The Intercept published a story today that completely misrepresents the performance management priorities and actions the Trump Administration is taking on behalf of the American people. Here’s what’s actually happening:

The problem of employee ratings inflation in the government is well known – about 60% of employees are rated “outstanding’ or “exceptional” and only 0.3% are rated below satisfactory. You can read more about this here (and track federal employee performance ratings on our new federal workforce data website here), but the TLDR is that the system both undermines top performers by not providing sufficient differentiation and recognition for those truly going above and beyond and doesn’t hold to account those individuals who are not in fact carrying their weight. That’s bad for employees and it’s bad for the American people who rely on the important services these employees provide.

What has OPM done to address this?  

To date, we have provided formal guidance to agencies specific only to their Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Professional (SPs) populations – the most senior and skilled managers and specialists in government – that limits the percentage of outstanding and exceptional ratings to no more than 30%. That guidance goes into effect for the FY2026 review cycle. We are working on similar guidance for other members of the federal workforce that we anticipate will also be in place for the FY26 cycle; but those have yet to complete their full regulatory review processes.  

For now, we have simply told agencies that they should seek a more normalized distribution of performance ratings. After all, Congress meant for the performance rating system to recognize and reward outstanding performance and assist employees in improving deficient performance—it never intended to create a system with such severe, systemic grade inflation.

When fully implemented, what will that mean for employees?

Well, it’s pretty simple – we will reward true above and beyond performance by recognizing that proportion of employees who are in fact delivering on that. Importantly, when employees perform the work for which they were hired in a satisfactory manner, they will receive a “satisfactory” rating – that’s by no means bad and is in fact a rating designed to accurately reflect their performance.  

In no case has OPM implemented a forced rating percentage of “below satisfactory” ratings, and we do not have any plans to do that. However, I don’t think many people would argue that 0.3% accurately reflects the expected level of underperformance in a two-million-person workforce (most organizations of that scale are likely to see 5-10% underperformance in any given review cycle). In fact, government employee surveys consistently show that managers are too slow to remove or rehabilitate underperforming employees. But to be clear, OPM is not requiring or suggesting any forced ratings distributions at these levels.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the story.

Don Striker, identified as a National Park Service leader: “To the extent that they continue to do things that many of us feel are the reign of terror, that deliberately impact our morale in hopes that they’ll drive us out, that’s OMB and OPM, right?”

Wrong. Nobody is driving anyone out.  

Yes, we are re-setting expectations around the top-end of ratings because – quite frankly – the system is broken and does not accurately reward exceptional performance. And, yes, the American people deserve accountability from their government that helps ensure that we deliver on the services we are expected to provide (in exchange for taxpayers funding our activities).  

And, yes, that is different from how things were being done in the previous administration and perhaps in a different environment than one may have signed up for. We understand that and this is why we have offered voluntary DRP and retirement options for those who want to opt out. There is nothing dishonorable about deciding that you may no longer want to work in an environment that is different from what you joined. Everyone should have free agency to determine that on their own in the way that best meets their personal and professional goals.

But to be clear: we are not seeking to drive anyone out of government, reduce morale, or inflict harm on anyone. Claims to the contrary are totally uninformed (and complete nonsense). We are simply trying to align the performance management system with Congress’s goal to create a merit-based federal workforce and a high-performing culture across government—supported by metrics that supervisors and managers can track and measure. This goal represents nothing less than what the American people should expect in exchange for their hard-earned tax dollars. In fact, we think that nothing reduces morale more than a performance management system where virtually no one gets a low performance rating, and where poor performance is not met with any consequences. Federal employees have been telling us for many years that this was exactly what was happening across government—and that is precisely the culture we are trying to change.

An unnamed NPS employee: “A lot of people came into the government to do good work. They didn’t come into the government to compete with others on who is the best across multiple parks with different missions.”

This is exactly what the performance management changes are intended to address – “do[ing] good work.” There is no shame in doing good work – that’s what one would expect from the vast majority of employees in any organization. And that’s what the limitations on above average work reinforce – most people come to work every day and do what they are asked to do in a respectful and productive manner. That’s great – and exactly what the American people want. And that is what a rating of “fully successful” recognizes – good, consistent achievement against objectives. (OPM made this point earlier last year in a formal memo, by the way: that a “fully successful” rating should reflect that the employee is achieving all expectations for their position and is contributing in a meaningful way to the agency’s success in meeting its goals.)

Outstanding or exceptional work is something completely different. We all know who the people are in each of our organizations who consistently deliver above and beyond, consistently take on additional responsibilities, consistently make personal sacrifices to be outstanding stewards of taxpayer dollars, etc. That is a personal decision those employees are making and one for which they deserve to be recognized. Pretending that everyone deserves an “A” because they do what is expected of them simply denigrates and de-motivates those who consistently outperform. That’s not a normative statement about whether one chooses to do that or not, but rather a recognition that exceptional performance merits exceptional recognition.

It’s not about “compete[ing] with others.” Everyone is on the same team performing a critical function to help row the boat in the right direction. Someone doing exceptional work does not take away from someone who is doing work that meets expectations. But failing to recognize that reward and recognition programs should differentiate between performance leads to reversion to the mean behavior. I don’t think that’s what the many great federal employees want to deliver to the American people.

Tim Whitehouse, executive director of the nonprofit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: “The idea that people can only get basically satisfactory performance reviews is bad management. It’s not true, and it’s terrible for morale.”

Wrong – people can get exceptional or outstanding performance reviews, if they in fact deliver at that level of performance! What’s “not true” is Mr. Whitehouse’s mischaracterization of our guidance and his assertion that this is “bad management. 

Bad management is failing to disproportionately reward and recognize exceptional employees. Bad management is failing to hold employees accountable if they are unable to meet the minimum standards expected of them. Bad management is failing to recognize that most people come to work every day and do what they are asked to do in a consistent and productive manner yet trying to convince employees that there is shame in this level of performance.  

Bad management is blaming others for failing to engender a high-performance culture that continues to deliver great things for the American people. We know that, for decades, the federal government has been plagued by poor management and poor performance-- and we are changing that.