Few straightforward answers are possible
here. Agencies have a lot of flexibility for how mid-period transitions
could be handled. At the same time, however, such transitions may
stimulate employee complaints and grievances. This is especially true
as many agencies seek to implement changes and transitions during
a time when the Government is facing serious downsizing. It is only
prudent to consider the effect and timing of program changes in light
of their possible reduction-in-force implications.
A few simple principles can help guide decisions about program
transitions:
- The appraisal regulations in part 430 of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, contemplate only one formal rating of record per
appraisal period.
- The reduction-in-force regulations in part 351 of title 5,
Code of Federal Regulations, defer to ratings of record as defined
in part 430.
- A sense of fairness and equity is generally not well served
by "changing the rules late in the game" unless there
is clear evidence that the rule changes are well understood and
widely accepted by the affected parties. It's generally a good
idea to stick by the "rules" that are in place when
the employee's performance plan is communicated, unless program
changes are imminent (see (a) below).
- It's generally a good idea to let employees get credit for their
positive achievements, rather than ignore them.
These principles were applied in developing the following advice
about situations (a) through (e) below. Please note that in each
situation, the new program would have to be in effect and employees
would have to be under their new performance plans for the minimum
period before a rating of record could be prepared under the new
program. Also, a new program should not be implemented with its
performance plans and ratings of record unless management and employees
have received appropriate preparation and training.
(a) It's early in a new appraisal period (or rating cycle) and
the minimum period has not been completed yet.
This is the simplest case. Because it is not permissible to rate
performance under the old program before the minimum period is complete,
implementing the new program should not cause serious problems.
However, agencies must remember to comply with the requirement to
communicate with supervisors and employees about the relevant parts
of their appraisal programs.
(b) It's near the end of the current appraisal period and the
new appraisal program has fewer summary levels than the old.
This may be the second simplest case. Assuming adequate warning
and preparations are made, relevant parties are in agreement, and
the agency system allows the flexibility, it should be possible
to in effect "shorten" the old appraisal period to close
out the old program. Ratings of record would be prepared using the
old pattern with more summary levels. The agency could have the
discretion to lengthen the next appraisal period so that two ratings
of record would be assigned to cover a 24-month period. This approach
would be most consistent with giving employees credit for their
accomplishments and avoids disadvantaging employees by "changing
the rules late in the game."
(c) It's near the end of the current appraisal period and the
new appraisal program has more summary levels than the old.
In this situation, it may be more desirable to let the rating of
record be assigned under the new program with more summary levels.
A performance rating could be prepared (with or without assigning
a summary level) to "close out" the old program before
implementing the new program. When the appraisal period ends and
a rating of record must be prepared, that earlier performance information
would be available and applied as appropriate. Of course, an employee
could not be rated under the new program or assigned a performance
rating or rating of record until the new program's minimum period
was completed, which in effect could lengthen the appraisal period.
In that event, the agency would have the option of shortening the
subsequent appraisal period to end up with two ratings of record
covering a 24-month period. Agencies should consider designing their
programs to accommodate the need for a transitional appraisal period.
d) It's the middle of the current appraisal period and the new
appraisal program has fewer summary levels than the old.
In this situation, unless relevant parties are in agreement and
a lot of groundwork has been laid with employees, it may be advisable
to delay implementing the new program until the next appraisal period.
Closing out the old program with a summary rating of record (as
in (b) above) by substantially "shortening" the appraisal
period might be more acceptable than just implementing the new program
with its fewer summary levels, but it's still "changing the
rules" in midstream.
(e) It's the middle of the current appraisal period and the new
appraisal program has more summary rating levels than the old.
In this case, the fact that more summary levels would be available
under the new program may make shortening the appraisal period less
desirable. As in (c) above, the old program could be closed out
with a performance rating (with or without a summary level)
that "counts" when the rating of record is prepared under
the new program at the end of the appraisal period. This presumes
the new program is more attractive and there is shared interest
in implementing it. If that is not the case, the scenario in (b)
above still could be played out.
|