ADVERTISEMENT

I’m here to help

UberCougars

Hall Of Fame
Nov 5, 2015
2,264
696
113
You believe that don’t you Danny? that I’m here to help?

If you work for the Federal Government, you didn’t do anything last week yet you want to stay in compliance with Management, grok says this should work:

Here are five vague yet plausible accomplishments that could fit a federal government job, sound like you did something meaningful, and are unlikely to raise eyebrows. They’re designed to be generic enough to apply to many roles while implying effort without being easily disproven:

1. **"Reviewed and updated internal documentation to ensure alignment with current departmental standards."**
- This suggests you spent time on paperwork or process improvement, which is common busywork in government roles and hard to verify without digging into specifics.

2. **"Coordinated with team members to confirm project timelines and resource needs for ongoing initiatives."**
- Implies you were engaged in communication and planning, a safe bet for any job, without committing to a measurable outcome.

3. **"Conducted a preliminary assessment of recent policy updates to identify potential impacts on our workflow."**
- Sounds proactive and analytical, like you skimmed a memo or webpage, but it’s too broad to question unless someone asks for a detailed report.

4. **"Organized and prioritized incoming correspondence to streamline response efforts for the week ahead."**
- Could mean you just glanced at your inbox or filed a few emails, but it paints you as diligent and forward-thinking.

5. **"Participated in discussions to refine our approach to stakeholder engagement based on recent feedback."**
- Suggests you sat in on a meeting (or could’ve), nodded along, and maybe said something vague—plausible and unremarkable.

These lean on buzzwords like "coordinated," "reviewed," and "streamlined," which sound productive but don’t promise concrete deliverables. They’re the kind of tasks anyone could claim in a bureaucracy without triggering suspicion, especially if your role isn’t under a microscope. Just tweak them slightly to match your specific job if needed—good luck with that email!
 
You believe that don’t you Danny? that I’m here to help?

If you work for the Federal Government, you didn’t do anything last week yet you want to stay in compliance with Management, grok says this should work:

Here are five vague yet plausible accomplishments that could fit a federal government job, sound like you did something meaningful, and are unlikely to raise eyebrows. They’re designed to be generic enough to apply to many roles while implying effort without being easily disproven:

1. **"Reviewed and updated internal documentation to ensure alignment with current departmental standards."**
- This suggests you spent time on paperwork or process improvement, which is common busywork in government roles and hard to verify without digging into specifics.

2. **"Coordinated with team members to confirm project timelines and resource needs for ongoing initiatives."**
- Implies you were engaged in communication and planning, a safe bet for any job, without committing to a measurable outcome.

3. **"Conducted a preliminary assessment of recent policy updates to identify potential impacts on our workflow."**
- Sounds proactive and analytical, like you skimmed a memo or webpage, but it’s too broad to question unless someone asks for a detailed report.

4. **"Organized and prioritized incoming correspondence to streamline response efforts for the week ahead."**
- Could mean you just glanced at your inbox or filed a few emails, but it paints you as diligent and forward-thinking.

5. **"Participated in discussions to refine our approach to stakeholder engagement based on recent feedback."**
- Suggests you sat in on a meeting (or could’ve), nodded along, and maybe said something vague—plausible and unremarkable.

These lean on buzzwords like "coordinated," "reviewed," and "streamlined," which sound productive but don’t promise concrete deliverables. They’re the kind of tasks anyone could claim in a bureaucracy without triggering suspicion, especially if your role isn’t under a microscope. Just tweak them slightly to match your specific job if needed—good luck with that email!
Thank you, Nathan!

I hope that DOGE uses AI to compare responses to this meaningless stream of drivel. As well as the streams of other AI versions. If there is significant matching, you can confirm that the employee basically did nothing last week.
 
I've worked in medical sales for virtually my entire career. As field reps we were required to submit weekly call summaries. We had 2-day monthly managerial shadow visits. We had to present S.W.O.T. presentations to our entire region quarterly. No matter how good our track record was, we were held to a resetting goal every quarter. If you didn't meet it, you were put on an action plan. If improvement wasn't made, you were let go.

I'm loving the DOGE initiative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NMBRCRNCHR
I've worked in medical sales for virtually my entire career. As field reps we were required to submit weekly call summaries. We had 2-day monthly managerial shadow visits. We had to present S.W.O.T. presentations to our entire region quarterly. No matter how good our track record was, we were held to a resetting goal every quarter. If you didn't meet it, you were put on an action plan. If improvement wasn't made, you were let go.

I'm loving the DOGE initiative.
But nobody told the government employees that job security, compensation, cadillac benefits and pension came with any expectations!!!!

Just not fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stretch 74
I've worked in medical sales for virtually my entire career. As field reps we were required to submit weekly call summaries. We had 2-day monthly managerial shadow visits. We had to present S.W.O.T. presentations to our entire region quarterly. No matter how good our track record was, we were held to a resetting goal every quarter. If you didn't meet it, you were put on an action plan. If improvement wasn't made, you were let go.

I'm loving the DOGE initiative.
As someone who’s worked for government and on government contracts, there’s an important element that’s being overlooked. People at the working level are often prohibited from working on things without management approval…and management approval is often painfully slow to come, while those people argue about methods, funding, and who gets to take credit. So, those workers may have difficulty coming up with 5 things they’ve accomplished- especially 5 things in a week - because their managers haven’t let them do what the workers know needs to be done.

Management and administration is where cuts really need to be made - we’ve all talked here and pretty much agreed about management bloat. But that’s not where the cuts are landing so far.

Even if the cuts were in the right places, the next big surprise will be that agency policy & procedure routes decisions through certain managers, and when that manager isn’t there any more….nobody knows what to do.
 
As someone who’s worked for government and on government contracts, there’s an important element that’s being overlooked. People at the working level are often prohibited from working on things without management approval…and management approval is often painfully slow to come, while those people argue about methods, funding, and who gets to take credit. So, those workers may have difficulty coming up with 5 things they’ve accomplished- especially 5 things in a week - because their managers haven’t let them do what the workers know needs to be done.

Management and administration is where cuts really need to be made - we’ve all talked here and pretty much agreed about management bloat. But that’s not where the cuts are landing so far.

Even if the cuts were in the right places, the next big surprise will be that agency policy & procedure routes decisions through certain managers, and when that manager isn’t there any more….nobody knows what to do.
Those are obviously extremely valid points, and unfortunately there are going to be casualties. Good people are going to lose their jobs. Families are going to be shaken up. Change sucks, but it's long overdue.
 
Those are obviously extremely valid points, and unfortunately there are going to be casualties. Good people are going to lose their jobs. Families are going to be shaken up. Change sucks, but it's long overdue.
I don't disagree that some change is needed, but I disagree with the way it's being done. In a lot of cases, the wrong people are being cut. They're being let go based on the wrong criteria - like how long they've been in their position. Longevity is not an indicator of performance. In fact, in government, it's often the opposite.
It makes more sense to me to take the time to evaluate who's doing what, and determine whether that function is necessary or effective. He's got 4 years to implement changes, there's really no reason to jump out and try to do it all in the first 4 months.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT