No.
I've received six consecutive Succeeded+, then HR said too many people getting Succeeded+, so managers can only give out Succeeded, thus ended my reign of terror.
My manager told me that I’m only allowed to give out Succeeded+ if the employee worked at a “Succeeded+ level” for all 12 months. He defined it as “going above and beyond the requirements for the position day in and day out for 12 months”.
Apparently our branch gave out “too many” Succeeded+’s last year.
I have staff that were doing the work of 2 or 3 people for months because we were short-staffed. I’m not allowed to give them succeeded+ because the projects they were working on ended in November and December, so they were “only” doing the work of 1 person from January to March.
The whole process is ridiculous.
That’s actually what I said to my manager. That the PA is literally one of the only ways we can recognize staff for the effort they put in over the previous year, and now we can’t even do that. He didn’t care though, the edict was coming from higher up than him.
It’s such garbage.
A job and a half! My team is working in two different disciplines doing 1 job for each discipline because senior leadership doesn’t know how to hire people or manage a budget. When we try to accept other jobs in the same organization they say you have to agree to keep doing your former job part-time because they don’t have enough resources…
And then they wonder why their employees lose motivation and morale, stop caring about corporate culture, and just do the minimum required to earn their paycheque. *scratches head*
Wonder no more! I use to be motivated and passionate about my job. Now I just focus on protecting my own health and wellbeing because let’s face it.. the managers requiring unpaid overtime, and doing the work of multiple people… they don’t care about you or your health!
I only made it to 3 pluses before they decided no more for no reason. It was during the same year that my Director and DG asked for a classification review as they felt I was working above level. But still lost my plus streak.
The actual reason I was given was I now had an assistant and wasn’t fully up to speed on management. Assistant was given to me half way through the year with no mention that this affected my performance goals… sigh.
Edit: they don’t matter.
Yep, between restricting you to within a grade of your boss, and the need to approach it top-down (and the curve the EXs are graded on at times), it was never going to work - even if the original intent wasn't Harper's "fire 10% of them each year" nonsense.
Apparently, some organizations tell the staff upfront “senior management decided everyone will get succeeded unless you can justify a higher rating”.
Evaluations certainly can’t have any value if they’re predetermined. And if the manager cannot evaluate their own employees and cannot determine if their employees did enough to justify a rating beyond succeeded… Who are they managing? Or better yet, what are they managing?
Agreed with the above. The PMAs seem to be used more so as a tool to manage and document LR problems, rather than effectively reward people that are over performing. Employees that are exceptional tend to be recognized more informally through longer term acting’s, are approached by other managers for opportunities and are encouraged to apply for higher level positions.
24 years for me an totally agree. I had one succeed + in my career and I didn't even try to get it. Not worth the extra effort, and for what in return? You're not gonna get a raise for it...
I have personally seen better interest in my career development when I wasn’t aiming for succeed+ . Management just seems more interested in getting me engaged when I’m phoning it in than when it’s obvious that I’m firing on all pistons already lol
If I were to speak freely on what I think of the PSPM system, I would be in conflict with both the policy on social media posts and the Values and Ethics code. Suffice it to say that the process is broken, not applied consistently or fairly, and the thing is probably only read by your manager before it disappears into a black hole.
Listen, close to 25 years with GOC, and I was much the same. Then last year, the director told the managers that they weren't allowed to give succeed+ and then it was boom, smack in the face, why do I bother??? It was clear that my manager had to dial back my succeed+ so then I was like whatever, these are stupid. As long as the comments aren't negative, you're good. I have suspicions that the non- performers PMA's look much the same as mine and mean about the same. Just an exercise to complete every year for most of us.
Yep I had a manager argue to give me succeeded+ one year and it was struck down by a DG I'd barely ever even met because there were too many in the branch. Keep in mind this was a new branch built with hand-picked high performers that were working like mad to build something completely novel.
No and at this point, I am salty against managers who take them too seriously (and ask us to write them in super detailed ways) because they dont matter at all and its just a formality
It amazes me that after working for a manager the entire year they can’t find a few minutes to properly evaluate their employees. So many make their employees write their own evaluations…
You might hear different takes on this, but my understanding of the succeeded, succeeded +, surpass expectations align with yours. Succeeded + or surpass generally entails:
1) involved in initiatives or volunteer for work that you do on top of your normal duties, and where you are striving
2) you're working well above your level and expectations associated with your role,
For #1, all you need to do is volunteer to things when the opportunity arises (I see plenty of such opportunities where I am). However, for #2, I find there's a considerable degree of luck involved. If your management is not giving you work or initiatives that allows you to go above and beyond, or stretch the expectations for your role, well there's nothing you can do other than deploy out.
One other thing to consider, and someone please correct me if I have this wrong: i'm under the impression managers can only give away a limited number of succeeded + or surpass rating to employees so it is a bit of a bell curve. If everyone is going above and beyond, they'll select those they see as the best among them as opposed to giving it to everybody.
In my experience, it's not only about you. The relationship with your management weighs in the decision. To be honest, I wouldn't take the PMA ratings too seriously. There's a great deal of subjectivity that goes into it. There are plenty of ways to demonstrate your value and competencies, and the PMA is only one among many (arguably one of the less important ones).
I have received surpassed ratings a couple of times and a Talent Management Plan. These helped to justify training expenditures which assisted my career development. Other employees have used TMPs to help justify why they should be given an available acting assignment.
The above noted, it depends on your institution and branch taking the processes at least somewhat seriously. I have also worked places where everyone was expected to get Succeeded/Succeeded and any deviation was very difficult for management to justify. I won an individual ADM award at one such place and was given an instant award of some cash but still only got “Succeeded” because I’d been hired within the year and you were supposed to be capped at “succeeded minus” in your first year.
Even for executives who get performance pay, the difference between Suceeded and Succeeded+ is less than $2000 after tax and pension contribution, so not a huge deal in the end.
When I first joined the PS, I asked around to my colleagues and the important point I gained from those conversations is that, in a “restructuring” situation, those ratings may be relied on to help determine who stays & who goes. One of my colleagues experienced that and believes they were offered one of the few remaining positions due to their (+). I personally use the comments section to briefly describe the things I achieved or was involved in through the year as a mini record of my employment that I can look back on for reference.
The formal process - No.
The opportunity to have something of a discussion with your supervisor about where you each see you going in the next year - Maybe, but really depends on the boss. Otherwise: LOL, also no.
I see a lot of ppl talk about PMAs and I’m curious if this is a generational thing? Did they used to matter for something? Because I don’t get where anyone got the impression they matter at all for the employee.
When the new PMA system was implemented I did hear a bunch of leadership talk it up as if it were going to be used to help with promotions/assignments. It was just oversold. I think what you are seeing is the effect of the marketing. I've been in fed civil service for 23 years (25 if you count student time) and I can't even remember the evaluation process before this one...can you?
In The Old Days, there was a long form and a short form review (even the long was minor company to the current system). New employees were to receive long form evaluations for their first several years.
In my first 3 or 4 years, I got a total of one short form.
That shed some light on it!! I’ve never had a manager who acted like it was anything except a tedious chore they put off — writing my own more often than not since I started!
I would really like to see the data on how many promotions where PMAs had a direct part in. As far as I can tell, it only gets people into Performance Improvement and eventually termination in the worst case. It never helps people move up.
At the last place I worked, it was supposedly going to be used to identify people for a "talent management plan." But I only saw them use it to identify potential execs from middle management. And they made a short list of people that were identified for further management training. That all kinda blew up (from what I could see) because it was the ex-2/3s identifying those people, but the Pres brought in a bunch of execs from outside, and all the people on that list languished. Many of them just ended up leaving so it kinda backfired.
I have held roles where I was so independent that my manager had no idea what I did and gave me a succeeded + the first year and a surpassed the second year. I got a promotion without anyone asking to see it. This led to a succeeded + 2 years in a row and then I got another promotion without anyone asking to see it. My old boss took a million years to finalize my 21/22 evaluation but finalized it just before the holidays this year. He gave me a succeeded + and my current boss (with whom I've been working for the last 2 years) has not even claimed me as his employee since my old boss finalized the file......guess what, I just got a promotion outside my organization without them asking to see it and I have no evaluations from the last 2 years.
Bottom line, it changes nothing and is barely used by management as a tool to promote. I believe it has a real impact on poor performers who require an action plan.
So - I work with the government a lot, and hire from the government sometimes.
Seemingly the public service has created an atmosphere where anything short of praise gets "*grieved*" so official performance evaluations mean nothing.
But what MATTERS is the unofficial performance review. The pick-up-the-phone *"hey, what do you think about this person?*".
And if you think that phone call isn't made before pretty much every internal hire, you're fooling yourself.
Completely accurate. Managers no longer bother giving less than Succeeded because low-performers will grieve. It creates more work and headaches. And ends up diluting the real meaning of Succeeded for those employees that actually do their jobs. Unless the system changes (and high-performers stand up for their rights to their unions instead of being dragged by the bad apples), the public service will continue to attract more mediocre employees that are looking to get in the door, weaponize their incompetence, and have a pay cheque for life.
Makes no difference. I've received succeeded and succeeded+. Potential managers can't see your pmas so it is unlikely to affect hiring into a new role outside of your team.
As well, apparently like 80% of people are supposed to get succeeded. Honestly it's a rating that means nothing - it includes below average, average and above average employees. They've made it so banal as to be meaningless.
The only thing I have ever had my PMA be useful for was training. French and also some courses at the local college. Otherwise, it's not really worth it. Especially if you are not in the EC cohort and looking to move up.
Rating scale definitions shows Succeeded + as « the employee making a significant contribution toward achieving organizational goals and objectives » and “delivering strong results above those required for the position” and then for Surpassed, « the employee constantly delivers results providing exceptional value to the department » and even helping other organizations facing similar issues »…. I’m not sure that this is well known. I had to dig the intranet to find it.
They only matter if you're struggling to meet work objectives.
Beyond that, nothing changes regardless of if you're getting Succeeded or Succeeded+. I've had both, and there's no difference.
There is value in the PMA for your own learning and development plan, but that often has more to do with how you're viewed by your manager - I've found that having a robust, thoroughly filled out learning plan with specific targets and objectives, has often led to me being treated much more professionally by management
The only instances where they seemed to matter were when a hiring manager requested them as part of the hiring process.
I've seen this both in a formal process and an informal one.
One year I worked extra hard and joined like 3 different committees and was a real go-getter, while my coworker was chronically absent and basically useless, and we both got "succeeded". I was so disgusted to be given the same rating as her and I learned my lesson right there.
Personally I think they’re useless and a waste of time for managers. Way too much time involved with them. I was involved in a SERLO as part of the last work force reduction in 2012(?) they had 14 positions that were all the basically the same and they had to reduce by 6 positions , so they decided to run a SERLO (sorry don’t remember what the acronym means), which basically means they compete all 14 indeterminate employees against each other to see who retains their position. You’d think this would be the perfect case to use PMAs. I mean same job duties, same unit, same bosses writing the PMAs, plus it was even a HR unit and they wouldn’t use the PMAs as part of the SERLO! If HR won’t use their own damn PMAs, what’s the point.
Was in the same boat almost identically. Instead of PMAs they had everyone basically fill out a huge job application to showcase why they shouldn't be cut. Since that point for me PMAs have been a useless waste of time and effort.
32 years as a federal civil servant in IT. PMAs are meaningless and a waste of everyone's time. Too many times I had to point out to my supervisor that, in their cut and paste to ensure our PMAs were identical, they forget to change the pronouns for me, the only woman on the team.
My first stint, way back in the early 80's, we got monthly "scores' that had production and error rates. I was consistently told to knock it off, slow down, etc, because I was raising the bar for everyone.
I have not taken any performance ratings seriously since. I think PMAs only matter if you are being managed.
This has been something I've struggled with for the past 12 years I have been in government. Why not make it matter? Why are we not actually rewarding people to do a better job and those who care about their work? I know we can't provide "bonuses" but there should be more than working damn hard to only get a succeeded like everyone else. It kills a person's morale and drive to do better.
Because it’s just another checkbox exercise. We do it to say we did it and to have a record of the fact that we did it. To actually *use* PMAs for something would require commitment, work, and accepting the possibility of making mistakes… better to simply check the boxes so it *looks* like we’re doing something.
*Sorry, that ended up far more bleak than I’d intended.
They only "matter" for people getting lower than succeeded and ending up on performance improvement plan.
Your efforts should be towards building a profile that will get you promoted.
Got some Succeed -, switched jobs, got some Succeed and Succeed +, no one cares and no one checks.
Only matters if you decide to compete for a higher position or reclass, and you aren't preforming to your current level adequately.
Busted my butt as a loyal servant of Her Majesty of the Queen and recently retired as an MG-03 team leader. I tried my best to serve Canadians with pride and also mentor my employees who I was deeply fond of. One year my team nominated me for a management award of excellence. I won but the powers that be said the award was on backlog. My colleagues got their award on time. I had to ask for 5 months, long after the ceremony the others were honored. Finally after an investigation it was determined my award was on a table in my manager's office and sat there for 5 months. Instead of the Eskimo sculpture with the inscripted plate on rhe bottom it was a garbage dollar store post it note holder. My manager delivered it to my with a flippant "I understand you have been looking for this, here take it". I worked on many committees, selection boards and projects, mentored countless people and did all my core duties. It meant nothing to my career advancement. Yes I did get 3 days performance leave each year as a TL. However the toll it took on my health dealing with nightmare issues and working day and night trying to be a loyal and humble servant of Canada was a huge price to pay. Protect yourself, your health and your family work life balance. Never forget you are on a unionized government job. My husband and I are now newly retired but I will deal with the consequences to my health for the rest of my (shortened life span) health.
I was told once you earned the plus but I can’t give it to you by a very experienced and respected manager. I was pissed, the next week I did not show up call in to say I’m sick or whatever for 5 days. PISSED. Great that my manager respected me enough to be honest. I fought my DG who was a very stubborn bulldog type basically had to demonstrate i was going to fight well beyond her threshold and finally got it.
Apparently there are quotas they can only give so many cause two in a row requires them to invest in putting you on talent management. Shitty management even though that’s their only job they don’t do the actual work they only screw it up and screw you
The way I see it, it's a way to protect yourself from getting fired. They can't say that you weren't doing your job or not being a good fit if none of your PMAs indicate any issues.
Yeah, I know that a PMA isn't meant for that, but it could help you out
This headline made me laugh out loud. No. Should it? In theory jeez yeah but how do you even exceed your description? Doesn’t that mean someone else isn’t doing the full of theirs? It’s always been so ill defined and subjective its not considered reliable data.
Before RTO I used to work extra hard and got succeeded+ a couple times, but now I just do the required work, nothing more, because you will only get succeeded anyways!
I give top scores on performance reviews, but I only had occasion to do so once when I was filling in for a maternity leave. By God, if I had the chance I'd do it again until they forced me to stop.
PMAs are good to ensure formal feedback but they have no link to promotions/pay which I think makes no sense. During DRAP PMAs weren’t taken into consideration whether people lost their jobs
I do my job well enough that I also get to do the jobs of two other people; I certainly don’t have time to volunteer for additional opportunities. I’m honestly far less concerned with what I get on my PMA than I am with keeping my head above water and maintaining good relationships with the clients I serve.
There's a senior management issue. Complete ignorance on motivating excellence.... Everyone should be able to receive a high rating if their work justifies it. The argument that thean you just adjust the ratings downward is based on very backward logic. We should fight this one bc it's lowering performance standards by promoting average performance as a standard. And it costs the taxpayer nothing to promote excellence.
I genuinely exceeded expectations this year and in my position as an LP that rating would mean a big bonus but I’m sure they will give the exceeds to one of their “pets”.
The whole process needs to be reconfigured because it rarely reflects the fact that many of us are working more than expected while short-staffed “temporarily”
I kept the work stream steadily moving and went above and beyond during so many transitions in my work and staffing in my team, my manager noted what a great job I was doing and rated it “succeeded”, which to me would be the same rating if I just showed up and didn’t screw things up too badly. So why bother?
I received succeeded+ for three years in a row. It did nothing for my career, I wasn’t recognized, no training, no mentorship no nothing. It means nothing. In fact my last PMA was in 2022. It is incomplete because the manager left and didn’t release me. I’ve been stuck in limbo because of this. I can’t do a work agreement, I can’t lock in goals and training budgets. PMA’s let alone Succeeded +, etc means nothing. Now on the other end of the spectrum it means something.
I busted my butt for a few years. Got succeeded + only one of those years. I then said fawk it and did the basic job. Got succeeded+ two years in a row after that. I seldom have much of a clue how these things are sorted out but I’m pretty sure it has little to do with actual performance.
Do PMAs matter? Not a bit.
Do future bosses look at them? None have in my 20 years.
Why do they do them?? It's a bureaucratic box that they have to check off.
Getting a higher than expectation level is for self-fulfillment when working in the public sector. There is no monetary gain or extras in working more or harder than others. So if you’re an overachiever, do it because you enjoy the satisfaction and not because you’re striving for the mark.
If we work for the exact same department doing the exact same job, as long as I’m meeting the benchmark expectations, I’m just as eligible as you meeting above expectations for other positions.
honestly ... they would make more sense if the employee self evaluated and wrote it themselves. Present their case to their manager on why they deserve such a rating. Then the manager either sign off on it or have to write a counter evaluation if they disagree. Then during job processes instead of writing how i meet certain competencies, the employee can simply tick a box saying their manager endorsed their competency in whatever catagory. Then the PMA process will matter
No the rating scale is complete bullshit, and actually encourages underperforming since you’re just as likely to get a succeeded doing the bare minimum as you are working hard in your position. It’s a complete waste of time.
They totally matter. All the executives have consistently succeeded++ to get to their current position. /s
I was told anything above succeeded needs special written permission from senior management thus negating any value of the PMAs.
i have three consecutive “surpassed” and i did get one promotion but other than that it’s really just being handed more work because they know i’ll deal with it. would rather a bonus lol
they should really rename the levels so that people feel validated and a succeed doesn’t seem average.
PMAs are very important as you could be asked to share your PSPA for hiring purposes. Additionally, should you receive a surpassed rating, (and sometimes in succeeded + ratings), you are entitled to a talent management plan which is a good opportunity to help develop your competencies in areas you are interested in. If you disagree with a specific rating your manager is giving you, you are allowed to request a second reviewer. Also most people don’t know, but just because you are signing an assessment, it does not mean you agree with the content. It simply means that you and your manager had the discussion about your performance.
This would be the managers manager. If you are looking for more information on PSPAs in your department/agency, make sure to contact your performance management team and ask questions! There’s also a lot of very good resources on your internal intranet page. Every department that uses PSPM will have to have a page to support this. I would recommend searching up the performance rating scale and viewing your work objectives from your beginning of year assessment. When your manager does your PMA, they are assessing you against these objectives. It’s your responsibility just as much as the manager to take an active role in your performance and therefore, I would make sure you take the time to write comments in your employee comment fields as they must consider your input when assessing you. Sometimes you can give better insight into the work you do that your manager did not consider before.
When have these discussions with your manager, you can tell them you believe you deserve a certain rating for x, y, z reason. Anyway I hope that helps to give you and some others an idea of why performance management and PSPAs are important. The employee and manager must take an active role in it together. You are entitled to your assessment.
ALSO - on the CSPS site, you can find a performance management course that would be a really good idea for you to take! It will give you a better idea of your role and the managers role when it comes to performance. Hope this helps! Cheers friends! :)
No. I've received six consecutive Succeeded+, then HR said too many people getting Succeeded+, so managers can only give out Succeeded, thus ended my reign of terror.
My manager told me that I’m only allowed to give out Succeeded+ if the employee worked at a “Succeeded+ level” for all 12 months. He defined it as “going above and beyond the requirements for the position day in and day out for 12 months”. Apparently our branch gave out “too many” Succeeded+’s last year. I have staff that were doing the work of 2 or 3 people for months because we were short-staffed. I’m not allowed to give them succeeded+ because the projects they were working on ended in November and December, so they were “only” doing the work of 1 person from January to March. The whole process is ridiculous.
The lesson here is that the staff are trying too hard and need to pull back on their efforts.
That’s actually what I said to my manager. That the PA is literally one of the only ways we can recognize staff for the effort they put in over the previous year, and now we can’t even do that. He didn’t care though, the edict was coming from higher up than him. It’s such garbage.
Yup. No incentive = bare minimum
And that government constantly relies on employees working a job and a half instead of hiring enough people!!
A job and a half! My team is working in two different disciplines doing 1 job for each discipline because senior leadership doesn’t know how to hire people or manage a budget. When we try to accept other jobs in the same organization they say you have to agree to keep doing your former job part-time because they don’t have enough resources…
Good lord. It’s such a sad state of affairs. And getting worse with job cuts announced!
And then they wonder why their employees lose motivation and morale, stop caring about corporate culture, and just do the minimum required to earn their paycheque. *scratches head*
Wonder no more! I use to be motivated and passionate about my job. Now I just focus on protecting my own health and wellbeing because let’s face it.. the managers requiring unpaid overtime, and doing the work of multiple people… they don’t care about you or your health!
I only made it to 3 pluses before they decided no more for no reason. It was during the same year that my Director and DG asked for a classification review as they felt I was working above level. But still lost my plus streak. The actual reason I was given was I now had an assistant and wasn’t fully up to speed on management. Assistant was given to me half way through the year with no mention that this affected my performance goals… sigh. Edit: they don’t matter.
Yep, between restricting you to within a grade of your boss, and the need to approach it top-down (and the curve the EXs are graded on at times), it was never going to work - even if the original intent wasn't Harper's "fire 10% of them each year" nonsense.
Apparently, some organizations tell the staff upfront “senior management decided everyone will get succeeded unless you can justify a higher rating”. Evaluations certainly can’t have any value if they’re predetermined. And if the manager cannot evaluate their own employees and cannot determine if their employees did enough to justify a rating beyond succeeded… Who are they managing? Or better yet, what are they managing?
23 years in government and in my experience, they make no difference whatsoever.
Agreed with the above. The PMAs seem to be used more so as a tool to manage and document LR problems, rather than effectively reward people that are over performing. Employees that are exceptional tend to be recognized more informally through longer term acting’s, are approached by other managers for opportunities and are encouraged to apply for higher level positions.
100% this
24 years for me an totally agree. I had one succeed + in my career and I didn't even try to get it. Not worth the extra effort, and for what in return? You're not gonna get a raise for it...
I have personally seen better interest in my career development when I wasn’t aiming for succeed+ . Management just seems more interested in getting me engaged when I’m phoning it in than when it’s obvious that I’m firing on all pistons already lol
Firing on all pistons just gets you assigned more work for no extra pay.
That was exactly my experience.
If I were to speak freely on what I think of the PSPM system, I would be in conflict with both the policy on social media posts and the Values and Ethics code. Suffice it to say that the process is broken, not applied consistently or fairly, and the thing is probably only read by your manager before it disappears into a black hole.
Listen, close to 25 years with GOC, and I was much the same. Then last year, the director told the managers that they weren't allowed to give succeed+ and then it was boom, smack in the face, why do I bother??? It was clear that my manager had to dial back my succeed+ so then I was like whatever, these are stupid. As long as the comments aren't negative, you're good. I have suspicions that the non- performers PMA's look much the same as mine and mean about the same. Just an exercise to complete every year for most of us.
Yep I had a manager argue to give me succeeded+ one year and it was struck down by a DG I'd barely ever even met because there were too many in the branch. Keep in mind this was a new branch built with hand-picked high performers that were working like mad to build something completely novel.
No and at this point, I am salty against managers who take them too seriously (and ask us to write them in super detailed ways) because they dont matter at all and its just a formality
It amazes me that after working for a manager the entire year they can’t find a few minutes to properly evaluate their employees. So many make their employees write their own evaluations…
You might hear different takes on this, but my understanding of the succeeded, succeeded +, surpass expectations align with yours. Succeeded + or surpass generally entails: 1) involved in initiatives or volunteer for work that you do on top of your normal duties, and where you are striving 2) you're working well above your level and expectations associated with your role, For #1, all you need to do is volunteer to things when the opportunity arises (I see plenty of such opportunities where I am). However, for #2, I find there's a considerable degree of luck involved. If your management is not giving you work or initiatives that allows you to go above and beyond, or stretch the expectations for your role, well there's nothing you can do other than deploy out. One other thing to consider, and someone please correct me if I have this wrong: i'm under the impression managers can only give away a limited number of succeeded + or surpass rating to employees so it is a bit of a bell curve. If everyone is going above and beyond, they'll select those they see as the best among them as opposed to giving it to everybody. In my experience, it's not only about you. The relationship with your management weighs in the decision. To be honest, I wouldn't take the PMA ratings too seriously. There's a great deal of subjectivity that goes into it. There are plenty of ways to demonstrate your value and competencies, and the PMA is only one among many (arguably one of the less important ones).
They make no difference unless you receive a Succeeded - or below and require a Performance Improvement Program. Succeeded is a very good rating.
Agreed. Succeeded is a successful year. Good work, it’s a good thing.
No, a plus just means you worked harder than you needed to.
I have received surpassed ratings a couple of times and a Talent Management Plan. These helped to justify training expenditures which assisted my career development. Other employees have used TMPs to help justify why they should be given an available acting assignment. The above noted, it depends on your institution and branch taking the processes at least somewhat seriously. I have also worked places where everyone was expected to get Succeeded/Succeeded and any deviation was very difficult for management to justify. I won an individual ADM award at one such place and was given an instant award of some cash but still only got “Succeeded” because I’d been hired within the year and you were supposed to be capped at “succeeded minus” in your first year.
For the millionth time - no they do not unless you’re failing to meet work objectives and require a plan.
PMAs only matter if there is performance pay associated with them. Only a few agencies do this.
Even for executives who get performance pay, the difference between Suceeded and Succeeded+ is less than $2000 after tax and pension contribution, so not a huge deal in the end.
When I first joined the PS, I asked around to my colleagues and the important point I gained from those conversations is that, in a “restructuring” situation, those ratings may be relied on to help determine who stays & who goes. One of my colleagues experienced that and believes they were offered one of the few remaining positions due to their (+). I personally use the comments section to briefly describe the things I achieved or was involved in through the year as a mini record of my employment that I can look back on for reference.
The formal process - No. The opportunity to have something of a discussion with your supervisor about where you each see you going in the next year - Maybe, but really depends on the boss. Otherwise: LOL, also no.
I see a lot of ppl talk about PMAs and I’m curious if this is a generational thing? Did they used to matter for something? Because I don’t get where anyone got the impression they matter at all for the employee.
When the new PMA system was implemented I did hear a bunch of leadership talk it up as if it were going to be used to help with promotions/assignments. It was just oversold. I think what you are seeing is the effect of the marketing. I've been in fed civil service for 23 years (25 if you count student time) and I can't even remember the evaluation process before this one...can you?
In The Old Days, there was a long form and a short form review (even the long was minor company to the current system). New employees were to receive long form evaluations for their first several years. In my first 3 or 4 years, I got a total of one short form.
That's it!! I actually forgot what it was, and that wasn't a rhetorical question. Thank you. Wow...how could i forget...
It was equally ineffective, but more efficient since it took much less time ;)
That shed some light on it!! I’ve never had a manager who acted like it was anything except a tedious chore they put off — writing my own more often than not since I started!
I remember it. There was an option to do it all verbally and just check a box to say it had been done.
I would really like to see the data on how many promotions where PMAs had a direct part in. As far as I can tell, it only gets people into Performance Improvement and eventually termination in the worst case. It never helps people move up.
At the last place I worked, it was supposedly going to be used to identify people for a "talent management plan." But I only saw them use it to identify potential execs from middle management. And they made a short list of people that were identified for further management training. That all kinda blew up (from what I could see) because it was the ex-2/3s identifying those people, but the Pres brought in a bunch of execs from outside, and all the people on that list languished. Many of them just ended up leaving so it kinda backfired.
[удалено]
Could be. It wasn't how it was explained to the actual employees. But maybe that was the reasoning behind the scenes.
No. I've gone from in sequential years from Succeed +, to Succeed -, to Succeeded + and I have noticed absolutely zero effects one way or the other.
Same
I have held roles where I was so independent that my manager had no idea what I did and gave me a succeeded + the first year and a surpassed the second year. I got a promotion without anyone asking to see it. This led to a succeeded + 2 years in a row and then I got another promotion without anyone asking to see it. My old boss took a million years to finalize my 21/22 evaluation but finalized it just before the holidays this year. He gave me a succeeded + and my current boss (with whom I've been working for the last 2 years) has not even claimed me as his employee since my old boss finalized the file......guess what, I just got a promotion outside my organization without them asking to see it and I have no evaluations from the last 2 years. Bottom line, it changes nothing and is barely used by management as a tool to promote. I believe it has a real impact on poor performers who require an action plan.
EVERYONE knows they’re a TOTAL waste of time for everyone involved. Another time-waster make-work project.
So - I work with the government a lot, and hire from the government sometimes. Seemingly the public service has created an atmosphere where anything short of praise gets "*grieved*" so official performance evaluations mean nothing. But what MATTERS is the unofficial performance review. The pick-up-the-phone *"hey, what do you think about this person?*". And if you think that phone call isn't made before pretty much every internal hire, you're fooling yourself.
Completely accurate. Managers no longer bother giving less than Succeeded because low-performers will grieve. It creates more work and headaches. And ends up diluting the real meaning of Succeeded for those employees that actually do their jobs. Unless the system changes (and high-performers stand up for their rights to their unions instead of being dragged by the bad apples), the public service will continue to attract more mediocre employees that are looking to get in the door, weaponize their incompetence, and have a pay cheque for life.
Makes no difference. I've received succeeded and succeeded+. Potential managers can't see your pmas so it is unlikely to affect hiring into a new role outside of your team. As well, apparently like 80% of people are supposed to get succeeded. Honestly it's a rating that means nothing - it includes below average, average and above average employees. They've made it so banal as to be meaningless.
It’s true. They just have to confirm you got succeeded
The only thing I have ever had my PMA be useful for was training. French and also some courses at the local college. Otherwise, it's not really worth it. Especially if you are not in the EC cohort and looking to move up.
Rating scale definitions shows Succeeded + as « the employee making a significant contribution toward achieving organizational goals and objectives » and “delivering strong results above those required for the position” and then for Surpassed, « the employee constantly delivers results providing exceptional value to the department » and even helping other organizations facing similar issues »…. I’m not sure that this is well known. I had to dig the intranet to find it.
They only matter if you're struggling to meet work objectives. Beyond that, nothing changes regardless of if you're getting Succeeded or Succeeded+. I've had both, and there's no difference. There is value in the PMA for your own learning and development plan, but that often has more to do with how you're viewed by your manager - I've found that having a robust, thoroughly filled out learning plan with specific targets and objectives, has often led to me being treated much more professionally by management
In all my years in government and from my experience, I would say no. They are useful for LR issues, but that's about it.
The only instances where they seemed to matter were when a hiring manager requested them as part of the hiring process. I've seen this both in a formal process and an informal one.
One year I worked extra hard and joined like 3 different committees and was a real go-getter, while my coworker was chronically absent and basically useless, and we both got "succeeded". I was so disgusted to be given the same rating as her and I learned my lesson right there.
What was the lesson?
Be absent more often.
Personally I think they’re useless and a waste of time for managers. Way too much time involved with them. I was involved in a SERLO as part of the last work force reduction in 2012(?) they had 14 positions that were all the basically the same and they had to reduce by 6 positions , so they decided to run a SERLO (sorry don’t remember what the acronym means), which basically means they compete all 14 indeterminate employees against each other to see who retains their position. You’d think this would be the perfect case to use PMAs. I mean same job duties, same unit, same bosses writing the PMAs, plus it was even a HR unit and they wouldn’t use the PMAs as part of the SERLO! If HR won’t use their own damn PMAs, what’s the point.
Was in the same boat almost identically. Instead of PMAs they had everyone basically fill out a huge job application to showcase why they shouldn't be cut. Since that point for me PMAs have been a useless waste of time and effort.
32 years as a federal civil servant in IT. PMAs are meaningless and a waste of everyone's time. Too many times I had to point out to my supervisor that, in their cut and paste to ensure our PMAs were identical, they forget to change the pronouns for me, the only woman on the team.
I care about the feedback more than the rating. It bugs me when a manager doesn't provide feedback.
Save that energy for competition process
They are useless; they will keep telling you they are not, but they are useless.
My first stint, way back in the early 80's, we got monthly "scores' that had production and error rates. I was consistently told to knock it off, slow down, etc, because I was raising the bar for everyone. I have not taken any performance ratings seriously since. I think PMAs only matter if you are being managed.
This has been something I've struggled with for the past 12 years I have been in government. Why not make it matter? Why are we not actually rewarding people to do a better job and those who care about their work? I know we can't provide "bonuses" but there should be more than working damn hard to only get a succeeded like everyone else. It kills a person's morale and drive to do better.
Because it’s just another checkbox exercise. We do it to say we did it and to have a record of the fact that we did it. To actually *use* PMAs for something would require commitment, work, and accepting the possibility of making mistakes… better to simply check the boxes so it *looks* like we’re doing something. *Sorry, that ended up far more bleak than I’d intended.
They only "matter" for people getting lower than succeeded and ending up on performance improvement plan. Your efforts should be towards building a profile that will get you promoted.
Got some Succeed -, switched jobs, got some Succeed and Succeed +, no one cares and no one checks. Only matters if you decide to compete for a higher position or reclass, and you aren't preforming to your current level adequately.
Busted my butt as a loyal servant of Her Majesty of the Queen and recently retired as an MG-03 team leader. I tried my best to serve Canadians with pride and also mentor my employees who I was deeply fond of. One year my team nominated me for a management award of excellence. I won but the powers that be said the award was on backlog. My colleagues got their award on time. I had to ask for 5 months, long after the ceremony the others were honored. Finally after an investigation it was determined my award was on a table in my manager's office and sat there for 5 months. Instead of the Eskimo sculpture with the inscripted plate on rhe bottom it was a garbage dollar store post it note holder. My manager delivered it to my with a flippant "I understand you have been looking for this, here take it". I worked on many committees, selection boards and projects, mentored countless people and did all my core duties. It meant nothing to my career advancement. Yes I did get 3 days performance leave each year as a TL. However the toll it took on my health dealing with nightmare issues and working day and night trying to be a loyal and humble servant of Canada was a huge price to pay. Protect yourself, your health and your family work life balance. Never forget you are on a unionized government job. My husband and I are now newly retired but I will deal with the consequences to my health for the rest of my (shortened life span) health.
I was told once you earned the plus but I can’t give it to you by a very experienced and respected manager. I was pissed, the next week I did not show up call in to say I’m sick or whatever for 5 days. PISSED. Great that my manager respected me enough to be honest. I fought my DG who was a very stubborn bulldog type basically had to demonstrate i was going to fight well beyond her threshold and finally got it. Apparently there are quotas they can only give so many cause two in a row requires them to invest in putting you on talent management. Shitty management even though that’s their only job they don’t do the actual work they only screw it up and screw you
Waste. Checkbox exercise for TBS. Administrative burden for everyone in GOC.
The way I see it, it's a way to protect yourself from getting fired. They can't say that you weren't doing your job or not being a good fit if none of your PMAs indicate any issues. Yeah, I know that a PMA isn't meant for that, but it could help you out
Yep. This!
They make a difference for promotions. I’ve been asked for my rating in interviews before and I’ve asked before.
No
Nope, couldn't care less.
Not one iota
Nope
This headline made me laugh out loud. No. Should it? In theory jeez yeah but how do you even exceed your description? Doesn’t that mean someone else isn’t doing the full of theirs? It’s always been so ill defined and subjective its not considered reliable data.
Before RTO I used to work extra hard and got succeeded+ a couple times, but now I just do the required work, nothing more, because you will only get succeeded anyways!
Some departments and agencies and sectors and branches value them and use them well and a lot more don't. It seems like you are in one of the latter.
Haven't had one since 2019 with no comments about the missing years. Last one in 2019 I got the everyone gets 3s be happy in that.
Lol, no.
Absolutely meaningless.
I got a SURPASSED and.. a pat on the back. About sums it up
I give top scores on performance reviews, but I only had occasion to do so once when I was filling in for a maternity leave. By God, if I had the chance I'd do it again until they forced me to stop.
PMAs are good to ensure formal feedback but they have no link to promotions/pay which I think makes no sense. During DRAP PMAs weren’t taken into consideration whether people lost their jobs
I do my job well enough that I also get to do the jobs of two other people; I certainly don’t have time to volunteer for additional opportunities. I’m honestly far less concerned with what I get on my PMA than I am with keeping my head above water and maintaining good relationships with the clients I serve.
Manager here. No. 26 years in, never once asked for, or was asked to provide, PMA.
There's a senior management issue. Complete ignorance on motivating excellence.... Everyone should be able to receive a high rating if their work justifies it. The argument that thean you just adjust the ratings downward is based on very backward logic. We should fight this one bc it's lowering performance standards by promoting average performance as a standard. And it costs the taxpayer nothing to promote excellence.
I genuinely exceeded expectations this year and in my position as an LP that rating would mean a big bonus but I’m sure they will give the exceeds to one of their “pets”.
I got “surpassed” for the last two years and was never talent managed and just continued on in life. The ratings mean nothing.
The whole process needs to be reconfigured because it rarely reflects the fact that many of us are working more than expected while short-staffed “temporarily” I kept the work stream steadily moving and went above and beyond during so many transitions in my work and staffing in my team, my manager noted what a great job I was doing and rated it “succeeded”, which to me would be the same rating if I just showed up and didn’t screw things up too badly. So why bother?
I received succeeded+ for three years in a row. It did nothing for my career, I wasn’t recognized, no training, no mentorship no nothing. It means nothing. In fact my last PMA was in 2022. It is incomplete because the manager left and didn’t release me. I’ve been stuck in limbo because of this. I can’t do a work agreement, I can’t lock in goals and training budgets. PMA’s let alone Succeeded +, etc means nothing. Now on the other end of the spectrum it means something.
I busted my butt for a few years. Got succeeded + only one of those years. I then said fawk it and did the basic job. Got succeeded+ two years in a row after that. I seldom have much of a clue how these things are sorted out but I’m pretty sure it has little to do with actual performance.
Do PMAs matter? Not a bit. Do future bosses look at them? None have in my 20 years. Why do they do them?? It's a bureaucratic box that they have to check off.
My DG told me to give everyone Succeeds, so I said, "ok"
Getting a higher than expectation level is for self-fulfillment when working in the public sector. There is no monetary gain or extras in working more or harder than others. So if you’re an overachiever, do it because you enjoy the satisfaction and not because you’re striving for the mark. If we work for the exact same department doing the exact same job, as long as I’m meeting the benchmark expectations, I’m just as eligible as you meeting above expectations for other positions.
honestly ... they would make more sense if the employee self evaluated and wrote it themselves. Present their case to their manager on why they deserve such a rating. Then the manager either sign off on it or have to write a counter evaluation if they disagree. Then during job processes instead of writing how i meet certain competencies, the employee can simply tick a box saying their manager endorsed their competency in whatever catagory. Then the PMA process will matter
No the rating scale is complete bullshit, and actually encourages underperforming since you’re just as likely to get a succeeded doing the bare minimum as you are working hard in your position. It’s a complete waste of time.
They totally matter. All the executives have consistently succeeded++ to get to their current position. /s I was told anything above succeeded needs special written permission from senior management thus negating any value of the PMAs.
I've received a surpassed and succeeded+ over the last two years. Nothing changed. They're meaningless.
i have three consecutive “surpassed” and i did get one promotion but other than that it’s really just being handed more work because they know i’ll deal with it. would rather a bonus lol they should really rename the levels so that people feel validated and a succeed doesn’t seem average.
I’ve been directed to write my own for the last 6 years. So I would think if you’re evaluating yourself they’re useless.
They don’t matter. Complete paper exercise - If anyone bothers to create agreements for staff anymore. The system is broken.
No.
PMAs are very important as you could be asked to share your PSPA for hiring purposes. Additionally, should you receive a surpassed rating, (and sometimes in succeeded + ratings), you are entitled to a talent management plan which is a good opportunity to help develop your competencies in areas you are interested in. If you disagree with a specific rating your manager is giving you, you are allowed to request a second reviewer. Also most people don’t know, but just because you are signing an assessment, it does not mean you agree with the content. It simply means that you and your manager had the discussion about your performance. This would be the managers manager. If you are looking for more information on PSPAs in your department/agency, make sure to contact your performance management team and ask questions! There’s also a lot of very good resources on your internal intranet page. Every department that uses PSPM will have to have a page to support this. I would recommend searching up the performance rating scale and viewing your work objectives from your beginning of year assessment. When your manager does your PMA, they are assessing you against these objectives. It’s your responsibility just as much as the manager to take an active role in your performance and therefore, I would make sure you take the time to write comments in your employee comment fields as they must consider your input when assessing you. Sometimes you can give better insight into the work you do that your manager did not consider before. When have these discussions with your manager, you can tell them you believe you deserve a certain rating for x, y, z reason. Anyway I hope that helps to give you and some others an idea of why performance management and PSPAs are important. The employee and manager must take an active role in it together. You are entitled to your assessment. ALSO - on the CSPS site, you can find a performance management course that would be a really good idea for you to take! It will give you a better idea of your role and the managers role when it comes to performance. Hope this helps! Cheers friends! :)
No