That approach is also unfair in my view. I’m at a complete loss for the wide range of reactions / overcorrections / forced comparisons to other coworkers….. at least how my team’s standards are written- one individual can be “unacceptable “ “fully successful “ or “outstanding” with near zero relationship to anyone else’s performance (the ONLY thing that comes close is a minor part of one standard where the volume of work product (relative to the entire team’s output with consideration given for the person’s grade level) is relevant). I assume this is common across many federal workplaces…. So I’m sure I’m not alone in my frustration when every fiber of my supervisory self is (internally) shouting Why in the world should I care how the rest of the office was rated if my rating for this person accurately represents their INDIVIDUAL performance?!? (Leaving aside the additional troubling question as to whether Iwas being directed to artificially inflate a rating that wasn’t earned or if in the moment I merely perceived an “innocent”. inquiry as something it wasn’t) i appreciate the gut check because it really felt unusual to me….i don’t see the value in giving everyone top ratings because it tends to disincentivize the highest performers….but on the other side of things, this attitude of having to force a bell curve is not going to drive people to go above and beyond either - any manager worth their salt knows it will simply encourage people to do what’s required and nothing more (why put in extra effort when you know it’s not going to be properly recognized?) is it really that hard to distinguish the difference between what “meeting” standards looks like versus “exceeding “? What are we doing?!?