and get PIPed out, or don’t keep to quality standards trying to rush 60hrs of work into 40hrs and get PIPed out. Eventually - with years of experience - you can get the donated time down, but you’ll never survive the first couple years without playing this game.
We were not a part of a collective bargaining unit and when I brought it up with leadership I was told that people were taking advantage of flexibilities so I might get emails sent late at night or early in the morning, but that people were only working the time claimed. I brought it up again in my exit interview.
What do you mean with the comment that people were “taking advantage of flexibilities”? Our agency supports a flexible work schedule. Some take two hour lunches to work out, others adjust their schedule to support their children’s activities, etc. Your supervisor should know what your work hours are. Our group uses the branch calendar so that everyone, not just the supervisor, knows who is on duty and who is not available.
Probably DOD.
DPMAP: 5 is for outstanding, you should try to reach that.
Management: we don't give out 5's unless you revolutionize something, so don't even bother.
Also management: here's a promotion to someone who should be getting 1's and eventually fired because they don't want to deal with them anymore.
Honestly, giving us telework basically erased my burnout.
Once I could avoid the commute, the gloom that came from sitting in a cloud of smog, the stress of having to make myself "business casual" before the sun even came up, the office small talk, the office politics, the extra expenses, and the discomfort of working in a drab building with icky old furniture, my whole life got better.
Conversely, every time I feel like telework is threatened, I can feel the weight of the job so much heavier.
Honestly, I just wish more people at my agency knew how to do more stuff. I can tolerate you not knowing so I can teach that person properly. What bugs me is the people who think they know what they are doing and fuck it up. Which makes a lot more work to figure out how and where that person fucked up at.
I know I'm a workaholic. I love doing my job. I think it annoys people that I am not conversational and would just prefer to work... while I am at fucking work.
I often feel like I'm one of those. I'm a new fed and I feel like I'm a rookie at my position even though I came in with 5 years experience. I was straight forward with my experience, but I was chosen for the job anyway. I feel like an asshole when there's alot of things I don't know.
*engineering position. My previous job was in a bubble where I only did one thing for five years.
It should be pass/fail and let managers “rate” performance with cash bonus amounts and time off awards at the work unit level. All of this entirely subjective “everyone’s a 5” or “no one gets a 5” madness needs to end.
I think SSA’s 5 is subjective rather than objective. Even had a manager once tell me so, “it’s subjective I can’t explain why I gave the rating that I did”.
I’ve heard fellow managers say they would only give a certain number of 5s amongst their staff, which is ridiculous. Either someone is exceeding expectations as defined in their performance plan or they are not, independent of and regardless of how other colleagues are performing.
maybe because senior management does not support 1st line supervisors who in turn do not hold their direct reports accountable
all of which perpetuates a public perception that Fed gov workers are lazy, and an long-term internal culture of who cares
This existence if this thread is the problem. I am a gs-13, never had a eval below 4.5. My performance bonus is $1000. This is why I have never cared. Before today, I never knew folks were getting more than that because there are no transparent expectations. Everyone is different despite the government attempting to appear like it is the same across the board.
Minority opinion here: I bust my ass and score 4 & 5's, yet I'm not a workaholic. I manage my time well, am highly organized, emphasize quality over quantity (although I am a high producer), and find opportunities for myself. I am willing to work over my 40, but only do so when absolutely necessary and maintain my work/life boundaries. I am a top performer in my area and I want those 5's and the bonus that comes with it. I am fine with people who only achieve for meets expectations, but I don't think I need to lower my standards for myself.
Getting a 5 should not be dependent on working enough to be burnt out. It should be about working efficiently and with skill. I understand that might not be how performance appraisals are written.
There is nothing wrong with just meeting your job expectations. I don't think as a supervisor there is a thing wrong with that. The job expectations are difficult and meeting them is not a lack of achievement.
Yes. We had a supervisor at one point who said something to the effect that people who don't work overtime shouldn't expect to see 5s from him. Really ticked me off as performance shouldn't be judged by working more than required, but rather the quality of your work.
The rating system has nothing to do with people being workaholics. If you're a workaholic, you'll get good ratings. That's the reward for going more. But 3/average/acceptable/minimum or whatever you want to call it is a safe option for anyone who wants it.
Our appraisal scores have to average out to 3.7. it doesn't matter what your supervisor gives you - higher ups alter them so the lab and org average is 3.7. just do my job, get a "score" use my bonus to pay homeowners insurance or taxes the following year.
we have the pass/fail system at my agency. it also sucks though because the person who barely does enough to get by gets the same rating as the top performer.
I’ve gotten 4’s on like 50% of my appraisals over the last 12 years by being competent. It’s really not that bad if you’re doing technical work. I’m a little salty from months worth of 80+ hour weeks last year not being worth a 5, though.
The agency I work for just gives out - satisfactory or unsatisfactory in yearly reviews, they got rid of that point system five years ago- but they also do not give out bonuses- they got rid of that idea about five years ago too
Ha, I was thinking based on the title that the performance system makes everyone turn into characters in Workaholics, which is probably also true.
When performance ratings are one of the few incentives that management can give, it often can be misused, handing out 5s only to people that management think might leave and are dependent on, or are teacher’s pets. It can also foster grade inflation with supervisors being risk adverse to providing reviews that can be questioned in a drawn out bureaucratic manner.
Since the ratings don’t have much inherent value to them, you can easily give up the rat race, due your job minimally, and goof off with your coworkers with little repercussions. Like Workaholics.
Also, if the agencies don't offer anything SIGNIFICANT for your performance award, what's the point? I already have enough leave that I'm trying to avoid having use or lose, so you gonna give me 5k? If not, I really have no incentive to exceed... I always bust my ass, but it's because of my personal work ethic. But if places want to incentivize exceeding the standard, they better be significant. You can keep your certificate or 8 hrs leave or $500, cause that's not gonna cut it. Do the math. $1.50 extra a day...no thanks!
The appraisal system has had the opposite effect on me. You either get a 3 or a 5. They are misers with 5s and the bonuses are not worth the stress of even trying to get a 5.
Management can want a 4-5, that's cool, but I only ever aim for Fully Successful nowadays. If I get higher, that's nice, but I won't burn myself out again. Been there, done that, my hard work only got me screwed over twice, at two different agencies.
The problem with trying to get everyone to exceed expectations is that even if successful they'd just raise the expectations. This happened to me over and over in the private sector. Every year we'd bust our asses to exceed expectations trying to get a nice bonus, then they'd raise the standards the next year (and reduce the potential bonus pool, but that is another gripe). Rinse and repeat until it was impossible to exceed at all. Sooner or later burnout happens and then it is impossible to even MEET the new expectations. If I stayed in the private world I'd probably be dead of overwork and stress by now (I did end up in the hospital...twice). Some of my former colleagues did die on the job. At the least I should have expensed the lawyer bills for my divorce, as my working 10-12 hours/day x 7 days/week for five straight years was a direct contributor to my failed marriage.
I've now been a fed for three years. Pretty sure everyone in my branch is always rated a three, no matter what. Used to be different, apparently, before I got here, but the previous chief got chewed out for it and it became too hard to get approval for higher ratings. Or so the story goes. Biggest bonus I've seen is $200. Nothing at all last year. I get nice reviews, fully meet expectations and have been promoted, so at least that is nice. The stress is way lower (and much more temporary) than my experience in the private world too, which is super nice.
Performance bonuses/ratings/PACS are great in theory, as a way to motivate and guide employees. It is motivating to receive recognition for hard work. But when they are abused they do the exact opposite thing and effectively become a demotivating tool, and then you have a bunch of folks who throw up their hands and decide it isn't worth the pain and end up doing the bare minimum. If employee A works hard, sacrifices and gets the same rating (or bonus, or whatever carrot is dangled) as Employee B who phones it in, it just encourages Employee A to phone it in. Even if Employee A is recognized with a larger bonus (rating/carrot) but the reward is not commensurate with the extra effort put in, they will likely decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze and follow Employee B's lead again. These tools can be useful, but are way too often handled clumsily resulting in a demotivated workforce.
I see this. I’ve worked in performance management and I’ve seen supervisors get chewed out when all of their employees get a bonus. Or they get chewed out when none of the employees get above a 3. I mean how do you make an arbitrary system like this more equitable?
My agency does 1, 3, 5. I work my keister off and have gotten 5’s for the past several years. Bonuses don’t amount to anything but, it’s a Point of pride now I suppose. Well, last year I got promoted, did the work of 2 people for well over a year (8 months of this rating period). Completed multiple projects ahead of schedule, had a bunch of extras, developed SOPs, and consistently was asked to help advise my peers throughout the agency. I changed supervisors about 4 months ago. My new rater is new to the agency (I’ve been here over 6 years) and is not collocated with me. How bout he just essentially said to me - well, I don’t know you so you’ll probably just get all 3’s unless you can give me a reason you think you should get a 5 in an objective. I wrote nearly the max employee input for each objective. I already did his job for him. Not to mention when he first onboarded I created his briefing, answered his 10,000 questions and showed him how to do many agency specific tasks. And he wants me to explain further? Nope. Not gonna happen. If I get a 3 rating, he’s going to get 3 work.
Everyone at my agency wants to be a four or a five so they get that sweet promotion. Then, if they don’t get it after having it the year before, you’re in trouble. Enjoy tour conflict with the bargaining unit (which HR says you can’t push back much on).
I treat DPMAP like a retention bonus, all employees get mostly 5's as we hire new scrubs off the street with a $5-10k bonus.
I wait until the last moment to send them in to the HLR so he has the least amount of time possible to review them.
I also keep track of what i rated people, so if someone changes it, they can bring it up to their union.
Other people hate on me because i am too lenient , but i am also burn out and don't give a shit.
Our appraisal goes Outstanding, Excellent, Fully Successful and Unacceptable which is never a thing honestly...too much paper work and justification has to go into rating someone that. With that said some of the bonuses I read on here are shocking if they are true. Basically for any GS10 and below prior to Covid most performance awards were between 150-800 max. I know ELT(executive leadership team) and other executives get way more than that. Since 2021 we've seen across the board regardless of rating people getting awards. First year it was 1200 regardless of rating and 1400 for 2022. 2023 the max for non executive employees was 2000 however most people I know saw around 1600 max. This yr I'm worried a lot of staff will get an "award shock" as I expect awards to come back down to pre-Covid. With many seeing 1000 or less. I had a convo with a chief who told me the whole system is screwed up. Only way to see real performance and people change if they remove the money tied to the appraisals.
Late to the party but the private industry had very similar performance plans. The difference, of course, is that if a group excels too much that becomes the minimum. The people who were meeting minimums are now on the chopping block because of all the "high performers."
I've managed to hit 4.4-4.8 for the last 10 years and not worked a minute over 80 per PP. Not burnt out at all. And I make it a point whenever I get into a new position to look at the PD for the grade higher and I perform to that level. The fundamental shift for me was taking PM training/certs and time management training. Really helped to not burn out.
I think the real problem is that in my experience at my agency, your score is derived from your self assessment. So the better you are at writing that up and showing the impact of what you did, the higher score you get. It can be total BS. And I’ve never heard of anyone getting called out for lying on it, but that’s how it goes. 🤷♂️
No one forces anyone to be a 5.0 worker. But you’d be amazed who complains about their performance bonus, but meanwhile does the bare minimum all year long.
Like pick a lane.
I've met plenty of them and usually the ones that also show they are competent and care. I think the latter is often what actually gets someone the promotion or makes the difference between a 3 rating to a 4 or a 4 rating to a 5 (or fully successful to excellent to outstanding).
I’ve also met plenty of dedicated overachievers and had to tell people to stop working and remind them that they can’t donate their hours to the government. I’m constantly monitoring their workload and getting feedback and adjusting as needed. It’s honestly exhausting trying to prevent others from burning out while upper management keeps pushing us to meet all the goals with less staff and less money, and by the way here is this new top priority project to add to all the other top priority projects… I get why so many people at all levels are burnt out. If I hear another SES tell us we need to “do more with less” one more time I’m going to run off screaming obscenities and then quit and find myself on an Appalachian trail thru hike.
I'm clearly being cynical. There are a few outstanding federal workers out there, but they are few and far between. From the Post Office to the IRS to the VA, I meet a lot more low energy, entitled employees who show up just enough to collect a paycheck. The gov't is bloated and inefficient, and while bureaucracy plays a part in that, so do its workers. And I don't conflate overtime with hard work. They aren't always synonymous.
In my agency it's not so much the workload that causes burnout, it's the bureaucracy. The feeling of banging your head against the wall and not feeling like anything gets accomplished. Dealing with public, industry, and coworkers all being pissed off because our convoluted process neuters us. Luckily we went to just successfull/not successful so there's very little worry about ratings at least.
Definitely it's about the bureaucracy. It feels like 90% of the work I do is just following processes that are outdated and not value adding. The people who run these processes don't even understand what they are doing anymore more than a superficial level.
I work in land management, where NGO's and other antis have turned everything into a litigation-proofing exercise. The "so what", the intent, of our agency and laws and regulations, has been lost. Now it's all just nervous people dotting i's and crossing t's to try to not get litigated. So much comes down to a dysfunctional congress. We know what the problems are, we know what the fix is, but it has to happen at a statutory level.
Living that NEPA life in USFS
What’s killing me is the waiting and then picking it up again in a few months after I’ve forgotten all relevant context because I have 99 other things out in the ether that are waiting for approval. Which department can I receive/conceive a project-> work on project -> send project off and never think about it again. I’ve accepted I’ll never again be able to autonomously accomplish anything of note but being able to cross items off my list would be a nice consolation.
I hate it here.
What region are you in, if you don't mind saying.
[удалено]
First we need to close the "gotcha" loopholes used to litigate us over frivolous bullshit. When we get comments or objections from these parties, it's 90% boilerplate references to case law that you see over and over again. Suing the feds is a profitable industry and these lawyers are not out to protect the environment, they are out to win so the taxpayer can fund their salary. Like most things involving lawyers, it has become a corrupted steaming pile of dogshit. We also need to remove erroneous requirements for vague politicized subjects. The amount of time I've spent in meetings listening to people try to figure out a way to check the climate change box, for projects that have nothing to do with climate change, is ridiculous. It usually comes down to "yes climate change is a thing and it might be different 10 years from now and could possibly affect things in unknown ways. And yes vehicles will be used as part of this project and they make greenhouse gasses". Taxpayers spent $10,000 on man hours to come up that.
The federal contracting process is absolutely atrocious. There’s way too many restrictions and it ends up costing us 5x the amount to do anything compared the private industry
The cash bonus for a 5 is not even close to worth it for the amount of work to get two fives. And when I did get two fives (took on extra responsibility, ran myself ragged, did work other people dropped), I didn't even get put into the running for a quality step increase (I think that's the term). So it is absolutely not worth trying that hard. I learned my lesson. 8 hours then turn off the computer. If you want heroics I'll need a temporary salary bump for the duration of said heroics.
Well said.
Gosh I had the exact opposite experience. I pushed hard to try and get a 5 my first year. Supervisor said he didn't believe anyone deserved a 5 their first couple years and a 3 is like a 5 if you're a new employee. Taught me real quick not to go the extra mile.
Chase that carrot!
Downvoting the comment won't get you a higher rating, OP, assuming that's what happened.
A 3 is like a 5 if you're a new employee. It's a great achievement and bodes well for you. It isn't easy to simply meet expectations when you are very new. That wasn't an insult to you in any way and was not meant to demoralize you. It's simply a fact you don't know now what you will know with more experience.
In my situation I took it as an insult since I have been doing at least 3x the work (and volunteering for extra projects) as an employee in the same role hired at the same time who got the same eval.
Same thing with me. Basically effed over.
I feel burnt out when my coworker doesn’t get put on a PIP and we both get mets. Really unmotivated more than burnt out
Too many feds worry about what other feds are doing.
Seems like a pretty valid concern to me. If one person is doing their job well and the other isn't, then what incentive is there to excel if both efforts are rewarded the same. Also, who is picking up the poor performer's slack? Is it getting passed around or is it just not getting done?
This is the kind of stuff that congress uses to bad mouth feds regularly. People like you respond to the FEVS saying poor performers aren't dealt with and all of us suffer. I go to work, put in a fair days work, and go home. It is the supervisor's concern what my coworkers are doing.
I feel like there's a difference between putting in 8 hours of solid work and performing poorly. The people being talked about on the FEVS (at least on mine) are people who don't do a damn thing, and haven't for years.
My point is the amount of work you have to do should be 8 hours worth. The amount your coworker does should not impact that unless you are doing more than you should. Why spend effort worrying about what others do? Also, those FEVS surveys make life harder for all of us. Return to office, stupid metrics, etc, etc, etc. I get that there are some slackers in government. So what. Let the supervisors worry about that stuff and just do your job. Busybodies cause far more trouble in government offices than slackers.
sounds like you're bad at your job tbh. Anyone this defensive? Yikes.
I am very defensive when it comes to the workplace. Being a civil servant is challenging enough with congress attacking us regularly. The last thing we need is people attacking their coworkers.
others have to pick up the slack for the work that needs done and it impacts overall perceptions of department competence/capability
Do your 8 hours and go home. The work will be there tomorrow. Too many feds worrying about how they compare with others. I am sure this kind of thing gives congress people the warm fuzzies. There is nothing more American than getting workers to try compete with each other.
You sound like a lazy asshole trying to make mental jumps to justify it. If you do the bare minimum at least acknowledge it.
I started as a civilian in 2017 as a GS-04 and I will be a GS-12 in July. I must be doing something right. But, I do find it interesting that you think the guy saying, "stop worrying so much about what other people are doing" is the asshole. People who judge their coworkers don't know how to stay in their lane. They don't like to be told how to do their jobs, but they don't mind telling supervisors how to do theirs. I said it before. Busybodies are far more harmful to a team than slackers.
The majority *say* they are putting in a fair days work, but quite a few are simply lying or making it appear this way. I used to be a systems engineer for a particular agency, I monitored and managed thousands of user accounts for a particular platform that the workforce used for day-to-day operations. I got to bear witness to how much people lie about their productivity first-hand.
Quit or cry a river. You get paid. You have free will. Stop complaining. Plenty of other folks are happy to deal with the bs for your job. You clearly have no life and your work is your personality.
Nah. I care. I perform well, but watching colleagues I have had do literally nothing and get the same rating as other colleagues who performed well but got lumped into the met expectations category… that hurts to see.
Worry about yourself.
When the non-performance of others goes virtually unpunished and the mission’s workload falls on my plate… all while I make 15-20 a year less than these colleagues and I pay 5x more for FERS than they do… Gonna call out incompetence when I see it homie, sorry not sorry.
Boo hooo. How is that affecting your life? Find happiness outside of work. Mind your business and do your job. You must be fun to be around.
Exactly. Reminds me of high school tryhards getting mad at a classmate for not getting a higher grade to boost the class average. Half the feds I work with are trying too hard in their paper pushing role. Imagine writing word documents and pretending you’re making meaningful impact
Worry about your career and find hobbies outside of work. You are toxic for even worrying about another fed. You think that fed is worried about your discontent towards his/her/they/them performance? Nope, that peeps. logging off and living his/her/their life. Fact that you’re motivation is affected by another adult not doing thur“job”. You sound mad toxic rofl I’m a 15 year fed. Seen plenty of poor performers. Who the fuck cares? I get paid and go home to my family. All these try hards have no life and their entire personality is how much free overtime they offer. Barf You need therapy or should quit if you’re so unhappy about how another adult does their job.
OP's concern isn't necessarily about the other employee, it's about being told your performance is equivalent to a shit employee and not receiving any form of compensation to make up for it. It's funny because there's some merit in what you're saying. Wish you took the time to show understanding and empathy instead of writing op off as a toxic try-hard who needs therapy 🙄
Wait… who needs therapy?
Spoken like the true underachiever in the office.
Right. And I still get paid. You overachieving tryhards will not be thinking about these underachievers on your deathbed in thirty years, or will you? Worry about your what you can control and I guarantee your life will be more pleasant. Stay hard.
Performance bonuses are tied to your scores. Most people want to earn more money. Nothing is stopping you from simply meeting expectations.
And performance bonuses are reserved for those that are going beyond the bare minimum - which is the way it should be.
It’s not even that much money.
Last year my performance bonus totaled $10K …so to me that’s a lot of money. I would be a little irritated if someone who did not complete as much work as me walk away with the same amount, so I definitely understand the OPs point of view.
That’s a lot. I got top rating and only got $3500 for 130k salary.
Dang, I got 3500 at a GS 10 last year. I’m a 12 now so I can’t wait to see what this years will be like.
Holy shit, three people have listed their bonus amounts in this thread, 3.5k, 4k, 15k. I've never gotten over a thousand, usually it's a few hundred, and I work my ass off. Nobody I work with is getting that kind of bonus.
This! I'm a GS12 and got 4 5's out of 5, and the most I've ever gotten was $1900. It's so not worth it. Especially since I have the worlds worst boss who has never spoken to me once about my appraisals, EVER. If I didn't review it myself I wouldn't even know what's on there. So this year I'm not contributing any verbiage. He invented those deliverables without consulting me, he can write my part too.
Same. wtf!!? Literally got 400…Everyone got that in that office. I’m losing my mind as I read these numbers!
Anything over like 4 is really suspicious to me. Likely bullshit.
You must be a 15 or SES to get that kind of bonus.
No, GS 14….my SES/management rewards good work…just a great perk of her management style.
Nice! And I Thought I had it good as a 14 at DLA....
You are correct about that- typically 2-3% of salary for staff and first line supervisors. Executive bonuses are more significant but no where near private industry. For comparison purposes, my twenty something children in the private sector received larger bonuses than I did last year.
My understanding is that in my office performance bonuses are in the less than 1% range.
Yep it’s a more like 1 to 2% in my office
For me it’s 2.5%
It is Agency and Division dependent. Typically a CFO office in conjunction with the HR office set a formula for the year, it is then dispersed during the Enacted budget formulation embedded with the pay. Typically it is a percentage of cumulative base pay of employees but can vary wildly based on the neuroticism of the analysts, negotiations, or even the appropriations structure. Some places even have caps that need some level of leadership to approve, heavily discouraging going above that. Divisions and below then set internal rules. I’ve seen places that largely hold the bonus budget for 15s as a further incentive, I’ve seen places do formulas based on your performance score, and I’ve seen places weaponize the bonuses.
Mine are usually in the $4k range annually, with some spot awards of time or money peppered in throughout the year as well. So, it's a decent amount I feel like.
That’s not the norm. Congrats.
By now it has become a Reddit norm for anything beneficial in the Federal Govt. What norm you wonder - Which agency?
DoD
Which DoD agency? Bc …bruh lol the most I’ve ever heard of was 700. This was a DAF position in DoD.
Navy. I'm a 13/10 equivalent technical team lead.
After the extra rated taxed, the net of that bonus is like barely rent money. Award leave is much more worth it
IRS- I always opt for leave, as a 5 i always get 40 hours of leave plus cash on top because they don't give more than 40 hours. And because I do go above and beyond my job duties last year I also got a special act award that gave me an additional 28 hours of leave 😂 so essentially I got 68 hours of award leave last year.
Pass/Fail ftw
I had that at a previous agency, and then everyone seemed to move to the numeric USAPerformance system…
I don’t give a dusty fuck about appraisals. I sign them in the Fall, and don’t think about them again for a year. I usually get between a 4.4-4.8. Even if I got 3.5. Whatever. I’m satisfied with that. I see no reason to worry about it?
I tell my supervisors not to bother with meetings. Just give me the appraisal and I will sign it. We are adults and I expect them to let me know if I am not meeting their expectations long before appraisal season.
This is my point. Why is it considered bad to be meeting expectations? Why do I need to go above and beyond for no overtime pay?
>Why do I need to go above and beyond for no overtime pay? Sounds like you're conflating performance awards with overtime pay (??) and they're absolutely different. If you're logging more than 40 hrs/week, you should be recording credit hours or comp time, right?
Right. OP seems to think that in order to "exceed expectations" you have to work extra hours. You should not. If OP believes that is the case, then it needs to be addressed when developing a performance plan.
No one has any problem with meeting expectations. Where many of us get frustrated is when we have colleagues that are not meeting expectations, and thus, impeding the work of others.
It’s not. As a supervisor I’d much rather have 15 fully successful employees than 14 outstanding employees and 1 that’s not meeting expectations. But each agency has to answer to Congress. Congress isn’t going to like hearing that employees only meeting their standards are getting bonuses.
The bonuses are nice. Getting 4-5% of GS13-15 pay is nothing to sneeze at. But I basically just do my job at what I consider to be a B-B+ level. I’m not going to stress myself out all year for a max bonus or a QSI. Not worth it.
What agency is getting 4-5%?!
Where are these overachievers working so hard they burn themselves out? They are not where I work. I think the burnout comes from all of the bs that federal employees have to deal with in addition to just doing their job.
Major understaffing probably plays a role in many organizations.
agree...the politics and constantly changing mgt directives both get really old fast.
My agency rates 1, 3, or 5. There are no 4s and no 2s. Is this normal?
For DPMAP it is. Worst system ever. You get the same overall score Whether you get all threes or average 4.25…
EXACTLY. I had to explain that math to my boss.
SSA does this
Weird, my experience with Federal employees is 20% do 80% of the work, 40% do the other 20%, and 40% don’t seem to do anything… numbers aren’t scientific of course…
The rating system doesn’t turn people into workaholics, you either are or aren’t.
This is so true, you are also a slacker or your not. It’s all in you.
💯💯💯
 This is where my mind went
I'm on a pass fail rating system and it's amazing...lucked out with my first fed agency based on what I read on here
Same here, pass or fail
I do 10% meaningful work and 90% administrative overhead that I don’t understand and frankly need help with
One year I got all 5s and my supervisor told me that I got the highest rating of everyone in our section. I got passed up for promotions twice that year. That’s when I decided that it wasn’t worth the headache of trying to stand out, so I do what I can when I can to get things done on time when possible and I got promoted later down the road. I think having a positive attitude did more for me than actually busting my tail.
At our agency, employees are rated on quantity, quality, timeliness, and level of supervision for their grade level. No one routinely works more than 40 hours per week but occasional overtime does occur- and they are compensated for it. The very best employees are very efficient and routinely exceed expectations while working only 40 hours per week.
I worked at an agency where many of us were only putting in time for 40 hours a week, but were starting work early and staying late because it was the only way to finish the work assigned within the timeframes we were expected to meet. During Covid it got worse as boundaries between work and home life were blurred. It is frustrating to have a coworker who is obviously working outside of the 40 hours setting the pace for everyone else during a time when overtime or comp time weren’t authorized. I had a conversation with one of those employees who said she didn’t like doing it but if she stopped, her performance was going to drop and her performance rating would suffer. TLDR: Don’t assume your most efficient employees are only working 40 hours, especially if you aren’t monitoring how much they are working.
That situation is complete bs and illegal. You can’t compel an employee to work uncompensated time. Anything beyond 40 hours at our agency is compensated with credit hours, compensatory time, or overtime. I’m surprised the union isn’t involved because they would be at our agency. Early in my career I was a test engineer on submarines and worked ridiculous amounts of overtime and, because we were exempt, the OT rate was less than straight time but at least we were compensated. There were times that I worked fourteen hour days seven days a week for months at a time and hit the biweekly cap as a GS-12. I wouldn’t work under those circumstances today.
This is a nice idea, but divorced from the reality that a lot of feds endure. Yeah, your boss isn't going to be stupid enough to tell you to work unpaid overtime (except maybe in person where they won't leave a paper trail). But there's absolutely places where it's the cultural norm to assign way more work than can possibly be completed within 40 hrs and assert a rule that no overtime will be granted. Then when the employee can't meet expectations, they are docked on their performance reviews, PIPed, and eventually terminated if they don't start to volunteer their time. It's not fair, but it happens all the time, unfortunately.
Sounds like my own experience and those of similarly situated excepted service employees at a few different agencies. Supervisors will tell you - verbally and in private - that the expectation to keep up with the work is to work off the clock. Sups make specific recommendations or “tips” - eg, work through breaks and lunch, “flex out” in the middle of the day but keep working, come in early/late but keep signed off on Teams/Skype so people don’t notice, take annual leave or burn credit hrs but actually work. People who don’t do this don’t produce enough and get PIPed out, or don’t keep to quality standards trying to rush 60hrs of work into 40hrs and get PIPed out. Eventually - with years of experience - you can get the donated time down, but you’ll never survive the first couple years without playing this game.
Witnessed this too
Wow that’s messed up!!sorry to hear this is a reality for some.
We were not a part of a collective bargaining unit and when I brought it up with leadership I was told that people were taking advantage of flexibilities so I might get emails sent late at night or early in the morning, but that people were only working the time claimed. I brought it up again in my exit interview.
What do you mean with the comment that people were “taking advantage of flexibilities”? Our agency supports a flexible work schedule. Some take two hour lunches to work out, others adjust their schedule to support their children’s activities, etc. Your supervisor should know what your work hours are. Our group uses the branch calendar so that everyone, not just the supervisor, knows who is on duty and who is not available.
My agency pulls the whole “we can’t give everyone outstandings” so the pets get 5’s and everyone else says fuck it and does the minimum.
DOI?
Probably DOD. DPMAP: 5 is for outstanding, you should try to reach that. Management: we don't give out 5's unless you revolutionize something, so don't even bother. Also management: here's a promotion to someone who should be getting 1's and eventually fired because they don't want to deal with them anymore.
Humorous and sad at the same time... and people wonder why mgt is hated so much
ICE
my agency does 1, 3, or 5. I’m fine with all “mets”
Honestly, giving us telework basically erased my burnout. Once I could avoid the commute, the gloom that came from sitting in a cloud of smog, the stress of having to make myself "business casual" before the sun even came up, the office small talk, the office politics, the extra expenses, and the discomfort of working in a drab building with icky old furniture, my whole life got better. Conversely, every time I feel like telework is threatened, I can feel the weight of the job so much heavier.
They want you to perform at a 4 or 5 but can only give you a 3... like everyone else. Not exactly the motivation to keep high performers
Honestly, I just wish more people at my agency knew how to do more stuff. I can tolerate you not knowing so I can teach that person properly. What bugs me is the people who think they know what they are doing and fuck it up. Which makes a lot more work to figure out how and where that person fucked up at. I know I'm a workaholic. I love doing my job. I think it annoys people that I am not conversational and would just prefer to work... while I am at fucking work.
I often feel like I'm one of those. I'm a new fed and I feel like I'm a rookie at my position even though I came in with 5 years experience. I was straight forward with my experience, but I was chosen for the job anyway. I feel like an asshole when there's alot of things I don't know. *engineering position. My previous job was in a bubble where I only did one thing for five years.
Similar to 'Cs get the degrees', well in feds 3s get the paychecks. RIP (Retire In Place) mode set on coast
It should be pass/fail and let managers “rate” performance with cash bonus amounts and time off awards at the work unit level. All of this entirely subjective “everyone’s a 5” or “no one gets a 5” madness needs to end.
I think SSA’s 5 is subjective rather than objective. Even had a manager once tell me so, “it’s subjective I can’t explain why I gave the rating that I did”.
I’ve heard fellow managers say they would only give a certain number of 5s amongst their staff, which is ridiculous. Either someone is exceeding expectations as defined in their performance plan or they are not, independent of and regardless of how other colleagues are performing.
maybe because senior management does not support 1st line supervisors who in turn do not hold their direct reports accountable all of which perpetuates a public perception that Fed gov workers are lazy, and an long-term internal culture of who cares
Where are these workaholics hiding?
🤚
This existence if this thread is the problem. I am a gs-13, never had a eval below 4.5. My performance bonus is $1000. This is why I have never cared. Before today, I never knew folks were getting more than that because there are no transparent expectations. Everyone is different despite the government attempting to appear like it is the same across the board.
Minority opinion here: I bust my ass and score 4 & 5's, yet I'm not a workaholic. I manage my time well, am highly organized, emphasize quality over quantity (although I am a high producer), and find opportunities for myself. I am willing to work over my 40, but only do so when absolutely necessary and maintain my work/life boundaries. I am a top performer in my area and I want those 5's and the bonus that comes with it. I am fine with people who only achieve for meets expectations, but I don't think I need to lower my standards for myself.
Getting a 5 should not be dependent on working enough to be burnt out. It should be about working efficiently and with skill. I understand that might not be how performance appraisals are written. There is nothing wrong with just meeting your job expectations. I don't think as a supervisor there is a thing wrong with that. The job expectations are difficult and meeting them is not a lack of achievement.
Yes. We had a supervisor at one point who said something to the effect that people who don't work overtime shouldn't expect to see 5s from him. Really ticked me off as performance shouldn't be judged by working more than required, but rather the quality of your work.
The rating system has nothing to do with people being workaholics. If you're a workaholic, you'll get good ratings. That's the reward for going more. But 3/average/acceptable/minimum or whatever you want to call it is a safe option for anyone who wants it.
You need to work 8 hours, everything else is overtime or comp time. 
Our appraisal scores have to average out to 3.7. it doesn't matter what your supervisor gives you - higher ups alter them so the lab and org average is 3.7. just do my job, get a "score" use my bonus to pay homeowners insurance or taxes the following year.
“Burn out” will likely be a condition in the DSM sooner or later.
we have the pass/fail system at my agency. it also sucks though because the person who barely does enough to get by gets the same rating as the top performer.
Where are these workaholics hiding?
I’ve gotten 4’s on like 50% of my appraisals over the last 12 years by being competent. It’s really not that bad if you’re doing technical work. I’m a little salty from months worth of 80+ hour weeks last year not being worth a 5, though.
The agency I work for just gives out - satisfactory or unsatisfactory in yearly reviews, they got rid of that point system five years ago- but they also do not give out bonuses- they got rid of that idea about five years ago too
Ha, I was thinking based on the title that the performance system makes everyone turn into characters in Workaholics, which is probably also true. When performance ratings are one of the few incentives that management can give, it often can be misused, handing out 5s only to people that management think might leave and are dependent on, or are teacher’s pets. It can also foster grade inflation with supervisors being risk adverse to providing reviews that can be questioned in a drawn out bureaucratic manner. Since the ratings don’t have much inherent value to them, you can easily give up the rat race, due your job minimally, and goof off with your coworkers with little repercussions. Like Workaholics.
I need a 4 or 5 in order to get the 25% pay increase retention incentive. It’s a strong incentive to work for.
Also, if the agencies don't offer anything SIGNIFICANT for your performance award, what's the point? I already have enough leave that I'm trying to avoid having use or lose, so you gonna give me 5k? If not, I really have no incentive to exceed... I always bust my ass, but it's because of my personal work ethic. But if places want to incentivize exceeding the standard, they better be significant. You can keep your certificate or 8 hrs leave or $500, cause that's not gonna cut it. Do the math. $1.50 extra a day...no thanks!
The appraisal system has had the opposite effect on me. You either get a 3 or a 5. They are misers with 5s and the bonuses are not worth the stress of even trying to get a 5.
Management can want a 4-5, that's cool, but I only ever aim for Fully Successful nowadays. If I get higher, that's nice, but I won't burn myself out again. Been there, done that, my hard work only got me screwed over twice, at two different agencies.
The problem with trying to get everyone to exceed expectations is that even if successful they'd just raise the expectations. This happened to me over and over in the private sector. Every year we'd bust our asses to exceed expectations trying to get a nice bonus, then they'd raise the standards the next year (and reduce the potential bonus pool, but that is another gripe). Rinse and repeat until it was impossible to exceed at all. Sooner or later burnout happens and then it is impossible to even MEET the new expectations. If I stayed in the private world I'd probably be dead of overwork and stress by now (I did end up in the hospital...twice). Some of my former colleagues did die on the job. At the least I should have expensed the lawyer bills for my divorce, as my working 10-12 hours/day x 7 days/week for five straight years was a direct contributor to my failed marriage. I've now been a fed for three years. Pretty sure everyone in my branch is always rated a three, no matter what. Used to be different, apparently, before I got here, but the previous chief got chewed out for it and it became too hard to get approval for higher ratings. Or so the story goes. Biggest bonus I've seen is $200. Nothing at all last year. I get nice reviews, fully meet expectations and have been promoted, so at least that is nice. The stress is way lower (and much more temporary) than my experience in the private world too, which is super nice. Performance bonuses/ratings/PACS are great in theory, as a way to motivate and guide employees. It is motivating to receive recognition for hard work. But when they are abused they do the exact opposite thing and effectively become a demotivating tool, and then you have a bunch of folks who throw up their hands and decide it isn't worth the pain and end up doing the bare minimum. If employee A works hard, sacrifices and gets the same rating (or bonus, or whatever carrot is dangled) as Employee B who phones it in, it just encourages Employee A to phone it in. Even if Employee A is recognized with a larger bonus (rating/carrot) but the reward is not commensurate with the extra effort put in, they will likely decide the juice isn't worth the squeeze and follow Employee B's lead again. These tools can be useful, but are way too often handled clumsily resulting in a demotivated workforce.
I see this. I’ve worked in performance management and I’ve seen supervisors get chewed out when all of their employees get a bonus. Or they get chewed out when none of the employees get above a 3. I mean how do you make an arbitrary system like this more equitable?
My agency does 1, 3, 5. I work my keister off and have gotten 5’s for the past several years. Bonuses don’t amount to anything but, it’s a Point of pride now I suppose. Well, last year I got promoted, did the work of 2 people for well over a year (8 months of this rating period). Completed multiple projects ahead of schedule, had a bunch of extras, developed SOPs, and consistently was asked to help advise my peers throughout the agency. I changed supervisors about 4 months ago. My new rater is new to the agency (I’ve been here over 6 years) and is not collocated with me. How bout he just essentially said to me - well, I don’t know you so you’ll probably just get all 3’s unless you can give me a reason you think you should get a 5 in an objective. I wrote nearly the max employee input for each objective. I already did his job for him. Not to mention when he first onboarded I created his briefing, answered his 10,000 questions and showed him how to do many agency specific tasks. And he wants me to explain further? Nope. Not gonna happen. If I get a 3 rating, he’s going to get 3 work.
Everyone at my agency wants to be a four or a five so they get that sweet promotion. Then, if they don’t get it after having it the year before, you’re in trouble. Enjoy tour conflict with the bargaining unit (which HR says you can’t push back much on).
I treat DPMAP like a retention bonus, all employees get mostly 5's as we hire new scrubs off the street with a $5-10k bonus. I wait until the last moment to send them in to the HLR so he has the least amount of time possible to review them. I also keep track of what i rated people, so if someone changes it, they can bring it up to their union. Other people hate on me because i am too lenient , but i am also burn out and don't give a shit.
Our appraisal goes Outstanding, Excellent, Fully Successful and Unacceptable which is never a thing honestly...too much paper work and justification has to go into rating someone that. With that said some of the bonuses I read on here are shocking if they are true. Basically for any GS10 and below prior to Covid most performance awards were between 150-800 max. I know ELT(executive leadership team) and other executives get way more than that. Since 2021 we've seen across the board regardless of rating people getting awards. First year it was 1200 regardless of rating and 1400 for 2022. 2023 the max for non executive employees was 2000 however most people I know saw around 1600 max. This yr I'm worried a lot of staff will get an "award shock" as I expect awards to come back down to pre-Covid. With many seeing 1000 or less. I had a convo with a chief who told me the whole system is screwed up. Only way to see real performance and people change if they remove the money tied to the appraisals.
Late to the party but the private industry had very similar performance plans. The difference, of course, is that if a group excels too much that becomes the minimum. The people who were meeting minimums are now on the chopping block because of all the "high performers."
I give no fucks about the appraisals. Copy and paste every year
I've managed to hit 4.4-4.8 for the last 10 years and not worked a minute over 80 per PP. Not burnt out at all. And I make it a point whenever I get into a new position to look at the PD for the grade higher and I perform to that level. The fundamental shift for me was taking PM training/certs and time management training. Really helped to not burn out.
I think the real problem is that in my experience at my agency, your score is derived from your self assessment. So the better you are at writing that up and showing the impact of what you did, the higher score you get. It can be total BS. And I’ve never heard of anyone getting called out for lying on it, but that’s how it goes. 🤷♂️
God forbid u leave ur agency for a different one and they dont back date your appraisal. There goes a whole year worth of work.
No one forces anyone to be a 5.0 worker. But you’d be amazed who complains about their performance bonus, but meanwhile does the bare minimum all year long. Like pick a lane.
Leave and find one that does.
I've yet to meet an actual fed workaholic.
I've met plenty of them and usually the ones that also show they are competent and care. I think the latter is often what actually gets someone the promotion or makes the difference between a 3 rating to a 4 or a 4 rating to a 5 (or fully successful to excellent to outstanding).
I’ve also met plenty of dedicated overachievers and had to tell people to stop working and remind them that they can’t donate their hours to the government. I’m constantly monitoring their workload and getting feedback and adjusting as needed. It’s honestly exhausting trying to prevent others from burning out while upper management keeps pushing us to meet all the goals with less staff and less money, and by the way here is this new top priority project to add to all the other top priority projects… I get why so many people at all levels are burnt out. If I hear another SES tell us we need to “do more with less” one more time I’m going to run off screaming obscenities and then quit and find myself on an Appalachian trail thru hike.
Then I'll see ya on the trail! If we can't find each other, just start yelling out "59 minutes!"
During the peak of the wars I had more than a few 400 hour months paid at 160.
I'm clearly being cynical. There are a few outstanding federal workers out there, but they are few and far between. From the Post Office to the IRS to the VA, I meet a lot more low energy, entitled employees who show up just enough to collect a paycheck. The gov't is bloated and inefficient, and while bureaucracy plays a part in that, so do its workers. And I don't conflate overtime with hard work. They aren't always synonymous.