470 Senior V.A. Executives Were Rated ‘Fully Successful’ or Better Over the Last 4 Years...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
Spent over thirty six years of my adult life in either supervision or management in the private sector. While I am not so naive as to make the statement that favoritism or weak management does not exist in the private sector, I find it astounding that over four years four hundred and seventy Senior government executives were rated fully satisfactory or higher. Amazingly not a single executive received a marginally satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating.
It has been said that five percent of employees cause ninety-five percent of the problems in businesses and I must say that over my thirty six years this proved to be fairly accurate. It is quite probable the same holds true in the public sector.
So, doesn't it seems reasonable that of the four hundred and seventy executives at least twenty four would be unsatisfactory and dismissal from their position was in order? Perhaps the number is in actuality ever higher. Is it possible the inept executives were responsible for the current Veteran Administration scandal? And if so who is responsible for this?
Just askin...
Excerpt below from The New York Times
Read the full text of the article BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
Spent over thirty six years of my adult life in either supervision or management in the private sector. While I am not so naive as to make the statement that favoritism or weak management does not exist in the private sector, I find it astounding that over four years four hundred and seventy Senior government executives were rated fully satisfactory or higher. Amazingly not a single executive received a marginally satisfactory or unsatisfactory rating.
It has been said that five percent of employees cause ninety-five percent of the problems in businesses and I must say that over my thirty six years this proved to be fairly accurate. It is quite probable the same holds true in the public sector.
So, doesn't it seems reasonable that of the four hundred and seventy executives at least twenty four would be unsatisfactory and dismissal from their position was in order? Perhaps the number is in actuality ever higher. Is it possible the inept executives were responsible for the current Veteran Administration scandal? And if so who is responsible for this?
Just askin...
Excerpt below from The New York Times
All of the 470 senior executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs received annual ratings over the last four years indicating that they were “fully successful” in their jobs or even better, according to data released at a congressional hearing on Friday, despite delays in processing disability compensation claims and problems with veterans’ access to the department’s sprawling health care system.
None of the department’s senior executives received either of the two lowest of five possible job ratings, “minimally satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory,” in any of the past four fiscal years.
The data also showed that in 2013, nearly 80 percent of the senior executives were rated either “outstanding” or as having exceeded “fully successful” in their job performance, and that at least 65 percent of the executives received performance awards, which averaged around $9,000. Only about 20 percent received the middle of the five ratings.
Read the full text of the article BELOW THE FOLD.
Via: Memeorandum
Sounds like Wall Street right after the bank collapses.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
They obviously grade on a curve, Les.......And it wasn't just Wall Street, Jersey. The executives over at Fannie and Freddie got a fairly generous bonus as well.
ReplyDelete:-) Ahhh, and a VERY liberal curve it must be Will.
DeleteRN: To crib and mangle Garrison Keillor. "The government sector. Where everyone is above average"
DeleteFan of Garrison Keillor? Maybe you'll enjoy Homegrown Democrat... I know I did. As for the institutions that gave bonuses when none were deserved... they should have been nationalized and those who got bonuses would not have. They would have received pink-slips instead.
DeleteAs for F+F, they had very little to do with inflating the bubble. According to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission "it was the poor performance of the loans in these private-label securities - those not owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie - that led to the financial meltdown".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy did the commenter above delete his remarks about Fannie and Freddie having a major role in the financial collapse? I ask because I'm wondering it is because he now realizes this assertion is wrong?
DeleteIt looks like the VA is using the wrong perf eval form .
ReplyDeleteThis quotation is related to this, and will be used in a comment on another post as well:
ReplyDeleteDr Ray Stantz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.
(Substitute VA for university)
I've seen this in the public sector and I've seen this more in the private sector. When you set cockamamie, arbitrary, unreasonable productivity goals, offering rewards to attain them, you are inviting corruption.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
I see it in the private sector, too, but unless the government comes in and bails their sorry asses out there's usually a price to pay for the incompetence.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete