Croke Park 2 - dead before it gets voted upon

[Bill Struth]

Do people who get a grade of 2 get the same (full) increment as someone who gets a 3 or a 4 (please tell me this is not true )???

No it isn't. Since 'Croke Park 1' the grading system of 1-5 has been replaced with a grading system as follows:

Exceptional Performance
High Standard
Fully Achieved Expectations
Needs to Improve
Unsatisfactory

A grade of at least 'fully achieved expectations' is required to receive an increment.

 

[Purple]

Yes, 99% get 3 and above in the only data available (on 23,000 civil servants) – see my post #119 and http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/06/26/00132.asp 8% got a 5, 56% got a 4, 35% got a 3, 0.9% got a 2 and 0.1% got a 1. So 64% got 4 or better, 99% got a 3 or better and 99.9% got a 2 or better.How do you decide whether an individual manager has properly overseen the process? How do you decide what is an acceptable range of outcomes – either on an organisation-wide basis or on a smaller team basis? A manager of 20 people could have 20 strong performers deserving of 4s – does he have to downgrade some so that he appears to have managed well in producing a wide range of grades?

This sort of discussion comes up quite a bit when talk of performance management, efficiency and accountability comes up in the Public Sector.
A friend of mine is a teacher and he said that it was impossible to come up with a system that would measure teachers performance. When I disagreed he challenged me to tell him how it could be done.
My response was to say it was impossible to make aeroplanes and if he disagreed to prove me wrong by telling me in detail how they were made. He said I was being stupid, how would he know, he’s not an aerospace engineer. I said “exactly”.

 

[orka]

No it isn't. Since 'Croke Park 1' the grading system of 1-5 has been replaced with a grading system as follows:

If it's since Croke Park 1 (2010?), why does the Dail question/answer refer to grades 1-5 for the 2011 year?

 

[Purple]

(5) Exceptional Performance
(4) High Standard
(3) Fully Achieved Expectations
(2) Needs to Improve
(1) Unsatisfactory

Wow, that’s some really great reform.
I presume there was extensive re-training to explain the new system to staff.

 

[Firefly]

No it isn't. Since 'Croke Park 1' the grading system of 1-5 has been replaced with a grading system as follows:

Exceptional Performance
High Standard
Fully Achieved Expectations
Needs to Improve
Unsatisfactory

A grade of at least 'fully achieved expectations' is required to receive an increment.

Hi Bill,

If 2 staff members are on the same level and one gets a 3 and the other gets a 5 do they get the same increment, or does the person who gets a 5 get a higher amount?

Firefly.

 

[dereko1969]

Hi Bill,

If 2 staff members are on the same level and one gets a 3 and the other gets a 5 do they get the same increment, or does the person who gets a 5 get a higher amount?

Firefly.

Yes. Ratings are supposed to taken into consideration in promotion competitions but I'd say rarely are.

Instructions to managers are to use the bell-curve.

How are staff rated in your organisation? Do annual reviews take place?

 

[Bill Struth]

Hi Bill,

If 2 staff members are on the same level and one gets a 3 and the other gets a 5 do they get the same increment, or does the person who gets a 5 get a higher amount?

Firefly.

Both employees move up one point on their pay scale, regardless of whether they got a 3 or a 5.

 

[Bill Struth]

If it's since Croke Park 1 (2010?), why does the Dail question/answer refer to grades 1-5 for the 2011 year?

Sorry, the change was mooted in CP1, but was implemented only this year.

 

[Firefly]

Both employees move up one point on their pay scale, regardless of whether they got a 3 or a 5.

Sounds like a good deal for those committed

 

[Leper]

Up to the 1990's I worked in the Public Service. I was as junior a clerk as you could find. Then along came confined internal competitions to become the most junior of the management grade (Admin. Officer or perhaps it was Acting Admin. Officer). Two clerical officers (both with wide range experience and plenty of cop on etc) were not allowed to go further in the competition i.e they were not allowed to present their cv just for the interview. Both were informed by Line Maagers that they were not of the standard required (a load of rubbish, incidentally).

The two "failures" resigned shortly after the competition. One is now lecturing in Kings Inns and the other received a Phd after returning to college.

So much for other peoples' opinions and the subsequent interviews.

 

[Purple]

Leper, your story demonstrates the structural failings of the Public Sector perfectly.
The greatest resource any organisation has is its people. If they are not motivated and utilised properly there will always be massive waste and inefficiency.

One of the things I try to do at work is make myself redundant; I try to make sure that other people can do my job. That way I can create the space to do new things and expand my reach and function.
Once I have learned something and designed the systems and procedures to implement it the next step is to train someone else to do that part of my job so I can move on to the next thing. That’s what makes work interesting.

 

[dereko1969]

Up to the 1990's I worked in the Public Service. I was as junior a clerk as you could find. Then along came confined internal competitions to become the most junior of the management grade (Admin. Officer or perhaps it was Acting Admin. Officer). Two clerical officers (both with wide range experience and plenty of cop on etc) were not allowed to go further in the competition i.e they were not allowed to present their cv just for the interview. Both were informed by Line Maagers that they were not of the standard required (a load of rubbish, incidentally).

The two "failures" resigned shortly after the competition. One is now lecturing in Kings Inns and the other received a Phd after returning to college.

So much for other peoples' opinions and the subsequent interviews.

Did they challenge that assertion?

 

[Birroc]

(5) Exceptional Performance
(4) High Standard
(3) Fully Achieved Expectations
(2) Needs to Improve
(1) Unsatisfactory

Wow, that’s some really great reform.
I presume there was extensive re-training to explain the new system to staff.

I worked in the public sector for several years (and made a stupid decision to leave) and you'd have to douse your manager in petrol and start flicking a lighter to get a poor rating (especially if you were in the union). Increments were/are an entitlement. Twice I saw two utterly useless individuals getting excellent performance reviews for the simple reason that they could then be promoted out of our section. What the public sector really needs is a round of compulsory redundancies to root out the dossers and send a message of real reform. All people managers would be grateful.

 

[gianni]

Up to the 1990's I worked in the Public Service. I was as junior a clerk as you could find. Then along came confined internal competitions to become the most junior of the management grade (Admin. Officer or perhaps it was Acting Admin. Officer). Two clerical officers (both with wide range experience and plenty of cop on etc) were not allowed to go further in the competition i.e they were not allowed to present their cv just for the interview. Both were informed by Line Maagers that they were not of the standard required (a load of rubbish, incidentally).

The two "failures" resigned shortly after the competition. One is now lecturing in Kings Inns and the other received a Phd after returning to college.

So much for other peoples' opinions and the subsequent interviews.

I assume that there were clearly defined minimum requirements for the position that these individuals did not meet (at the time of application).

It is admirable that they then excelled in their chosen fields. Perhaps their realisation that they fell short in the minimum requirements for a junior management post encouraged them to better their future prospects via education/training/etc..

 

[Leper]

Nice post Purple, but with over 5000 posts here you probably would make yourself redundant (especially if you were working for me)[dont know how to insert a winking smilie here]. Nice to see you training your colleagues though (another mistake, when will you be cast aside as a result?).

Dereko asked if the two "failures" challenged the assertion. The answer is an emphatic "No" - they could not be bothered. I meet both of them separately and occasionally and we have a laugh at the people who used to assess us. Amazing power for such assessors and although they are now retired they are as dull as ever. They are golfers and the only thing they cannot do is hit their balls straight down the middle.

Gianni, of course there were clearly defined minimum requirements, but that had nothing to do with anything in the minds of the assessors. Believe me the two never fell short of anything (in fact were excellent performers). I reckon they were so talented that they had to be stopped in their tracks by people who did not want to be surpassed by talent.

Therefore, any assessing was done (like the Bing Crosby song says) "Straight down the Middle."

 

[gianni]

Gianni, of course there were clearly defined minimum requirements, but that had nothing to do with anything in the minds of the assessors. Believe me the two never fell short of anything (in fact were excellent performers). I reckon they were so talented that they had to be stopped in their tracks by people who did not want to be surpassed by talent.

Therefore, any assessing was done (like the Bing Crosby song says) "Straight down the Middle."

To be frank, if they met the minimum requirements and didn't submit CV's just because of the opinion of their line managers..more fool them.

 

[Leper]

To be frank, if they met the minimum requirements and didn't submit CV's just because of the opinion of their line managers..more fool them.

If the line manager assessed somebody below par, it meant you could not submit your cv i.e. you fell at the first hurdle.

 

[Teatime]

Sen Maurice Hayes having a go at the civil service. Hard to argue with it.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/civil-service-putting-own-privileges-before-state-29120374.html

 

[Purple]

Nice post Purple, but with over 5000 posts here you probably would make yourself redundant (especially if you were working for me)[dont know how to insert a winking smilie here]. Nice to see you training your colleagues though (another mistake, when will you be cast aside as a result?).

Yep, an average of just under 2 posts a day; I'm really dossing all the time in work.
Most jobs change and evolve as new technology comes along or better work practices are develop. In most cases that constant change is just part of the job and one of the things that both challenges people and removes some of the monotony that most of us face in aspects of our work.
The problem with overly structured employment contracts or rigid work structures is that it stops the flow of evolution within the work place. That costs the organisation efficiency, destroys competitiveness and leads to frustrated and under motivated employees.
Everyone where I work is training someone else to do their job. If they are not doing that then they are damaging the future of the organisation and so the long term prospects of everyone who works here.

 

[Firefly]

According to Dan O'Brien in today's Irish Times:

"...public sector workers, despite having suffered net income reductions, have, on average, retained a large part of the gains from bubble-era pay increases.
The average gross pay packet in the public sector* was €63,305 last year, down by €1,300 from the peak registered in 2009. But it remains well up on the €58,170 paid in 2007 just as the bubble burst"

So even though cuts have been made, wages are still higher, on average, than they were at the height of the boom..

Dan O'Brien has a follow up piece in today's IT:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ble-era-public-sector-pay-anomalies-1.1319592

"
Although many in the public sector acknowledge that they enjoyed annual increases, benchmarking increases and other increments, for many others, including the letter writer above, it is a case of eaten bread is soon forgotten.
The degree to which public sector workers benefited from the unsustainable inflow of tax revenues during the property bubble years should not be in question. Not only did the public sector pay bill rise faster than any other public sector in the EU after the turn of the century, but inflation-adjusted average earnings increases were hugely greater than those in the private sector.

Not only were average weekly nominal earnings in the private sector already well below those in the public sector when the bubble began to inflate, the gap widened over the course of the bubble years, as the chart below shows.
The gains public sector workers made when compared with their private sector counterparts are much more stark when inflation is taken into account. While average weekly wages in the private sector rose by less than 15 per cent in the period between 2003 and 2009, those in the public sector enjoyed an average increase of 38 per cent.

Given that the consumer price index over that six-year period rose by 13.4 per cent, in real terms, average private earnings were effectively stagnant in the six years to 2009, while those in the public sector grew by more than one quarter.

Since 2009, public sector workers have suffered a larger decline in earnings than those in the private sector, but their real incomes are still well ahead of a decade ago.

On the other hand, in real terms, average private sector earnings are now lower than 10 years ago.

Should people who earn less on average and who have experienced falling real incomes really pay more tax to fund the incomes of those who are richer and retain most of their bubble-era gains?
"