Few straightforward
answers are possible here. Agencies have a lot of
flexibility for how mid-period transitions could
be handled. At the same time, however, such
transitions may stimulate employee complaints and
grievances. This is especially true as many
agencies seek to implement changes and
transitions during a time when the Government is
facing serious downsizing. It is only prudent to
consider the effect and timing of program changes
in light of their possible reduction-in-force
implications. A few simple principles can help
guide decisions about program transitions:
- The appraisal regulations in part 430 of
title 5, Code of Federal Regulations,
contemplate only one formal rating
of record per appraisal period.
- The reduction-in-force regulations in
part 351 of title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations, defer to ratings of record
as defined in part 430.
- A sense of fairness and equity is
generally not well served by
"changing the rules late in the
game" unless there is clear evidence
that the rule changes are well understood
and widely accepted by the affected
parties. It's generally a good idea to
stick by the "rules" that are
in place when the employee's performance
plan is communicated, unless program
changes are imminent (see (a) below).
- It's generally a good idea to let
employees get credit for their positive
achievements, rather than ignore them.
These principles were applied in developing
the following advice about situations (a) through
(e) below. Please note that in each situation,
the new program would have to be in effect and
employees would have to be under their new
performance plans for the minimum period before a
rating of record could be prepared under the new
program. Also, a new program should not be
implemented with its performance plans and
ratings of record unless management and employees
have received appropriate preparation and
training.
(a) It's early in a new appraisal
period (or rating cycle) and the minimum
period has not been completed yet.
This is the simplest case. Because it is not
permissible to rate performance under the old
program before the minimum period is complete,
implementing the new program should not cause
serious problems. However, agencies must remember
to comply with the requirement to communicate
with supervisors and employees about the relevant
parts of their appraisal programs.
(b) It's near the end of the current
appraisal period and the new appraisal
program has fewer summary levels than the
old.
This may be the second simplest case. Assuming
adequate warning and preparations are made,
relevant parties are in agreement, and the agency
system allows the flexibility, it should be
possible to in effect "shorten" the old
appraisal period to close out the old program.
Ratings of record would be prepared using the old
pattern with more summary levels. The agency
could have the discretion to lengthen the next
appraisal period so that two ratings of record
would be assigned to cover a 24-month period.
This approach would be most consistent with
giving employees credit for their accomplishments
and avoids disadvantaging employees by
"changing the rules late in the game."
(c) It's near the end of the current
appraisal period and the new appraisal
program has more summary levels than the old.
In this situation, it may be more desirable to
let the rating of record be assigned under the
new program with more summary levels. A
performance rating could be prepared (with or
without assigning a summary level) to "close
out" the old program before implementing the
new program. When the appraisal period ends and a
rating of record must be prepared, that earlier
performance information would be available and
applied as appropriate. Of course, an employee
could not be rated under the new program or
assigned a performance rating or rating of record
until the new program's minimum period was
completed, which in effect could lengthen the
appraisal period. In that event, the agency would
have the option of shortening the subsequent
appraisal period to end up with two ratings of
record covering a 24-month period. Agencies
should consider designing their programs to
accommodate the need for a transitional appraisal
period.
d) It's the middle of the current
appraisal period and the new appraisal
program has fewer summary levels than the
old.
In this situation, unless relevant parties are
in agreement and a lot of groundwork has been
laid with employees, it may be advisable to delay
implementing the new program until the next
appraisal period. Closing out the old program
with a summary rating of record (as in (b) above)
by substantially "shortening" the
appraisal period might be more acceptable than
just implementing the new program with its fewer
summary levels, but it's still "changing the
rules" in midstream.
(e) It's the middle of the current
appraisal period and the new appraisal
program has more summary rating levels than
the old.
In this case, the fact that more summary
levels would be available under the new program
may make shortening the appraisal period less
desirable. As in (c) above, the old program could
be closed out with a performance rating (with or
without a summary level) that
"counts" when the rating of record is
prepared under the new program at the end of the
appraisal period. This presumes the new program
is more attractive and there is shared interest
in implementing it. If that is not the case, the
scenario in (b) above still could be played out.
|