Performance Management System for NonSupervisory Employees - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 34
About This Presentation
Title:

Performance Management System for NonSupervisory Employees

Description:

... in place no later than 30 days from the start of the performance ... Minimum performance appraisal period - 90 calendar days. 6. General Requirements (cont. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:151
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 35
Provided by: oro2
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Performance Management System for NonSupervisory Employees


1
Performance Management System for
Non-Supervisory Employees
  • OFFICE OF HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
  • U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

2
New Performance System for Non-Supervisory
Employees
  • DOEs Proud to Be commitments to OMB OPM
  • Supports Human Capital Management items under the
    Presidents Management Agenda
  • Cascades from the performance management systems
    in place for SES and Managers and Supervisors
  • Strategic Alignment - DOE missions
  • Accountability and Rewards

3
Goals
  • Identify performance distinctions among
    non-supervisory employees
  • Incorporate strategic plans and mission
    objectives with accountability for achieving such
    objectives
  • Provide substantial financial rewards
    commensurate with top performance
  • Provide proportionately less rewards for lesser
    ratings

4
Coverage
  • DOE Non-Supervisory Employees in Competitive
    Service General Schedule and Excepted Service
    positions

5
General Requirements
  • Performance plans in place no later than 30 days
    from the start of the performance appraisal
    period.
  • At least one progress review annually.
  • Minimum performance appraisal period - 90
    calendar days.

6
General Requirements (cont.)
  • Recognition and rewards must be provided to top
    performers.
  • Assistance must be provided to employees in
    improving unacceptable performance.
  • Action must be taken to reassign, reduce in
    grade, or remove employees who continue to have
    unacceptable performance after an opportunity to
    demonstrate acceptable performance.

7
Key Features Being Cascaded
  • Fiscal Year Appraisal Cycle
  • Plans Linked to Organizational Strategic and
    Mission Objectives
  • Direct Linkage between Performance Ratings and
    Awards
  • Significant Awards to Top Performers

8
Key Features Being Cascaded (cont.)
  • Four-Level Performance Appraisal System
  • Significantly Exceeds Expectations
  • Meets Expectations
  • Needs Improvement
  • Fails to Meet Expectations

9
Key Features Being Cascaded (cont.)
  • Two to Five Critical Elements assigned variable
    weights to reflect their relative degree of
    importance
  • 1. Specific Job Responsibilities
  • One Four Critical Elements
  • 2. Employee Attributes Critical Element
  • Five Attributes

10
Critical Elements 1 - 4 Specific Job
Responsibilities
  • Specific Job Responsibility Critical Elements are
    assigned weights to reflect differences in
    importance.
  • At least one specific job responsibility critical
    element must be linked to an organizational goal
    and/or mission objective
  • Organizational goals/mission objectives must be
    achievable and include measurable outcomes.

11
Employee Attributes Critical Element
  • Attribute 1 Responsibility and Accountability
  • Attribute 2 Communication
  • Attribute 3 Teamwork
  • Attribute 4 Innovation/Quality Improvements
  • Attribute 5 Customer Service

12
Additional Features
  • Performance Standards Written at the Meets
    Expectations Level
  • Variable Weights Assigned to Individual Critical
    Elements and Individual Employee Attributes

13
Employee Responsibilities
  • Participate in the development of plan
  • Report on the status of assignments including any
    problems which may prevent their successful
    completion
  • Maintain complete records on work outputs for use
    during progress reviews
  • Include training as required for professional
    development and performance of responsibilities

14
Rating/Reviewing Official Responsibilities
  • Involve subordinates in the development of
    performance plans
  • Conduct one or more progress reviews with
    subordinates and provide interim assessments of
    their performance.
  • Assure that the organizations performance
    ratings correspond to organizational productivity
    or effectiveness

15
DERIVING FINAL RATINGS
16
Assigning Weights to Critical Elements
  • Total weight assigned to all critical elements
    must equal 100 by using the following
    proportions
  • Specific Job Responsibilities Critical Elements
    90
  • Employee Attributes Critical Element 10

17
Assigning Weights to Critical Elements (cont.)
  • Examples of factors to consider in the assignment
    of weights
  • Relative importance as related to mission
    objectives
  • Complexity of assignments, risk factors
  • Costs, both in terms of resources and staff time
  • Impact on the organization or the Department as a
    whole

18
Assigning Weights to Critical Elements (cont)
  • Weights initially assigned during the plan
    development stage
  • Weights may be adjusted, along with other related
    factors, during the progress review stage
  • Rating officials are expected to discuss with the
    employee the impact of assigned weights on the
    determination of the employees final performance
    rating

19
Computing the Summary Performance Rating
  • Each Element has a numerical weighting
  • Each rating level has an assigned point value
  • Multiplying these gives score for each element
  • Similar sub process for Attributes
  • Add resulting s to get a total
  • Total score dictates summary rating (unless an
    element was rated FME)

20
Computing the Summary Performance Rating (cont.)
  • Rating Levels Point Ranges
  • SE 80 - 100
  • ME 50 - 79
  • NI 49 and below
  • FME any score with at
    least 1
  • critical element
    rated FME

21
Computing the Summary Performance Rating (cont)
  • Specific Job Responsibilities Critical Element
    Rating Levels and Assigned Point Values
  • Significantly Exceeds Expectations (SE) 1 point
  • Meets Expectations (ME) .5 point
  • Needs Improvement (NI) 0 points
  • Fails to Meet Expectations (FME) Results in a
    Summary Rating of FME

22
Assigning Weights to Individual Employee
Attributes
  • Similar to that used to assign weights to Job
    Specific Responsibilities Critical Elements
  • An individual weight is assigned to each Employee
    Attribute ranging from 1 to 3 points
  • Individual weights must total 10 for the overall
    Employee Attributes Critical Element

23
ORO Elements and Weights for Non-Bargaining Unit
Employees
  • 4 Job-Specific Elements
  • Weights 30, 30, 15, 15
  • Employee Attributes
  • Weights All weighted at 2 points

24
Computing Summary Performance Ratings
  • Example 1-a
  • Job Specific
  • Critical Element Rating Weight Pts
    Score
  • Recruitment SE 30 1
    30
  • Classification ME 30 .5
    15
  • E/LMR SE 15 1
    15
  • HR E-Systems ME 15 .5
    7.5

25
Computing Attribute Ratings Scores
  • Example 1-b
  • Employee Attributes Element
  • Attribute Rating Weight Pts
    Score
  • Resp Acct SE 2 1
    2
  • Communication SE 2 1 2
  • Teamwork ME 2 .5
    1
  • Innov/ Qual Imp. ME 2 .5
    1
  • Cust Svc ME 2 .5
    1
  • Totals 10
    7pts

26
Computing Summary Performance Ratings
  • Example 1-c
  • Job Specific
  • Critical Element Rating Weight Pts
    Score
  • Recruitment SE 30 1
    30
  • Classification ME 30 .5
    15
  • E/LMR SE 15 1
    15
  • HR E-Systems ME 15 .5
    7.5
  • Attributes 10
    7
  • Totals 100
    74.5pts

27
Overall Performance Ratings
  • Rating Levels Point Ranges
  • SE 80 - 100
  • ME 50 - 79
  • NI 49 and below
  • FME any score with at
    least 1
  • critical element
    rated FME

28
Performance Awards Eligibility
  • Mandatory Awards SE
  • Discretionary Awards ME
  • No Awards NI or FME

29
Performance Award Amounts
  • Awards to employees rated Significantly Exceeds
    Expectations
  • System recommends 5 to 10 of base pay for
    highest SE levels
  • Maximum of 7,500
  • Mangement discretion (w/ HQ approval) for lower
    amounts based on funding shortfalls

30
Performance Award Amounts (cont.)
  • Sample Performance Awards Payouts
  • Ratings/Scores Opt A Opt B Opt C Opt D
  • SE/95-100 pts 10 7.5 5 5
  • SE/80-94 pts 8 6 4
    3
  • ME/70-79pts 6 4.5 3
    1
  • ME/60-69pts 4 3 2
    0
  • ME/50-59pts 2 1.5 1
    0

31
Timetable
  • December 31, 2005 Deadline for implementation
    of the new performance management system
  • March 1, 2006 Start date for progress reviews
  • September 30, 2006 End of first rating cycle
  • October 15, 2006 Deadline for finalizing
    performance ratings
  • December 31, 2006 Deadline for payment of FY
    2006 performance awards

32
ORO Implementation
  • Non-bargaining unit employees
  • by December 31, 2005
  • Bargaining unit employees
  • maybe by December 31, 2005

33
  • If you have any questions about this new
    performance management system, please contact
    your assigned Human Resources Specialist for
    assistance.

34
HR Assigned Specialists
  • Office of Manager Adolphus Brown 576-4757
  • Public Affairs Office Carol Aytes 576-9586
  • Diversity Programs Carol Aytes 576-9586
  • Partnerships Program Development Phil Barker
    574-2636
  • Office of Chief Counsel Carol Aytes
    576-9586
  • AM Security Emergency Management Phil Barker
    574-2636
  • Office of Nuclear Fuel Supply Edward Dunbar
    576-0670
  • AM Administration Jill Stephenson 576-0677
  • AM Environmental Management Edward Dunbar
    576-0670
  • Office of Chief Financial Officer Phil Barker
    574-2636
  • AM Science Jill Stephenson 576-0677
  • AM Environment, Safety Health Carol Aytes
    576-9586
  • OSTI Adolphus Brown 576-4757
  • PNSO Adolphus Brown 576-4757
  • TJSO Adolphus Brown 576-4757
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com