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

A. The regulations specify three types of performance elements:

• critical elements
• non-critical elements
• additional performance elements

A. A critical element is a work assignment or responsibility of such importance that unacceptable performance on that element would result in a determination the employee's overall performance is unacceptable. The regulations require employees have at least one critical element in their performance plans. Critical elements must address performance at the individual level only.

A. A non-critical element is a dimension or aspect of individual, team or organizational performance, exclusive of a critical element, used in assigning a summary level. It may include, but is not limited to, objectives, goals, program plans, work plans, and other means of expressing expected performance. Its use is optional but, if used, it must be expressed as an element and standard, be included in the employee's performance plan, and be used in assigning a summary level for the rating of record. However, a non-critical element cannot be used as a basis for taking a performance-based action. Other features of non-critical elements:

• they cannot be used in two-level appraisal programs (i.e., pass/fail)
• they can be given more weight than critical elements when assigning a summary level above "Unacceptable" (Level 1)
• they must have a performance standard written for at least one level, the written standard need not describe the "Fully Successful" or equivalent level

A. Yes. Writing a performance standard for a non-critical element at the Fully Successful level and appraising that element at only two levels (e.g., Fully Successful and Unacceptable) has been done for some time and results in an employee being appraised as Unacceptable for that element. When a non-critical element is appraised at the Unacceptable level, it usually causes the summary rating of record to be lowered from what the appraisal on only the critical elements would merit. However, a non-critical element appraised at the Unacceptable level cannot lower the summary level to Level 1 or be the basis for a performance-based action under parts 432 or 752 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations. Also, the Office of Personnel Management encourages agencies to change the focus of their non-critical elements to more effectively use them to set goals and results-measures that distinguish among higher levels of performance above Fully Successful or equivalent.

A. Additional performance elements provide agencies another tool for communicating performance expectations important to the organization. In essence, they are dimensions or aspects of overall performance the agency wishes to communicate and appraise, but which will not be used in assigning a summary level. Such additional elements may include objectives, goals, program plans, work plans, and other methods of expressing expected performance. Like non-critical elements, they do not have to be appraised at any particular level. Their major distinctions from non-critical elements are they cannot be used in assigning a summary level and additional performance elements do not require a performance standard. They allow agencies to factor group or team performance into the performance plan of employees under two-level (Pass/Fail) summary appraisal programs.

Including additional performance elements encourages a dialogue among supervisors, employees and peers that might not have taken place if they had not been included in a performance plan or goal statement. An agency could include items employees are not ready to have affect their ratings of record, but which may be used in the future as non-critical elements. One example would be appraising "team interaction" in a group that has not had sufficient time or experience with such concepts and behaviors. Because no standard is required, additional performance elements also might be appropriate when the organization has not decided what measurements are valid or who is the most credible rater(s).

Assessments on additional performance elements that make distinctions above the Fully Successful or equivalent level may be used as the basis for granting awards. Such a use of additional performance elements is a perfectly reasonable way to meet the legal requirement at section 4302(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code to "use the results of performance appraisals as a basis for rewarding employees."

A. Yes. Additional performance elements (e.g., stretch goals, extra credit for special projects, published customer-service standards) can address individual or group performance, whichever is the most appropriate to the agency's mission, goals and culture.

A. Yes, provided the agency program provides for such levels to be assigned. That is, an element cannot be appraised at Outstanding based on a standard established at the Fully Successful level if the applicable program only provides for appraising elements at Unacceptable and Fully Successful.

A. As defined in the Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance, a retention standard describes the level of performance necessary to be retained in a job (i.e., the standard written for performance one level above the Unacceptable level). In appraisal programs where a Minimally Successful or equivalent level exists for appraising elements, the retention standard is the Minimally Successful or equivalent standard. In appraisal programs that do not have a Minimally Successful or equivalent level available, the retention standard is the Fully Successful standard.

The Merit Systems Protection Board and the courts have held that an agency must ensure that retention standards:

• are reasonably attainable
• are not impermissibly absolute (allow for no error)
• inform the employee of the level of performance needed to retain his or her job

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 for managing the performance of all employees should include:

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

Supervisors should appraise all employees' performance against the elements and standards established in employee performance plans.