# Presentation: 491190

## Performance Management System for Non-Supervisory Employees

- OFFICE OF HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**Notes:**
The following presentation provides an overview of the key elements of the Department’s performance appraisal system for non-supervisory employees.

## New Performance System for Non-Supervisory Employees 

** **
- DOE’s Proud to Be commitments to OMB & OPM
- Supports Human Capital Management items under the President’s Management Agenda
- Cascades from the performance management systems in place for SES and Managers and Supervisors
- Strategic Alignment - DOE missions
- Accountability – and Rewards

## 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

**Notes:**
This will be less of a culture change for organizations using other multi-level performance management systems, but will still be quite a departure for those using a pass/fail system.  This Administration has consistently held to the belief that top performers deserve to be paid the most—especially in terms of performance recognition.  With the implementation of this new system, employees previously under pass/fail systems will now be eligible for performance awards—they will also continue to be eligible for special act awards as appropriate, as long as the recognition granted is in keeping with incentive awards regulations.  

## Coverage:

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

## 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.

**Notes:**
The general requirements found on the following slides have been in effect for some time and will also apply to the performance management system for employees.  

## 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.

**Notes:**
Specific information on awards eligibility and how such recognition will be provided to employees will be covered in later slides. 

## 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

**Notes:**
The fiscal year cycle commences three months before the calendar year to which it corresponds—for example, Fiscal Year 2006 runs from October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006.
Aspects of organizational strategic and mission objectives which appear in SES performance plans and the plans of their subordinate supervisors and managers will be incorporated into the plans of their subordinates.
The last two bullets on this slide will be discussed later in greater detail.

## Key Features Being Cascaded (cont.)

- Four-Level Performance Appraisal System:
- Significantly Exceeds Expectations
- Meets Expectations
- Needs Improvement
- Fails to Meet Expectations

**Notes:**
The Department’s four-level performance rating system corresponds to “pattern F” found in the Code of Federal Regulations.

## 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

**Notes:**
The SES and Managers/Supervisors performance management systems each use only two critical elements—Program Accomplishments and Attributes, with the former utilizing up to five sub-elements.
The Non-Supervisory Performance Management System emphasizes the availability of additional critical elements to accommodate the likelihood of more divergent responsibilities than those of managers, supervisors and executives--instead of a reliance on sub-elements.    

## 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.

**Notes:**
Critical Elements addressing specific job responsibilities should be assigned weights in keeping with their respective relative importance in the assessment of the employee’s overall performance.  The process of coming up with these weights is the responsibility of the Rating Official, but is done collaboratively with input from the employee.
As mentioned previously, aspects of organizational strategic and mission objectives which appear in SES performance plans will be incorporated into the plans of managers and supervisors.  This linkage is a key driver of the cascading effort.
Additional information on the role of weights in the performance appraisal process will be provided in later slides.
As is the case with SES and Managers/Supervisors, employees must have at least one critical element that links directly with an organizational goal and/or mission objective.  Such linkages have been tracked at the Department level and subsequently reported to both OMB and OPM.

## Employee Attributes Critical Element 

- _Attribute 1 – Responsibility and Accountability_
- _Attribute 2 – Communication_
- _Attribute 3 – Teamwork_
- _Attribute 4 – Innovation/Quality Improvements _
- _Attribute 5 – Customer Service _

**Notes:**
Employee Attributes Critical Element consists of five attributes that are relevant for all employees.  Each attribute has been given a title which captures its primary focus.  
The intent of using this approach is to ensure a measure of consistency between the Department’s three performance management systems.  For managers and supervisors, the original 10 SES attributes were consolidated into “like” groupings that reduced the number of critical attributes to five and allowed attributes to support one another in a manner originally envisioned by the SES system but not permitted by the CFR. 
The first Employee Attribute is Responsibility and Accountability.  This attribute focuses on the employee’s willingness to take prudent risks in decision-making as well as always striving to measure his/her level of personal effectiveness in the performance of assigned duties. 

## Additional Features	

- Performance Standards Written at the “Meets Expectations” Level
- Variable Weights Assigned to Individual Critical Elements and Individual Employee Attributes

**Notes:**
Performance standards are written at the “Meets Expectations” level for two primary reasons:

to allow maximum flexibility in defining expectations; and
to make the process of establishing performance standards less burdensome.

Please remember the old standard requirement:  a performance standard should describe quantity, quality, timeliness and manner of performance.

The use of variable weights provide maximum flexibility to the Rating Official in conveying differences in importance with not just specific job responsibilities but also with regard to individual employee attributes.  

## 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

**Notes:**
While all of these responsibilities are very important, the first and second bullets will have a dramatic impact on the effectiveness of the performance appraisal process and also on the validity of the final performance rating assigned.

Hours spent in the development of clear and measurable performance standards at the beginning of the appraisal period will result in time savings for progress reviews and in the performance appraisal process at the end.  

More importantly, the development of a high quality performance plan not only streamlines decision-making on performance ratings but effectively communicates work priorities.

## 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 organization’s performance ratings correspond to organizational productivity or effectiveness

**Notes:**
As with the previous slide, the most important bullet is the first which focuses on the development of the annual performance plan.

It is essential that Rating Officials not only involve their subordinates in the development of the subordinates’ performance plans but expect them to do the majority of the work in terms of standards development. 

Rating Officials also need to allow adequate time to subordinates for performance plan development.

It’s incumbent upon Rating Officials to assure that final ratings correspond to the organization’s productivity or level of success in achieving mission objectives.

##  DERIVING FINAL RATINGS

**Notes:**
This module covers the process for assessing the performance of employees on their specific job responsibilities critical elements as well as the Attributes Critical Element and how the critical element ratings are assessed in coming up with an overall performance rating.

As mentioned previously, critical elements may be weighted differently to convey varying levels of importance, and this allows rating officials the flexibility to arrive at overall performance ratings that more precisely reflect individual performance.

## 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

- Specific Job Responsibilities Critical Elements = 90
- Employee Attributes Critical Element = 10

- Assigning Weights to Critical Elements

**Notes:**
Weights assigned to each specific job responsibilities critical element are assigned by the Rating Official after soliciting input from the employee.
The employee’s performance plan includes one or as many as four specific job responsibilities critical elements, the total weight assigned for these must equal 90.  Individual weights assigned to these critical elements should vary in keeping with their relative level of importance.
Given the intangible nature of the Employee Attributes Critical Element, a weight of 10 is fixed for this critical element.

## 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

**Notes:**
Note that these are examples of factors.  Rating officials may replace or supplement these with others that are in keeping with the culture of the organization.

## 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 employee’s final performance rating

**Notes:**
Note the third bullet on this slide—the impact of assigned weights on the determination of the final performance rating should be discussed with the employee during both the plan development phase and also during the progress review meeting.
The importance of these discussions cannot be stressed too much.  Both parties should be able to predict, with reasonable certainty, the employee’s final rating if certain performance outcomes occur.

## 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)

## 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

**Notes:**
Obviously, a variety of rating scenarios are possible given the range of possibilities as a result of assigning weights to convey different levels of critical elements’ importance.
The use of summary rating scores allows rating officials to convey numeric performance rankings of individual employees linked to their specific performance accomplishments.
In turn, these rankings serve a number of purposes including the establishment of direct linkages between summary rating scores (or ranges of scores) and commensurate performance award percentages.

## 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

**Notes:**
On previous slides we discussed the importance of weights, now we’re converting performance rating levels to point values for the purpose of coming up with an individual score for each specific job responsibilities critical element.
Next, we add these individual scores for each of these critical elements.
Note that the assignment of an FME rating for one or more critical elements results in a summary rating of FME regardless of the employee’s rating score.

## 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

**Notes:**
With a fixed weight of 10 assigned to the overall Employee Attributes Critical Element, it’s likely that most individual attributes will have a weight of 2.
However, an individual attribute weight of 3 means that another attribute will be assigned a weight of 1 if it’s not as important to the employee’s performance.
Attribute weights are assigned as whole numbers.

## 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

## 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

**Notes:**
This slide illustrates the basic computation of multiplying the weights assigned to individual critical elements by the rating point values established for each performance rating level.

## Computing Attribute Ratings Scores

**Example #1-b **
**Employee Attributes Element**
**	**_Attribute_         _Rating_     _Weight_     _Pts_       _Score_
- Resp & Acc’t         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**

## 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**

**Notes:**
This slide illustrates the basic computation of multiplying the weights assigned to individual critical elements by the rating point values established for each performance rating level.

## 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

**Notes:**
Obviously, a variety of rating scenarios are possible given the range of possibilities as a result of assigning weights to convey different levels of critical elements’ importance.
The use of summary rating scores allows rating officials to convey numeric performance rankings of individual employees linked to their specific performance accomplishments.
In turn, these rankings serve a number of purposes including the establishment of direct linkages between summary rating scores (or ranges of scores) and commensurate performance award percentages.

## Performance Awards Eligibility

- _Mandatory Awards:_  SE
- _Discretionary Awards:_  ME
- _No Awards:_  NI or FME

**Notes:**
All employees covered by this performance management system who are rated at the Significantly Exceeds Expectations level are entitled to receive a performance award.
Employees rated ME are eligible for performance awards however there is no direct entitlement.

## 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

## 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

**Notes:**
The Department’s performance awards funding limitation is 4% of aggregate pay as of the beginning of each fiscal year.
Departmental Elements are expected to manage their awards funds in a manner that assures that top performers are paid the highest performance awards percentages.
This slide depicts 4 sample performance award payouts.  Departmental Elements have discretion to use whichever option that provides the most meaningful awards payouts in keeping with such things as the organization’s level of funding and overall performance level.  
In the event that funds are deemed inadequate, Departmental Elements also have the option of establishing a cutoff rating score below which (e.g., below 70 points) no performance awards would be granted.

## 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

**Notes:**
These dates are based on the SES performance appraisal period, e.g., the initial ratings for SES members occur in late September to early October of each year.  Given that employees at all levels of the Department are accountable for the completion of mission-related performance elements it makes sense to have all performance appraisal “milestones” linked accordingly.

## ORO Implementation

- _Non-bargaining unit_ employees:
-  by December 31, 2005
- _Bargaining unit_ employees:
- maybe by December 31, 2005

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

## 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