0:02 Hey, federal employees. If you've worked
0:04 hard all year and then you're told,
0:06 "Hey, we can't give too many fives." It
0:08 can feel like the whole system just
0:10 shifted under your feet, but you're not
0:12 imagining it. We've covered this before,
0:15 but this is impacting so many people.
0:17 I'm Sean South, CEO of Southwest PC. We
0:18 represent federal employees and
0:20 applicants, and I'm hearing more and
0:22 more about agencies normalizing
0:24 performance ratings. That means steering
0:25 most people towards a three out of a
0:27 five. There was just a Washington Post
0:29 article about this. Stick to the end for
0:31 my blunt thoughts. So, here's the
0:33 takeaway. Your rating is supposed to
0:35 reflect your performance against written
0:37 standards, not an invisible quota. And I
0:39 hate when good people get blamed for a
0:41 systemwide recalibration. A three is
0:43 often meant to be fully successful. In
0:45 theory, that's fine. But in real life, a
0:47 three can still affect awards,
0:49 promotions, and how you're seen. So,
0:50 when your rating drops because, hey,
0:52 we're re-calibrating. It doesn't just
0:54 sting, it can change career
0:56 opportunities. The trust problem is
0:57 this. If your supervisor is trying to
0:59 hit a distribution, you're left asking,
1:02 "Was I rated on my work or was I rated
1:04 on a curve?" Federal performance systems
1:05 are designed for individualized
1:08 evaluation, not forced distribution. So,
1:09 when you hear, "Everybody's getting a
1:11 three or we had too many top ratings
1:13 this year." That's a cue to ask calmly
1:14 and professionally. Can you walk me
1:16 through in my elements and standards
1:18 what specifically kept me from the
1:20 higher level? Two things to watch for,
1:22 vague explanations with no concrete
1:24 examples tied to your standards and goal
1:26 posts moving late in the year. All year
1:28 it's great job and suddenly the bar
1:29 becomes something nobody ever said out
1:32 loud that could show discrimination,
1:34 retaliation, whistleblowing, reprisal.
1:36 And that's the key thing I'm watching
1:38 for the legal part. They might be able
1:39 to do this, but they cannot discriminate
1:42 or retaliate against you. So here's the
1:44 hope part. You can protect yourself with
1:46 facts. Keep your performance plan, save
1:48 keywork, product, and emails showing
1:49 outcomes and feedback. And if you're
1:52 already in a higher risk context such as
1:54 conflict with management, EEO activity,
1:56 whistleblowing, probationary status,
1:58 getting thoughts early on can help you
1:59 understand the process before it
2:01 accelerates. This is general
2:02 information, not legal advice, and every
2:05 situation turns on its facts. But you're
2:06 not too sensitive for caring. I think
2:08 this is going to be reality for a lot of
2:10 people, but your work matters and the
2:12 rule matters. So, please share this with
2:14 a co-orker who might be questioning why
2:16 they're getting surprise threes and
2:18 follow along if you want study practical
2:20 workplace guidance. Before I ask your
2:22 take, let me tell you, you know, as
2:23 someone who studies and constantly
2:25 thinks about workplaces and how to make
2:27 them better. What I think as a CEO, I
2:29 think force distributions are bad
2:31 business practice because they replace
2:33 honest performance management with a
2:36 quota system that predictably distorts
2:38 behavior. Controlled experiments on
2:40 force distribution ratings show in the
2:42 workplace they reduce team collaboration
2:44 and knowledge sharing which is the
2:45 opposite of what high performing
2:48 organizations need. So this is a
2:50 boneheaded move from OPM. It's like they
2:52 don't want things to go well. Research
2:53 also warns that even when they boost
2:56 short-term effort forced rankings can
2:57 increase perceptions of unfairness which
2:59 is linked to lower good teammate
3:00 behavior and higher dysfunctional
3:02 competition. And when you cap
3:04 recognition at the top, you shouldn't be
3:06 surprised when your people start looking
3:08 around for new jobs. Recent scholarship
3:11 and reporting highlight higher achiever
3:12 attrition risk when top ratings are
3:14 restricted. In other words, the best
3:15 people aren't going to want to sit
3:17 around. And Microsoft is a well-known
3:19 example of a major employer that
3:21 ultimately ended stack ranking after
3:23 years of internal backlash. So
3:25 boneheaded move. That's what I think.
3:27 What do you think? I want your take in
3:28 the comments. Have you been told, "Hey,
3:30 we can't give too many fives. Does a
3:31 three function like a quiet penalty
3:34 where you work? Do rating caps improve
3:35 fairness or punish the people carrying
3:37 the mission? And what would a
3:38 performance system look like that
3:40 rewards excellence without turning it
3:42 into a quota? Is it too much to ask the
3:44 people who are in charge of the federal
3:47 workplace to read some studies and do
3:50 things that make sense? Like that's the
3:51 thing in my mind. I don't think they
3:54 have any ration for this and they
3:56 haven't thought it through. It's not
3:57 what you would see people at top
3:59 companies doing and it's it's not good
4:00 enough for their best American
4:02 corporations. It's not good enough for
4:04 the federal workplace. Okay, I slipped
4:06 back into my thoughts. Anyway, thank you
4:07 everybody for your support. Hope you
4:10 have a great day. Take care. [music]
