Fill Af Form a, download blank or editable online. Sign, fax and printable from PC, iPad, tablet or mobile with PDFfiller ✓ Instantly ✓ No software. Try Now!. Kept all units updated on weather and MedEvac status–coodination vital to world -wide rescue operations. – Improved quality and on-time status for A annual. AIR FRYER for Sale, China AIR FRYER Manufacturer & Supplier in Foshan, Model is AFA.
|Published (Last):||1 October 2007|
|PDF File Size:||14.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.47 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Wednesday, May 18, I am new to the AF and I believe I am being taken for a ride on my appraisal. My supervisor presented me with the AFA, but the rater who signed 860w Part.
He was not present during performance counseling and I don’t work for him. I was also told that rating of 8 is very bad and no one in the AF gets less than 9, which is the highest. I was not asked to provide any input for my rating write up and comments in Part B do not reflect my contributions to the organization.
Any recommendations on how to approach this are greatly appreciated Totally depends on the org culture and blue suit officers where you are. I’ve had some who believe no one gets more than a overall, with maybe a single 8 or 9. Others firewall the whole thing. Where it hurts is when someone with a firewall mentality sees a rating given by someone 860 an all 5s mentality.
Same quality of work, just different perceptions of what the score should be. But beyond that, 8s for someone with less than a year in isn’t bad at all. Wednesday, May 18, 1: We actually don’t have any blue suits–civilians only.
AF Form 860A Example Bullets
Thanks for the input. Wednesday, May 18, 3: Yes, the whole rating this can get messy. I have seen at AFMC bases mostly civilians where the workers were getting lots of range marks. It does play a factor even though they raters try to say it doesn’t. I mean who isn’t going to look at a firewall 9 rating individual over marks for a promotion or transfer?
Wednesday, May 18, 7: Too much AF jargon for me to comprehend The GS system I am familiar with exp. What on earth is the AF using? Wednesday, May 18, 8: Ok, yes you ultimately get an acceptable or unacceptable rating. Basically almost everyone gets an acceptable overall aff. Thursday, May 19, Eventually you were getting a 9 for breathing. Then we changed to a 5 point scale, was told most people should be a 3 and over the years the numbers increased until once again we are “Firewalling” everyone.
Now that I am a civvy I see it on this side. So we have some “walking on water” evals for bums. Thursday, May 19, 6: Thursday, May 19, 9: Either way, I would question that. IE, how can you say Fred is better than Barney if both 8660a a “pass.
Friday, May 20, 5: The term these days is “Stratification. Sunday, May 22, 9: Well, that is certainly fine if we are here to compete against each other. But sorry, we are not. It mostly takes a team to complete a mission, project or contract services.
Why do we have to say Fred is better than Barney? Isn’t it fair to say they both ar and they fulfilled their objectives? But then again, maybe Fred was provided more opportunities than Barney was. Yes, we can 8660a conjure up all kinds of situations If no, what are the reasons and what steps are being taken to provide that employee to improve.
Of course we could have deadbeats here and there. But I would bet that alot of them might be a victim of their circumstance and not because their are qf a deadbeat. aaf
Air Force Form A Example Bullets
I have witnessed just too many supervisors that are wet-behind-the-ears and might be great workers, but are clueless how to supervise or manage. The whole government needs to refine the qualities and responsibilities of those folks moving into the management cadre.
Not cause they were great workers or they were buddies with other management or they have a laundry list of degrees or affilliations. That is simply wrong! I am a strong believer in the GS system. It’s not perfect, but it was created to keep political and favoritism out of a worker’s appraisal unlike what the NSPS 8660a.
And if managed properly, it provided supervisors and workers to fullfill the objectives I am so glad I am outta here in a few years.
Thursday, May 26, 3: I’m sorry that NSPS didn’t work out for you.
AFA, China AIR FRYER Manufacturer & Supplier
I’m proud that my command invested the time and effort to do zf right – and we did get positive results. And no matter what performance management system is prescribed, supervisors and managers are vested with the responsibility to monitor, train, and rate employees.
That’s why they earn higher salaries Both were bringing results to support mission, but Barney’s results were clearly enhancing aff a bit more than Fred’s. I attended a lot of inter-service NSPS conferences and I was amazed at the range of interpretations of just about any facet of the program. This could have been avoided if DoD had been more prescriptive in the implementation phase, and had come across with much more training and familiarization material 8660a left less interpretation to the individual services.
I’ll agree that the labor relations part of the original NSPS structure was a disaster – and I was glad that DoD decided to forbear implementation of that part even though they won the case in the 86a. Training of federal supervisors and managers has always been a sore point for me. Too many times we promote our best technicians to supervisor duties without equipping them to survive.
IMHO, if you’re a supervisor, you should be held accountable to properly perform the supervisory duties you’re being paid to do About pay for performance: I’m an advocate for pay for performance, if it’s done fairly and openly.
If an employee contributes more, then the rewards should be greater. I was pleased that the forced “performance conversations” kick-started dialogue between employees and supervisors – and not just about performance, but career aspirations in general.
We strive in a post-NSPS environment to build on that – in my command the four performance conversations are still mandatory.
It’ll be interesting to see what DoD proposes for the new DoD-wide performance 680a system Thursday, May 26, 4: Well, you are of a low minority with your opinions and twisted facts about pay-for-performance. First of all, we are mostly all white collar service support. A majority of us operate off a congessional funded appropriation. Know what that is?
Not a sales report. It creates a possible hostile workplace to punish, not reward — meaning, if you are a non-performer, it punishes by pay and promotion None that I am aware of. Tuesday, May 31, I don’t agree with the fact you received an 8 and not given sf sort of perf award. The numbered ratings are ONLY supposed to indicate your ability to do another job This is 860aa always followed in the AF though.
The av was heard twice in Federal District 86a0 in DC once by a single judge, then at union request by a full panel of three judges. DoD prevailed in both hearings so the unions filed for hearing by the Supreme Court – which was denied. Congress repealed NSPS for political reasons. Unions were heavy contributors to the Democratic presidential campaign, and other campaigns in – and repeal of NSPS was one of the conditions of that support. During the campaign, candidate Obama signed a letter to the unions promising to review NSPS if elected.
So campaign contributions ultimately sealed the fate of NSPS. Sorry, again, that you disagree with pay for performance in government.
Agree that we’re not a for-profit organization, but I do believe that we owe the taxpayer the best return on their money. Too often I see ROAD-ed Retired On Active Duty folks making only the barest of efforts to do their job or maybe even NOT doing the job – and it’s a darned shame that these folks are rewarded at the same level as others who, while going above and beyond the call, have to carry these no-loads.
The above-and-beyond folks, in my opinion, deserve a greater reward. No, I’m not a HR contractor, just a plain old fed who has his own opinions