Guidelines 2017
Continued need for greater honesty, candor, and accountability for rated employees, raters, reviewers, and review panels regarding documentation of examples, inadmissible comments, and overall evaluative quality as opposed to descriptive narrative;
- b) Getting to the “so-what” – more significant focus on strategic, programmatic, and conceptual perspective on accomplishments and their impact on mission/bureau/post/office goals rather than default to list of tasks or volume of work;
- c) Greater realism and honesty regarding the employee’s professional development (strengths and weaknesses) rather than a throwaway or nonsense area for improvement;
- d) More critical reasoning and examples that justify promotion recommendations and identify underperformers clearly and objectively; and
- e) More accountability for management, interpersonal, and communication issues, that is, the ability to work with supervisors, peers, and subordinates.
