Comment from Christopher Reece
AnonymousSupportIndividual
Summary: An examiner at the USPTO supports the elimination of the Time-in-Grade requirement, arguing that it prevents high performers from being properly rewarded and may lead to turnover. The commenter suggests that removing these requirements will provide agencies with more flexibility to reward performance while cautioning that safeguards against sabotage should remain.
I am an examiner with the USPTO. Beyond the expected quality and professionalism standards, we effectively have two requirements for advancement to a higher grade: A. Time in Grade and B. Production at a higher rate (halfway between grades) for the previous six months. But for the TIG requirement, I would currently be eligible for advancement. Further, given I am considerably ahead of production, I could probably advance to the grade beyond next if you allow overlap.
This illustrates a few points. First, high performers are likely to continue high performance even if artificially held back. Speaking for myself, I'm rarely thinking about only the next advancement but also positioning myself for the one after that. Second, I don't feel I'm being properly rewarded for my performance, which means I'm more susceptible to leaving the office for an outside opportunity that would provide that recognition. Third, it would be very easy for me to advance accidentally beyond a production requirement I can realistically maintain.
The Time in Grade requirement should be eliminated. More freedom and flexibility will allow agencies to reward high performers and get the most from their people. At the same time, agencies should remember these guardrails were put in place for a reason. A reward shouldn't be a set-up for sabotage.