I work for the government (for now). We write our own performance evaluation annually (a simple Word document template), with a list of projects completed, and a list of systems that we maintain (and associated maintenance tasks). We also have a section for personal/professional development to keep track of training, education, and self-improvement. It is nice to reflect on what I have done over the past year.
That being said, the performance review is basically a formality. We have 5 steps in each pay grade, and I have never seen someone miss a step after each year. Someone could be sitting at their desk reading their Kindle all day and still get their 5% jump every year. In addition to that, nearly 100% of promotions are based on tenure. You will probably go from a level 1 --> 2 --> 3 --> Senior every year, and supervisory/management positions are only opened upon the incumbent's retirement (to be filled typically by the most tenured person to apply, regardless of fit).
It is not a good system. Lots of people stick around who should receive the boot, and the wrong people are placed in supervisory/management positions simply because they have been there for a while.
This story is the prototypical example of why I'm cynical about government and its ability to effectively use tax dollars. When people say that taxes should be raised, I would generally agree if the government agreed to match the the tax increase with an efficiency increase.
I used to work for the state of Kansas and we had most of this, except we didn’t get raises, nor were non-performers culled out. We probably lost a month of productivity each year due to the work and anxiety the process caused, yet the process had no bearing on anything.
Possibly had a bearing on compliance stuff that wasn't relevant to anything you were doing. Having to have an annual review may be some legislative requirement that makes little sense for what you're doing. (or, at least for the level of time/effort involved).
I'm with a contractor to the government and it's much the same minus promotions. You write your review, you have a meeting with your manager, you are handed the standard COL raise that everyone receives and you repeat every year. I agree, it's not a good system. Those which should be promoted or fired aren't. Those which show initiative and intelligence are often worn down year after year eventually leading them to read their Kindle all day or finding a new job. There is little incentive to do anything other than the bare minimum here and I suspect that's the case for many of these types of workplaces.
Are you in a union? Your description sounds very similar to my father's experience in the USPS. If so, are the problems you describe related to the fact that it's a government job, or the fact that it's a union job?
That being said, the performance review is basically a formality. We have 5 steps in each pay grade, and I have never seen someone miss a step after each year. Someone could be sitting at their desk reading their Kindle all day and still get their 5% jump every year. In addition to that, nearly 100% of promotions are based on tenure. You will probably go from a level 1 --> 2 --> 3 --> Senior every year, and supervisory/management positions are only opened upon the incumbent's retirement (to be filled typically by the most tenured person to apply, regardless of fit).
It is not a good system. Lots of people stick around who should receive the boot, and the wrong people are placed in supervisory/management positions simply because they have been there for a while.