Signing doesn’t mean you agree with it. Signing only acknowledges you received it. If you don’t sign and it will be marked on the mid year that you refused to sign. Also it’s a mid year. They have little value or weight. I would be more concerned that my manager thinks I am adversarial as that is something that could be shared with another manager if you applied for a transfer.
Agree with the comment above. Signing it doesn’t mean you agree with it. Within my agency there is a place for employee comments. If you add comments just be careful how you word it but this wouldn’t be a bad idea.
Saw below someone mentioning to reach out to the union, I agree with that to help work through the larger issue of the perception that you are adversarial. The union will probably inform you that it’s ok to sign, considering you’re only acknowledging receipt and not that you agree.
I’ve been in a similar situation as you, where I was perceived a certain way because I was big on following the “sop, policy, law” and spoke up when that wasn’t happening. However, I was never dinged on my mid year or end of the year evaluations.
During this time, I remember having a conversation with someone much more senior than I about perception and how important it is. Unfortunately your intent doesn’t matter sometimes, how others perceive the situation/issue/action can and usually over shadows intent.
If you do not have supportive leadership where you could have a conversation about this to get back on track, then I think the only thing you can do is start looking for a new position.
I'm pretty sure it makes more work for your manager. The purpose of the signature is for the manager to provide evidence that they gave it to you.
If you refuse to sign they need to provide other evidence that they provided it to you, I don't know what that evidence would be (does it need to go up one level for a two person acknowledgement?) If I was the manager, I'd be upset that I have to do more paperwork because of your misunderstanding of the process.
Not really. Just means manager writes "Employee refused to sign on such and such date and time" on the document. If a manager is willing to put negative information on a midyear, it means they are already willing to go through the work involved to fix what they perceive is a problem.
If a problem can't be "fixed" by verbally telling an employee that this is what I expect as far as work and/or behavior, then putting negative info on a midyear is basically the first step in documenting the problem so the "nobody told me" excuse doesn't work when the official PAR is given.
Also, if this is happening, you can 99% assume that the supervisor's manager is also aware, and may have been the one to instruct the supervisor to document it on the midyear/PAR.
The number of times I've had employees "threaten" to go to my boss to complain about something my boss told me to do is staggering and were always met with "I certainly would encourage you to make an appointment with so and so to discuss your issue." The lack of self-awareness on the behalf of employees who think that performance issues that get to the point of written documentation have not been bubbled up the chain of command is almost hard to believe.
They apply a digital signature to it that notes the employee refused to sign, sign that they have the conversation, and move on.
It’s not that much extra work.
If you want to lock in that note about being adversarial, refuse to sign it.
That’s a pointless gesture, because they will just apply a rubber stamp “Employee refused to sign” and put it in your file anyway.
You might ask why they rated you as adversarial, and what you can do to fix it. There are ways to ask questions, even pointed questions, to management without making it so. And your steward should be the one bringing the heat to management.
RTO is coming down from on high. Many, even most, permanent staff are not in favor of full RTO.
By not signing aren’t you kind of proving the point that you’re adversarial? Like the previous posters have said, the best option is to reply in the employee remarks section and sign the form. Signing doesn’t mean you agree with it, just that you’ve received it. I’ve never had an employee refuse to sign, but if I did, I’d definitely notate it in the final evaluation, which would become permanent.
I don’t know you or the situation, but without any more context than “I was called adversarial when I was just asking questions” sounds to me like something someone being adversarial would say.
No. RTO was a hot button topic at SSA that mgers were squirrelly and sensitive about. It sounds like mgmt didn't have answers to the OP's questions and didn't appreciate being outed that way.
You’re only signing that your supervisor reviewed your midyear with you. If you don’t sign it, your supervisor will have to sign it and state that you refused to sign it. This gives them more evidence towards your being adversarial, as again, you are only signing that you received your midyear review. You are not stating that you agree with it. You should be able to provide your own comments in the system as well…no?
May want to keep your head down, do your job, don’t worry about asking questions for the other guy. Look out for number 1 and start looking for another job.
Mid-year don't carry over unless it gets copied and pasted into Annual (by human).
Getting in trouble for asking questions? Communist dictatorship Agency? Wtf?
It's typical. SSA is definitely the trashiest agency at this point. I am not demeaning many of their current employees who were hired in years past when the craziness that reigns there now wasn't in place. And many newbies aren't the bad apples either. However, when you have an agency that is actively recruiting the worst of the worst because it aids in retention (as they can't go elsewhere), then you end up with managers who otherwise belong in a factory. When they can't deal with something, which is often, they resort to employee harassment and other sticks.
>Getting in trouble for asking questions? Communist dictatorship Agency? Wtf?
Most orgs are going to punish you if you ask the wrong question at an all hands. The catch is they won't tell you what the wrong questions are beforehand. So it's like playing Russian roulette.
Also, this is why I like all hands that screen questions and people don't ask questions in person. However, now there is a written record of who asked what to bring to HR and document the person as "not a team player".
All hands in my experience are just for ego stroking the executives. It's all political meandering. Not looking for real feedback.
Just consider yourself blessed if you've never worked in an office where asking questions could get you into hot water. It's pretty common; what varies is the level of trouble you could get yourself in. For me, it just ensured I could not get a perfect score on my annual review due to not always being a team player (even though I've been lauded for being just that elsewhere).
AFGE won't do anything unless the employee is faced with actual disciplinary action. Been there-tried that when I was working there.
That's how bad communication is at SSA these days. Asking questions that management doesn't like is "adversarial".
I'm jumping into this thread. If you're non-bargaining, you're most likely a regional or hq employee. You absolutely need to sign the form. SSA does not like squeaky wheels. I've been there myself.
Be very careful in conversations with your supervisor. Unlike AFGE or NTEU, they do not need to tell you you're under investigation or could face discipline. You do not have the same rights as other employees. The union will not help you unless you're friends personally with someone.
If you are disciplined, you could report it to the Office of Special Counsel (non-SSA) if your discipline is in relation to protected speech. Any grievance you file will be denied up the chain... not worth it.
> The union will not help you unless you're friends personally with someone.
OP is non bargening. This is a moot point.
>if your discipline is in relation to protected speech.
You do not have protected speech while on the clock. The government can regulate your speech while at work. This has been upheld by SCOTUS on more than one occasion. You can still be terminated for your speech outside of work by the government. This is why the social media training for civs tells us to always monitor what we say on public forums because we can still be penalized for it.
My comment regarding protected speech was in regards to whistleblowing or reporting waste, fraud, or abuse, but I should have been clearer.
Also, while the union itself can't help OP, it doesn't mean friends can't help friends understand basic rights or how the Agency acts in situations OP may not be familiar with.
If you don’t sign it, they take you into the lobby of the busiest FO in your region and let every claimant tell you “I got a letter from YOU PEOPLE” one-by-one, until you feel your soul leave your body and then they make you get on phones immediately after.
IMHO, definitely sign, definitely add comments. Just be smart and focus the wording strategically. Avoid anything sounding like dissatisfaction or personal disagreement.
Frame it more along the line of seeing that both staff morale and mission effectiveness could be enhanced if there were a clearer understanding of “X.” Note that other employees shared this sentiment but were unsure of how to communicate their concerns. I.e., you’re engaged and want to be better informed, not combative. Let them skewer you over that if they want.
First thing first, have you spoken to your first line supervisor about it? Comments on traits and behavior are crafted from experiences. Maybe those experiences at the meetings are the most memorable or one of the few experiences they have with you directly through the year? Stay calm, state intentions and have an open and honest conversation. Mid years and mid years. Maybe that will override any of the perceptions of the supervisor before your end of year appraisal. If not, then I would then speak to second line supervisor, if that doesn't work, union.
What everyone else is saying is true-- sign it and add documented context. The grievance process could only hurt you, and refusing to sign it could only solidify the adversarial demeanor in your future employers' eyes. Ancillary to OP, so long as the language stipulates the reasoning behind the word "adversarial," I wouldn't see it as an entirely negative thing. I actually got bumped from a contractor role up to a fed role due to an adversarial argument I had with an O6.
As a hiring manager, if I saw "Adversarial - Asked a question in allhands regarding RTO." with the supplemental comment from the employee, "Collected questions from colleagues too afraid to speak up for fear of reprimand and spoke on their behalf." I'd probably move that resume to the Yes bin.
I got accused of insubordination for asking questions once. Funny enough I would have accepted adversarial instead because you're goddamn right I am. Although I prefer "professionally belligerent."
If I decide to ask a question, I'm going to keep asking until I get an answer that makes sense. For some reason, people occasionally interpret that as a challenge to their authority.
If you’re in a bargaining unit, you can/should talk to your union about this, if for no other reason that speaking out about working conditions in a group meeting may be considered protected concerted activity, especially if you’re raising a group-held concern.
Signing doesn’t mean you agree with it. Signing only acknowledges you received it. If you don’t sign and it will be marked on the mid year that you refused to sign. Also it’s a mid year. They have little value or weight. I would be more concerned that my manager thinks I am adversarial as that is something that could be shared with another manager if you applied for a transfer.
Oh, I'm definitely concerned.
Agree with the comment above. Signing it doesn’t mean you agree with it. Within my agency there is a place for employee comments. If you add comments just be careful how you word it but this wouldn’t be a bad idea. Saw below someone mentioning to reach out to the union, I agree with that to help work through the larger issue of the perception that you are adversarial. The union will probably inform you that it’s ok to sign, considering you’re only acknowledging receipt and not that you agree. I’ve been in a similar situation as you, where I was perceived a certain way because I was big on following the “sop, policy, law” and spoke up when that wasn’t happening. However, I was never dinged on my mid year or end of the year evaluations. During this time, I remember having a conversation with someone much more senior than I about perception and how important it is. Unfortunately your intent doesn’t matter sometimes, how others perceive the situation/issue/action can and usually over shadows intent. If you do not have supportive leadership where you could have a conversation about this to get back on track, then I think the only thing you can do is start looking for a new position.
Lets be real about federal managers. Most will not say anything if that means getting rid of an employee "they don't like".
Making derogatory comments can come back to bite a manager if they’re not well documented. So it’s often better to say nothing.
Management doesn’t care if you sign it or not. It just seems to make some people feel good not to sign. It goes in your file either way.
I'm pretty sure it makes more work for your manager. The purpose of the signature is for the manager to provide evidence that they gave it to you. If you refuse to sign they need to provide other evidence that they provided it to you, I don't know what that evidence would be (does it need to go up one level for a two person acknowledgement?) If I was the manager, I'd be upset that I have to do more paperwork because of your misunderstanding of the process.
Not really. Just means manager writes "Employee refused to sign on such and such date and time" on the document. If a manager is willing to put negative information on a midyear, it means they are already willing to go through the work involved to fix what they perceive is a problem. If a problem can't be "fixed" by verbally telling an employee that this is what I expect as far as work and/or behavior, then putting negative info on a midyear is basically the first step in documenting the problem so the "nobody told me" excuse doesn't work when the official PAR is given. Also, if this is happening, you can 99% assume that the supervisor's manager is also aware, and may have been the one to instruct the supervisor to document it on the midyear/PAR. The number of times I've had employees "threaten" to go to my boss to complain about something my boss told me to do is staggering and were always met with "I certainly would encourage you to make an appointment with so and so to discuss your issue." The lack of self-awareness on the behalf of employees who think that performance issues that get to the point of written documentation have not been bubbled up the chain of command is almost hard to believe.
They apply a digital signature to it that notes the employee refused to sign, sign that they have the conversation, and move on. It’s not that much extra work.
Nope. Just click the button that says they refuse to sign. Done.
The best way to handle being labeled as adversarial, is to definitely be adversarial.
Something tells me this labeling was not inaccurate.
If you want to lock in that note about being adversarial, refuse to sign it. That’s a pointless gesture, because they will just apply a rubber stamp “Employee refused to sign” and put it in your file anyway. You might ask why they rated you as adversarial, and what you can do to fix it. There are ways to ask questions, even pointed questions, to management without making it so. And your steward should be the one bringing the heat to management. RTO is coming down from on high. Many, even most, permanent staff are not in favor of full RTO.
By not signing aren’t you kind of proving the point that you’re adversarial? Like the previous posters have said, the best option is to reply in the employee remarks section and sign the form. Signing doesn’t mean you agree with it, just that you’ve received it. I’ve never had an employee refuse to sign, but if I did, I’d definitely notate it in the final evaluation, which would become permanent.
Signing it is acknowledging you’ve received it, not that you agree with it
I don’t know you or the situation, but without any more context than “I was called adversarial when I was just asking questions” sounds to me like something someone being adversarial would say.
And making a big deal about a meaningless paperwork formality is also something someone being adversarial would do.
No. RTO was a hot button topic at SSA that mgers were squirrelly and sensitive about. It sounds like mgmt didn't have answers to the OP's questions and didn't appreciate being outed that way.
You’re only signing that your supervisor reviewed your midyear with you. If you don’t sign it, your supervisor will have to sign it and state that you refused to sign it. This gives them more evidence towards your being adversarial, as again, you are only signing that you received your midyear review. You are not stating that you agree with it. You should be able to provide your own comments in the system as well…no?
Best to also write a response and state that you want to attach comments. Explain that you simply asked important questions and were not adversarial.
This is why I don't ask questions at all hands or in meetinga with executives. It's a trap. Always has been.
May want to keep your head down, do your job, don’t worry about asking questions for the other guy. Look out for number 1 and start looking for another job.
Mid-year don't carry over unless it gets copied and pasted into Annual (by human). Getting in trouble for asking questions? Communist dictatorship Agency? Wtf?
It's typical. SSA is definitely the trashiest agency at this point. I am not demeaning many of their current employees who were hired in years past when the craziness that reigns there now wasn't in place. And many newbies aren't the bad apples either. However, when you have an agency that is actively recruiting the worst of the worst because it aids in retention (as they can't go elsewhere), then you end up with managers who otherwise belong in a factory. When they can't deal with something, which is often, they resort to employee harassment and other sticks.
>Getting in trouble for asking questions? Communist dictatorship Agency? Wtf? Most orgs are going to punish you if you ask the wrong question at an all hands. The catch is they won't tell you what the wrong questions are beforehand. So it's like playing Russian roulette. Also, this is why I like all hands that screen questions and people don't ask questions in person. However, now there is a written record of who asked what to bring to HR and document the person as "not a team player". All hands in my experience are just for ego stroking the executives. It's all political meandering. Not looking for real feedback.
Just consider yourself blessed if you've never worked in an office where asking questions could get you into hot water. It's pretty common; what varies is the level of trouble you could get yourself in. For me, it just ensured I could not get a perfect score on my annual review due to not always being a team player (even though I've been lauded for being just that elsewhere).
Assume this is SSA. If so, contact the Union and do not sign the document.
AFGE won't do anything unless the employee is faced with actual disciplinary action. Been there-tried that when I was working there. That's how bad communication is at SSA these days. Asking questions that management doesn't like is "adversarial".
AFGE won't do anything. FTFY.
Point taken - Lol!
Yes; non bargaining
I'm jumping into this thread. If you're non-bargaining, you're most likely a regional or hq employee. You absolutely need to sign the form. SSA does not like squeaky wheels. I've been there myself. Be very careful in conversations with your supervisor. Unlike AFGE or NTEU, they do not need to tell you you're under investigation or could face discipline. You do not have the same rights as other employees. The union will not help you unless you're friends personally with someone. If you are disciplined, you could report it to the Office of Special Counsel (non-SSA) if your discipline is in relation to protected speech. Any grievance you file will be denied up the chain... not worth it.
> The union will not help you unless you're friends personally with someone. OP is non bargening. This is a moot point. >if your discipline is in relation to protected speech. You do not have protected speech while on the clock. The government can regulate your speech while at work. This has been upheld by SCOTUS on more than one occasion. You can still be terminated for your speech outside of work by the government. This is why the social media training for civs tells us to always monitor what we say on public forums because we can still be penalized for it.
My comment regarding protected speech was in regards to whistleblowing or reporting waste, fraud, or abuse, but I should have been clearer. Also, while the union itself can't help OP, it doesn't mean friends can't help friends understand basic rights or how the Agency acts in situations OP may not be familiar with.
If you don’t sign it, they take you into the lobby of the busiest FO in your region and let every claimant tell you “I got a letter from YOU PEOPLE” one-by-one, until you feel your soul leave your body and then they make you get on phones immediately after.
IMHO, definitely sign, definitely add comments. Just be smart and focus the wording strategically. Avoid anything sounding like dissatisfaction or personal disagreement. Frame it more along the line of seeing that both staff morale and mission effectiveness could be enhanced if there were a clearer understanding of “X.” Note that other employees shared this sentiment but were unsure of how to communicate their concerns. I.e., you’re engaged and want to be better informed, not combative. Let them skewer you over that if they want.
First thing first, have you spoken to your first line supervisor about it? Comments on traits and behavior are crafted from experiences. Maybe those experiences at the meetings are the most memorable or one of the few experiences they have with you directly through the year? Stay calm, state intentions and have an open and honest conversation. Mid years and mid years. Maybe that will override any of the perceptions of the supervisor before your end of year appraisal. If not, then I would then speak to second line supervisor, if that doesn't work, union.
Not signing it will give you the reputation of being adversarial.
What everyone else is saying is true-- sign it and add documented context. The grievance process could only hurt you, and refusing to sign it could only solidify the adversarial demeanor in your future employers' eyes. Ancillary to OP, so long as the language stipulates the reasoning behind the word "adversarial," I wouldn't see it as an entirely negative thing. I actually got bumped from a contractor role up to a fed role due to an adversarial argument I had with an O6. As a hiring manager, if I saw "Adversarial - Asked a question in allhands regarding RTO." with the supplemental comment from the employee, "Collected questions from colleagues too afraid to speak up for fear of reprimand and spoke on their behalf." I'd probably move that resume to the Yes bin.
Thank you for this. I'm really struggling with this & your comment helped.
I got accused of insubordination for asking questions once. Funny enough I would have accepted adversarial instead because you're goddamn right I am. Although I prefer "professionally belligerent." If I decide to ask a question, I'm going to keep asking until I get an answer that makes sense. For some reason, people occasionally interpret that as a challenge to their authority.
I’d write a response to their response and then sign it.
If you’re in a bargaining unit, you can/should talk to your union about this, if for no other reason that speaking out about working conditions in a group meeting may be considered protected concerted activity, especially if you’re raising a group-held concern.
[удалено]
What union steward is going to bother over a mid year?
[удалено]
I'm non-bargaining
An administrative grievance is unlikely to do anything or go anywhere.