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.
|
|
