Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Only 1% of Civil servants not performing

«13456

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    internal review?

    So this great news is brought to us by other civil servants?

    seems legit :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61 ✭✭PanaDrama


    Not_sure_if_serious.jpg


  • Administrators Posts: 56,569 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Internal review = worthless.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,960 ✭✭✭DeanAustin


    awec wrote: »
    Internal review = worthless.

    Exactly. Not only the civil service that uses these incorrectly. Every company I've worked for does it.

    1% is particularly laughable though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,819 ✭✭✭Aglomerado


    DeanAustin wrote: »
    Exactly. Not only the civil service that uses these incorrectly. Every company I've worked for does it.

    1% is particularly laughable though.

    PMDS really is a load of arse.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    It's a bit like asking someone's mammy for a reference!

    I'd rather see some kind of external review.

    I wonder what you'd have to do to get a 'needs improvement' or 'not acceptable' rating!?!


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I wonder what you'd have to do to get a 'needs improvement' or 'not acceptable' rating!?!

    Not turn up on the day of the survey?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,627 ✭✭✭wmpdd3


    That's laughable, if they were going to play with the results they should have googled the norm first!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Saw thread title.

    Thought it was sex related. Thread disappoints. :mad:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Maybe if you called for a massive internal review of performance you might score quite badly :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,038 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    SpaceTime wrote: »

    I wonder what you'd have to do to get a 'needs improvement' or 'not acceptable' rating!?!

    I think you would have to be in vegetative state


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Menas


    A junior manager in the civil service contacted Newstalk this morning.
    He said that one of his reportees was a definite non-performer and he gave him the appropriate rating.
    But he was then contacted by the HR department telling him to change his rating as the employee would not get increments if he was badly rated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,085 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    It reminds me of those soviet 'election' results.

    100% turnout
    99% voted for the communist party.

    I mean, at least make it vaguely believable and say 5% :D

    The other possibility is that the performance targets are just set so low that everyone actually does achieve them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    A junior manager in the civil service contacted Newstalk this morning.
    He said that one of his reportees was a definite non-performer and he gave him the appropriate rating.
    But he was then contacted by the HR department telling him to change his rating as the employee would not get increments if he was badly rated.

    and...did he tell hr to feck off , or did he run with his pens to review his review?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,960 ✭✭✭DeanAustin


    If the results say that only 1% of the civil service is not performing then managers are not doing their jobs right because they are setting expectations too low. Therefore, they aren't doing their jobs and should fall into the "needs improvement" rating.

    Remember being in a company that was losing money and a miniscule amount of people were in this bracket. Funny how everyone was a great performer but the business was not performing. Something doesn't stack up there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,264 ✭✭✭✭jester77


    They must set the bar very low, or most likely they didn't even lift it off the floor.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,267 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    1% is clearly not realistic and it's just a way to get extra pay and somehow categorise it as performance-related. Sure the taxpayer has bottomless pockets.

    That said, a lot of civil services do a very good job, and by nature civil servant position sod not attract the most motivated.

    If you compared the Irish civil service to other countries', I suspect they'd compare OK (albeit they are on much higher pay)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Boombastic wrote: »
    internal review?

    So this great news is brought to us by other civil servants?

    seems legit :pac:
    Originally Posted by awec
    Internal review = worthless.

    did you guys actually read the article?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Riskymove wrote: »
    did you guys actually read the article?

    yes
    Senior managers are incompetent,
    the system for reviews is not fit for purpose, the people who designed the system are incompetent, and we're paying them a lot of money to be incompetent....
    Have I missed anything?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Boombastic wrote: »
    yes

    Grand, I was wondering why you seemed to think it wasn't legit or was "great news" for some reason.

    You seemed to be dismissive of the findings


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    It's not so much the internal review rather the percentage which sounds a bit unbelievable for any company.

    Turkeys trying to postpone or cancel Christmas spring to mind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    Riskymove wrote: »
    Grand, I was wondering why you seemed to think it wasn't legit or was "great news" for some reason.

    You seemed to be dismissive of the findings

    why, because I'm not shocked the whole review system is fecked up? An idiot on a galloping horse could have told us that


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Sure aren't they all working an extra 23 mins per day? A more cynical person might suggest that that counts as exceeding expectations.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,903 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Boombastic wrote: »
    why, because I'm not shocked the whole review system is fecked up? An idiot on a galloping horse could have told us that

    I think you need to read your OP again so

    It certainly implies that because it was an internal review the findings should be dismissed...yet the findings are correct imo


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,637 ✭✭✭BMJD


    The problem is that if you do the absolute bare minimum you will get a 3 and thus appear to be performing well. If you are genuinely good and go the extra mile time and time again you will probably just get a 4 as managers don't like giving a 5 as it tend to raise eyebrows at a more senior level. The whole process is bollox anyway, most managers are too spineless to call out people who aren't doing their jobs right.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 223 ✭✭Glinda


    I would be interested to see what proportion of 'needs improvement' and 'unsatisfactory' ratings awarded by managers were later overturned on appeal - I suspect that if these initial ratings were revealed (instead of the final ratings following further review up the line) the figures would be far closer to the norm.

    Unfortunately it seems almost impossible to get a negative review rating upheld if the person appeals up the line. Awarding negative ratings therefore is just a gigantic pain in the arse for the immediate manager and will only lead to their decision being overturned later, resulting in them losing credibility and having their underperforming staff member thumb their nose at them forever. Easier all round to cop out and just give everyone a satisfactory rating (not saying all managers to this, but you would really need to be motivated to fight the battle, and be prepared for all kinds of flak from bullying complaints to having to justify yourself repeatedly and in detail in investigations and reviews of your decision).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 223 ✭✭Glinda


    And in the end you'll be overturned anyway...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    Thats impressive. We should be thankful we have such good quality public servants.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Sounds like the person overseeing this review process might be part of that 1%.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭diomed


    If your standards are in the basement you will get a 99% satisfaction rating.
    So they have CIRCLED THE WAGONS. Hardly news.


Advertisement
Advertisement