THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2023 17 The bulk of the EER consists of three narrative statements—from the employee being rated, their immediate supervisor, and their reviewer. These lengthy statements often focus on extra projects or additional work outside the scope of the rated employee’s principal tasks. Ideally, they will tie the achievements of the rated employee to the goals of their section, mission, or the department at large. While the system has its benefits, the process of drafting and editing such lengthy statements lends itself to stretching accomplishments and, with shifting requirements and guidelines over the years, uncertainty about what is valued by the organization. On its best day, the system is hugely stressful and makes it extremely difficult for supervisors and promotion panels to identify the truly high-performing employees. The U.S. Army faced a similar problem. When everyone walks on water, how do you identify your highest performers? Their solution was to numerically limit the number of employees who could receive the top mark. A New System A new EER could mirror their system. The major change would be the introduction of three or four check boxes—from “exceeded requirements” to “failed to meet requirements”—where the reviewer could easily and effectively identify their highest performers. In most cases, the reviewer is reviewing many more EERs than the rater and would have a larger sample size to better identify the actual percentage of top employees. In addition to the check boxes, the rater and reviewer would still have a narrative portion as in the current system, but the amount of space provided would be reduced based on the box When everyone walks on water, how do you identify your highest performers?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=