I agree to Idea Employee evaluation of Management I disagree to Idea Employee evaluation of Management

Idea#1715

This idea is active.
Increasing Transparency & Enhancing Disaster Preparedness »

Employee evaluation of Management

Employees rate FEMA an "F" over the last 6 Emp Satisfaction Surveys. To address this, FEMA needs to weed out the incompetent, self-serving employees who are in roles of supervision and management. This suggestion is for Employees to evaluate their supervisors/managers at the end of deployment, just like employees themselves are evaluated. This measurement should be used to determine is the individual should remain in management or be moved into staff/support roles.

Comment

Submitted by 1 year ago

Comments (11)

  1. I actually like this idea but i could see problems with individuals getting revenge on some good management individuals. There would have to be certain guidelines so as not to weed out good individuals.

    1 year ago
  2. Community Member Idea Submitter

    If a crew of 6 evaluate someone "low", doesn't that speaks for itself? I don't see how anyone could be against this ides since EVERY major company in the US uses this technique to measure managers.

    Nothing else has been working in the last 6 years, has it?

    1 year ago
  3. EVERY major company in the US uses this technique? And not every major company in the US has been experiencing good results in the last 6 years. GM, Standards and Poors,

    Enron, Aldelpha, WorldCom, etc. . A problem initially exists where a manager doesn't know how to do their subordninates work but evaluates their subordinates. Now are we to assume the subordinates should evaluate the managers rendering a dual set of unqualified evaluations?

    Commercial Business methods do not always translate to sound government methods, policies, and procedures. NIMS is very clear: "The evaluator is the person who will actually

    observe for certification/re-certification purposes

    the tasks being performed and documents successful

    performance.It is the responsibility of the evaluator to:

    Be certified in the position being evaluated."

    So, when does the RESOURCE UNIT LEADER (RSL) start evaluating the PLANNING SECTION CHIEF (PSC)???

    1 year ago
  4. Unfortunatly...as the proverbial 'it rolls downhill'...the opposite would become true and Mgmnt. [fearful of itself] would look at it as challenge to their authority all the way up the chain...BUT...It is a terrific idea!!! 27 years with the Gov. and never kissed butt but received what I did thru merit...once they realized I had merit [that was an inside joke back when] since I was looked at by Mgmnt. as a threat to their "we've-always-done-it-that way" attitude.

    1 year ago
    1. I get that,book wormed to death/buried in paperwork has been my problem,and in the mean time deaths and destruction that could of been prevented.

      8 months ago
  5. Which government agency? Again, one shoe does not fit all and each one has a different mission as well as different objectives and task requirements that require different evaluation standards. It is highly doubtful that US EPA would use FQS (FEMA Qualification System )and Qualification Review Boards (QRBs). Accordingly, DHS and FEMA turn out best to performance of mission than the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because of benchmarks being on a set of standards, measures and metrics rather than based upon employee satisfaction surveys, employees rating superiors, and a fell good approach. The difference being only the qualified being able to rate the subordinate and trainees.Obviously, while everyone was making others feel good at the SEC, the SEC apparently failed their mission and function regarding GM, Standards and Poors,

    Enron, Aldelpha, WorldCom, etc. .

    "we've-always-done-it-that way" attitude"???

    Now this is why the unqualified should not even attempt to evaluate the qualified to avoid scandals at organizations like the SEC and VA. Togo Dennis West, Jr.

    and Eric Shinseki as secretary of veterans affairs does not seem to differ as to results but we are led to believe that the current problem is a new problem. Should outsiders or subordinates evaluate either or should those that are qualified weed-out the individuals that failed to perform on their formal job descriptions.Apparently at the VA they have always done it that way and current results are the same results of the past. Obviously, the employee satisfaction syvey, employees, evaluations of superiors, and the feel good approaches do no work to well toward mission and objectives at either SEC or VA. Why emulate the failures of either?

    1 year ago
  6. I remember being in FEMA HQ--oh the quandary of the "under mumblers". I spent 25yrs deploying as a civil servant for DoD, DHS, and FEMA...I don't blame my supervisor for my feelings of being uncomfortable being deployed. You knew what you were getting yourself into when you submitted your resume, interviewed for the job, and raised your right hand as you swore in. If you don't like the work...usajobs.gov has openings...but read the fine print this time.

    8 months ago
    1. I get that too when your own lifes experiences get wiped even in the fine print due to some form of stigma. But I recall that line of Thomas Edison about such stigmas. He said from my lifes experiences I can teach you a thousand way that a light bulb will not work-near quote.

      8 months ago
  7. Of my own such experience inside CERT training besides never having experienced enough of the noted to shake the proverbial stick at nor never even having been deployed and that's an to the plus a perfect record,but there is some merit to this matter i.e. many either enlisted or draftees into our Armed Services went from so called peon status to proving their worth in the field and got a field granted Officer status for it...point the likewise of it here as with military of the many who never even saw the inside walls of no elite military training school but yet some earned the highest Officer rank possible.

    8 months ago
  8. It's done in the ARC (Red Cross) too - that's a volunteer organization. Tends to keep everyone accountable. And all evals are reviewed with discretion - both directions, up and down the scale. It might just be these folks need a little management training input before they're put on the line again, or perhaps a shift in responsibility. Constructive input is a good thing for all

    4 months ago
  9. “It's done in the ARC (Red Cross) too - that's a volunteer organization”-?

    1- There is a difference between a ‘HOT-WASH’ and a formal evaluation.

    2- At last glance the ARC was managed and supervised by well compensated individuals to facilitate the rendition and provisioning of ESF-6 and ESF-8 services and activities. While some contribute volunteers, many of the staff a very well compensated for their services.

    This could be described as a ‘COMBONATION-ORGANIZATION;

    “And all evals are reviewed with discretion - both directions, up and down the scale”-?

    1- This is interesting since-“The provisions of FCD-1 are applicable to the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. § 101, including the Department of Homeland Security, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 103(1), and the United States Postal Service.”

    2- At last glance the ARC was holding a Federal Corporate Charter. Some NGOs are officially designated as support elements to national response capabilities. • The American Red Cross. The American Red Cross is a supporting agency to the mass care functions of Emergency Support Function (ESF) #6. While it does not direct other NGOs, the American Red Cross takes the lead in integrating the efforts of the national NGOs that provide mass care services during response operations. Apparently, the ARC is not exempt from the NRF, NIMS, COOP, nor ICS applications.

    A capability is provided with proper planning, organization, training, equipment, and exercises. The

    capability elements define the resources needed to perform the critical tasks to the specified levels of

    performance, with the recognition that there is rarely a single combination of capability elements that

    must be used to achieve a capability.

    1- Assuming but not concluding that there is some validity within the comments of finchhere;

    a) Where are the ICS Form 225-s (Incident Personnel Performance Rating) for compensated individuals signed-off by qualified volunteers-? {QUALIFIED* EVALUATIONS}

    2- Where are the ICS Form 224-s (Crew Performance Rating) for compensated individuals signed-off by qualified volunteers-? {QUALIFIED* EVALUATIONS}

    3- Where are the TASK BOOKS for compensated individuals signed-off by qualified volunteers-? {QUALIFIED* EVALUATIONS}

    The American Red Cross is led by the chairman of the board and the president and chief executive officer (CEO). The chairman of the board of the American Red Cross is appointed by the President of the United States. The chairman leads the board of governors in the governance and oversight of the organization. The president and CEO of the Red Cross is appointed by the Board of Governors. The president and CEO executes Red Cross strategies and leads the operations and business activities of the Red Cross.

    At last glance the Chairman of the American Red Cross is by the President of the United States ans is only subject to evaluation by by the President of the United States based on performance. At last glance the president and CEO of the Red Cross is appointed by the Board of Governors and is only subject to evaluation by the Board of Governors for performance. It does not appear that either compensated nor volunteer staff universally evaluate all ARC staff in both directions, up and down the scale.

    * Personnel Qualifications is a term used to denote incidents that require responders to hold credentials under the National Credentialing Program.

    4 months ago

Your comment will be published after it's approved by the moderators.

Vote Activity Show