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

A. 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.

A. 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.

A. No, not at all. In fact, the Office of Personnel Management anticipates that this is an area in which 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 in Part 430 of 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 and
• 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.

A. Governmentwide regulations do not establish a minimum time. Instead, the regulations require that appraisal programs establish a minimum appraisal period, which is the minimum amount of time that employees must work under a specific set of elements and standards before they can be assigned a rating of record. (The Governmentwide regulation on minimum appraisal periods is found in part 430 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.)

As long as a supervisor has the necessary information and the employee has been under an established set of elements and standards for the minimum appraisal period, the supervisor can assign a rating.

A. Agency appraisal programs will identify who prepares the rating of record and whose signature may appear on official documentation. Generally, an individual who is in the best position to assess the employee's performance, has the necessary information, and has the authority to rate employees should complete the rating of record. Therefore, it may be that ratings of record are prepared by first-line supervisors, managers, team leaders, or other appropriate employees depending on the responsibilities designated by the agency's appraisal program. Governmentwide performance-management regulations at part 430 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations do not specifically designate who has the authority to assign a rating of record. This rating is done at the end of the appraisal period for performance of agency-assigned duties over the entire rating period. The rating of record provides a written, or otherwise recorded, record of the employee's performance on all elements in the performance plan during the applicable appraisal period.

A. An agency may not hold an employee accountable for work that does not get done because of an absence for which the employee is on any type of approved leave. If there is a specific performance standard for the appraisal year, it may be prorated for the amount of time the employee was at work.

The issue of veterans seeking medical treatment is specifically addressed in the performance management regulations in 430 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations: "...The rating of record or performance rating of a disabled veteran shall not be lowered because the veteran has been absent from work to seek medical treatment as provided in Executive Order 5396."

A. Accountability means being held answerable for accomplishing a goal or assignment. If approached correctly accountability can produce positive, valuable results. Managers can practice accountability for positive results by following good performance-management principles. They can establish expectations in employees' performance plans and use formal awards programs to recognize employees. Managers should:

• involve employees in setting clear, challenging, yet attainable goals and objectives, and give them the authority to accomplish those goals
• coach employees when they request help
• monitor progress towards goals, and provide feedback that includes credible, useful performance measures
• provide the training and resources employees need to do the work
• recognize employees for good performance, both formally and informally.

A. OPM's electronic signature requirements for performance appraisals are the same as those found in the Guide to Processing Personnel Actions for SF 50/52's and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 113. You can find the OPM requirements for SF 50/52/s in chapter 3 of the Guide to Processing Personnel Actions. The requirements dealing specifically with electronic signatures are:

• the signal or symbol must be unique to the signer
• the "signature" must be capable of being verified and must be linked to the data being transmitted, including the effective date
• control features must be in place to insure the authenticity of data on the form, including the electronic signature
• such controls must provide reasonable assurance that deliberate or inadvertent manipulation, modification or loss of data on the electronically stored form is detected.

A. There should be no significant difference between managing the performance of a teleworker and managing the employee who works in the office. The process of managing the performance of all employees should include:

• planning work and setting expectations
• monitoring performance
• developing employees skills
• appraising performance
• recognizing employees for their accomplishments

A. No. The regulations require that agency officials evaluate employee performance periodically against agency-assigned elements and standards. Since agencies can't assign union work, this work can't be included as elements and standards and is not subject to appraisal. As a result, employees who spend 100 percent of their time as employee representatives cannot receive a rating of record. Subsequently, since a rating of record is the basis for a performance or rating-based award, these employees are not eligible for performance awards.

However, OPM provides alternatives to agencies and their employees for other actions requiring a rating of record. During a reduction in force, if an employee has not received any ratings of record during the past four years, agencies still can grant additional service credit based on the summary-level rating most often given under the appraisal program that applies to the employee's position of record. Also, OPM waived the requirement for an acceptable level of competence determination (as evidenced by a Fully Successful or equivalent performance rating) for employees on 100 percent official time so they can receive within-grade increases.