U.S. Office of Personnel Management - Ensuring the Federal Government has an effective civilian workforce

Archive

Update on Performance-Based Actions

A performance-based action is the reduction in grade or removal of an employee based solely on performance at the unacceptable level. Sharon Snellings, Senior Employee Relations Specialist with OPM's Employee Relations Policy Center, presented and discussed issues dealing with performance-based actions during her breakout session at the conference.

Snellings explained that once an employee's performance has been determined to be unacceptable in one or more critical elements, the employee must be given an opportunity to improve performance on that element(s) to an acceptable level. The acceptable level of performance must be achieved and maintained on the critical element(s) for one year from the start of the opportunity period or the agency can take a performance-based action against the employee.

• Elements and Standards
• Poor Performance in a Team Setting
• For More Information

Elements and Standards. Snellings discussed six important facts about writing and using elements and standards that can have a significant effect on an agency's ability to defend its performance-based actions. Agencies must:

• communicate to employees at the beginning of the appraisal period the elements and standards that will be used to appraise the employee's performance;
• clarify standards throughout the appraisal cycle, especially when the standards are adapted to meet the changing demands of the job;
• set objective and valid retention level standards that are reasonably attainable and that are clear enough that most people would understand what the standards mean;
• avoid absolute retention level standards that allow for no error except in circumstances where failure to meet the standard would result in loss of life, injury, breach of national security, or great monetary loss;
• avoid "backwards" retention level standards that describe unacceptable performance examples of backwards standards are "fails to meet" and "performs inaccurately"); and
• make clear whether failure in a subelement or on a component of a standard could result in failure in the critical element.

Poor Performance in a Team Setting. Snellings facilitated a discussion among participants on providing assistance to an unacceptable performer when the employee works in a team environment. The consensus was that the poor performer should remain in the team structure during the opportunity to improve to maintain the integrity and applicability of the performance standards, rather than remove the person from the team. Additionally, team members would be able to assist the poor performer during the opportunity period through coaching and mentoring.

The impact of using peer review and 360-degree assessment processes was also discussed. Performance problems initially may be defined through the 360-degree feedback process. However, most participants felt the official communication of poor performance should be on a one-to-one basis with the team's coach, team leader, or mentor.

Snellings reminded the group that we have yet to see any case law dealing with 360-degree assessments that are used as part of the formal appraisal process. In a performance-based action, the employee has a right to challenge the bias of the rater. Normally, 360-degree assessment does away with single source bias and leaves the raters anonymous. Without knowing who provided the rating, however, the employee might not be able to adequately challenge the rating derived through the process (i.e., the average score of several raters).

For More Information. For additional information on performance-based actions, contact your agency's Employee Relations Office or OPM's Employee Relations Policy Center at 202-606-2920.

Originally published on August 1997.