In a series of statements and in the rules, OPM has asserted that job ratings—used in decisions ranging from promotions and awards to discipline and retention standing in layoffs—do not sufficiently distinguish among levels of performance. Image: Toey Andante/Shutterstock.com
By: FEDweek StaffThe top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has called on OPM to withdraw its recently proposed rules to require a forced distribution of federal employee performance ratings, saying “the results will be dysfunction, error, bias and potential abuse.”
“By design, forced ranking systems overlook objective evaluation of job performance in favor of relative (and potentially subjective) worker rankings, and as such, it remains unclear how this approach could consistently produce ratings that reflect actual job performance rather than artificially imposed quota-based targets,” wrote Rep. Robert Garcia of California.
“The latest research indicates that forced distribution systems are likely to degrade, rather than enhance, organizational performance by effectively pitting employees against one another in open competition, reducing incentives for collaboration and knowledge-sharing,” he wrote, citing several major corporations that have dropped such systems “after concluding that such systems damage morale and overall performance.”
In a series of statements and in the rules, OPM has asserted that job ratings—used in decisions ranging from promotions and awards to discipline and retention standing in layoffs—do not sufficiently distinguish among levels of performance. Among the proposed features is a yet-undefined limit on the percentage of employees who could be rated at the top two levels of the standard five-level rating system—although a system already in effect for the SES limiting the total of both to 30 percent has been cited as a precedent—and ending an employee’s right to grieve a performance rating through union-negotiated processes.
OPM director Scott Kupor repeated those arguments at a recent House hearing, calling the performance management system “broken,” stressing that less than 1 percent are ranked below level 3 (fully successful). “As wonderful as I agree that the federal workforce is, that is not a system that engenders accountability,” he said.
In his letter, Garcia said that argument “substitutes inflammatory and empty political rhetoric for impartial scientific evaluation, and represents a parroting of the hyper-partisan and extremist messaging being used to erode a nonpartisan, merit-based civil service. Distrust in government is far more likely to be driven by the actions of elected officials, especially those who demonize government, rather than nonpartisan civil servants.”
“A forced distribution system risks producing less accurate performance evaluations. By requiring that federal employees be separated into distinct categories based on relative standing rather than objective performance, this approach risks preventing agencies from obtaining a clear picture of worker performance. In high–performing units, supervisors will be required to assign lower ratings to employees who meet or exceed all expectations. Such distortion undermines the link between evaluations and actual job performance, harming the overall integrity of the appraisal system,” he wrote.
With employees no longer having the right to grieve ratings, he added, “supervisors will face little accountability for their evaluations, increasing the risk that ratings may reflect subjective or inconsistent judgments.”
Nearly 10,000 Federal Offices Don’t Meet Usage Standards
OPM Plan on Employee Ratings Asking for Abuse, Says Senior House Democrat
Conversions to Schedule P/C Pending; Acknowledgement Form Draws Attention
Senate Passes DHS Funding Deal, but Stalls in House; Trump Signs Order to Pay TSA Personnel
Federal Employee Survey Shows Plummeting Views on Engagement, Leadership, Performance
New MSPB Ruling Could Have Broad Impact on Employee Appeal Rights
See also,
Calculating Service Credit for Sick Leave At Retirement
FERS Supplement vs The 10% Pension Bonus
How Your FERS, Social Security and TSP Payments Get Taxed
Where Should I Put My TSP in Retirement
