Performance Plans FAQs
Under the Federal employee performance appraisal regulations, employees
must have a performance plan that includes at least one critical element.
A few of the most frequently asked technical questions about performance
plans include:
|
?
|
In the definition
of a critical element, what is meant by performance at the individual
level? |
| Performance at the individual level means
the accomplishment of outputs and work processes for which the employee
can be held individually accountable. Because failure of a critical
element can result in an employee's reduction in grade or removal,
critical elements would measure those outputs/outcomes and processes
over which the employee is expected or intended to have control and
exercise authority. It would not be reasonable to hold an employee
accountable for outputs and processes when the authority and resources
for them are shared with others or controlled by someone other than
the employee. |
|
?
|
Could someone
who has responsibility for a group of employees (supervisor, manager,
team leader) have a critical element based on a result that the group
is expected to achieve? |
| Yes. The Office of Personnel Management
believes it is possible to develop a critical element and standard
that holds a supervisor, manager, or team leader responsible for group
performance. The element and standard would have to be crafted carefully
so that it identifies achievements that would be expected to result
when the individual supervisor, manager, or team leader properly exercises
his or her leadership responsibilities. |
|
?
|
Does a program
have to use the same number of levels to appraise elements and to
assign ratings of record? |
| No, not at all. In fact, the Office
of Personnel Management anticipates that this is an area where agencies
may show considerable creativity. Agency performance appraisal programs
must specify a method for deriving a rating of record and assigning
a summary level. The level designators described at section 430.208(d)
at title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (Level 1, Level 2,
Level 3, etc.) address summary levels only.
One agency appraisal program could be designed to:
- appraise critical elements at only two levels (which must be
Fully Successful and Unacceptable);
- use group-level non-critical elements with their standards written
only at the Outstanding level and appraise them using at
least two levels (e.g., Outstanding and Not Outstanding);
and
- use summary Levels 1, 3, and 5 and assign the summary level
based on appraisal of both the critical and non-critical elements.
Another program, possibly even in the same agency and under the
same overall appraisal system, could be designed to:
- appraise critical elements at five levels (two of which must
be Fully Successful and Unacceptable) in the interest
of providing specific feedback and developing information to use
in justifying appropriate individual recognition and rewards,
- use the Pass/Fail summary level pattern (Levels 1 and 3) to
assign summary levels based simply on whether any critical element
is appraised as Unacceptable, and
- use a variety of performance information and measurements, including
appraisal of additional performance elements included in employee
performance plans, to drive the distribution of awards in ways
that underscore achieving the organization's objectives.
In outlining these alternatives, the Office of Personnel Management
is recommending neither, but simply illustrating the flexibility
the regulations provide. The particular program design choices that
agencies and their subcomponents make should reflect their own situations
and needs.
|
Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 | TTY (202) 606-2532