See it here
I think I will try to address this better in the spring.
Here is an example of (at least as described in the text) research that doesn’t tell you anything about performance. The reason is that asking these employees this kind of questions in this kind of survey is a poor method of knowing anything about actual performance.
So, the federal government is once again changing a personnel performance system. They started doing this sort of thing in the 1840s or 1850s, at least as far as I know. You would think they could figure it out. The main problem is that personnel performance is observed subjectively by an interested party (the supervisor). Is there a non-subjective method that isn’t harsh?
One of the difficulties with organizational performance is that the link to individual performance is not well understood. Here is something on individual performance that could be terrible, or perfectly understandable. The headline suggests it is terrible, but personnel performance is based on expectations, typically set by the next higher level of management. If the organization is poorly designed or poorly funded, expectations may be met while the organization is failing. Another possibility is that managers are poorly trained at setting expectations or observing performance.
I usually post links to IBO reports as great new information. But here is one that doesn’t do a very good job. To truly communicate the intended information, it should extend back much further in time. The report says the intent was to reduce (eliminate) subsidies as they occurred in 2002, but there is no information about subsides before 2008 in the graph. It suggests possibilities such as choosing a base year that makes everything look bad. A reliable graph would start in a decade before 2002.