peer replies should be a minimum of 130 words include at least 1 direct question and add value to the discussion 9
Peer replies should be a minimum of 130 words each, include at least 1 direct question and add value to the discussion
The GAO Performance Appraisal Supervisory Guide had some good information. I agree that Step 4: Rating Performance is a critical step in the performance management cycle. I have seen or experienced each of the errors mentioned (Halo, Single-time, Stereotype and Same-level-of-effectiveness) in the GAO Guide. The most disturbing incident to me was an individual who received poor ratings because the supervisors spouse had a disagreement with the individualâ€™s spouse. It was eventually corrected but caused animosity between the supervisor and individual. The individual was moved to another section in the same department. It is important to noted that progress reviews are an opportunity for supervisors to check progress towards achieving goals and provide feedback on the positives and negatives. In my experience, it is best for the supervisor to try and end the progress review with positive feedback.
It was ironic that this weekâ€™s topic is about effects-based appraisal because just last week I was in a meeting with other supervisors in my command discussing the Performance Appraisal Review System and the need to review the critical elements to ensure they have measurable outcomes. My understanding of effects-based appraisal is establishing and evaluating elements, standards or metrics focusing on the expected performance outcomes, results or actions. For example, the civil service performance appraisal had the critical element of â€œComplete eighty (80 hours of continuous learning points (CLPs) in two yearsâ€. The performance reviews went every year and some employees waited to the second year to start working on completing the CLPs. It was recently changed to read. â€œAs a Defense Acquisition Workforce member, complete forty (40) hours of continuous learning points each year before 30 September”.
RAND defines the effects based approach as operations conceived and planned in a systems framework that considers the full range of direct, indirect, and cascading effects. If we are applying that to appraisals, one would want to focus on defining and recommending to an individual or a team running a program on how performance can be improved rather than focuses on pointing out past and current failures (Davis, 2001). This approach will more than likely, and in my experiences, create an atmosphere and relationship that that individual or team, much more conducive to achieving the common goal. A harsh or negative-toned appraisal that is probably more common in a Govâ€™t to contractor relationship, tend to be a bunch of brow beating and in the end doesnâ€™t really production anything that would be considered value-added.
I believe the hardest part about this type of assessment and approach to appraisals is the communication of it. Not just the verbal, sitting down and expressing it, which is not as easy as one might think or assume but the environment it is conducted it. I personally have a fairly gravelly voice (due to a surgery, itâ€™s not quite Clint Eastwood but heading that way with age), I am very direct with people and have RBF, this trifecta can start off meetings like appraisals on a hard note. This mean I have to be conscientious of this, especially if there are significant issues to be addressed and I want the appraisal to be production and positive. Additionally, in particular, when meeting with a contractor, I find that meeting in a neutral place can help as well, since the individual or team wonâ€™tâ€™ feel like they are walking into the lionâ€™s den.
Davis, P. (2001). Effects-Based Operations. Retrieved March 21, 2019, from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monogra…