Only 1% of Civil servants not performing

Menas · 09-12-2013 10:43AM #1

Amazingly good news from an internal review of the performance levels of our 30,000 civil servants shows that only 1% of them have a performance level of 'needs improvement' or 'not acceptable'.

In my company, a profitable IT company with a few thousand employees we normally see about 20% fall in to these categories in our annual reviews.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/civil-service-performance-review-deemed-failure-as-majority-pass-1.1621423

Boombastic · 09-12-2013 10:45AM

internal review?

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

seems legit :pac:

PanaDrama · 09-12-2013 10:51AM

awec · 09-12-2013 10:52AM

Internal review = worthless.

DeanAustin · 09-12-2013 10:54AM

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.

Aglomerado · 09-12-2013 10:55AM

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.

SpaceTime · 09-12-2013 10:55AM

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!?!

Dravokivich · 09-12-2013 10:58AM

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?

wmpdd3 · 09-12-2013 10:58AM

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

Banjo String · 09-12-2013 10:59AM

Saw thread title.

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

SpaceTime · 09-12-2013 10:59AM

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

SEPT 23 1989 · 09-12-2013 11:00AM

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

Menas · 09-12-2013 11:00AM

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.

SpaceTime · 09-12-2013 11:00AM

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%

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

Boombastic · 09-12-2013 11:04AM

Trigger Happy wrote: »

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?

DeanAustin · 09-12-2013 11:09AM

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.

jester77 · 09-12-2013 11:09AM

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

keeponhurling · 09-12-2013 11:13AM

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)

Riskymove · 09-12-2013 11:34AM

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?

Boombastic · 09-12-2013 11:42AM

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?

Riskymove · 09-12-2013 11:45AM

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

anncoates · 09-12-2013 11:46AM

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.

Boombastic · 09-12-2013 11:47AM

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

Zulu · 09-12-2013 11:49AM

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

Riskymove · 09-12-2013 11:51AM

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

BMJD · 09-12-2013 11:51AM

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.

Glinda · 09-12-2013 11:52AM

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).

Glinda · 09-12-2013 11:54AM

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

woodoo · 09-12-2013 03:55PM

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

Knasher · 09-12-2013 04:01PM

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

diomed · 09-12-2013 04:02PM

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

Only 1% of Civil servants not performing

Comments