The Trump administration has instructed senior officials across a broad swath of federal departments to restrict the number of employees who receive the highest performance ratings in annual evaluations, part of an ongoing effort to reform personnel practices and address what it describes as widespread rating inflation.

Internal directives affecting agencies including Commerce, Justice, Energy, Interior, the General Services Administration and the Small Business Administration encourage managers to confine top marks to a small minority of staff, pushing most civil servants into mid-level performance categories.

Experts and some federal employees say the approach differs from traditional merit-based evaluations and could have far-reaching implications for morale, promotions and workforce stability.

Across multiple agencies, managers have been told to consider performance distribution models that resemble forced curves, in which outstanding ratings are limited to a specified percentage of personnel — sometimes as low as one to five per cent — and a large share of workers receive “fully successful” or equivalent mid-tier marks.

In the National Park Service, for example, a senior operations official reportedly urged superintendents to rate approximately eighty per cent of staff at a middle level and reserve top marks for only a handful of top performers.

Critics argue that setting preconceived limits on high ratings may violate federal personnel rules and risk demoralising employees whose work merits higher evaluations.

Administration officials and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have defended the changes as necessary to “end inflation of employee performance ratings” and foster greater accountability.

Trump-appointed leadership in OPM has in recent months overhauled performance management policies, including a finalized rule allowing agencies to cap top ratings for senior executives and proposals to extend similar practices more broadly, contending that overly generous evaluations have shielded under-performers and muddled distinctions between high and average performers.

Supporters of the reform argue that a more rigorous system will better align talent recognition with organisational goals, improve accountability and ensure federal employees deliver tangible results for taxpayers.

Nevertheless, the shift has drawn concern from employee advocacy groups and legal experts, who contend that federal regulations require evaluators to assess performance based on individual merit rather than predetermined distribution limits.

They warn that artificially restricting top ratings could hinder career progression, affect bonuses and make it easier to justify layoffs during workforce reductions.

As the reforms continue to unfold, federal agencies face the challenge of balancing calls for greater accountability with the need to maintain a motivated and fairly evaluated civil service.