Peer replies should be a minimum of 130 words, include at least 1 direct question and add value to the discussion

/in /by

Peer replies should be a minimum of 130 words each, include at least 1 direct question and add value to the discussion

STUDENT1: William

Good Day,

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 individual’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 week’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 “Complete
eighty (80 hours of continuous learning points (CLPs) in two years”.
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. “As a Defense Acquisition Workforce member, complete
forty (40) hours of continuous learning points each year before 30
September”.

STUDENT2: John

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 Gov’t to contractor
relationship, tend to be a bunch of brow beating and in the end doesn’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, it’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 won’t’ feel like they are walking into the
lion’s den.

Reference:

Davis, P. (2001). Effects-Based Operations. Retrieved March 21, 2019,
from
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monogra…