1 / 34

Performance Management System for Non-Supervisory Employees

OFFICE OF HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. Performance Management System for Non-Supervisory Employees. New Performance System for Non-Supervisory Employees. DOE’s Proud to Be commitments to OMB & OPM

wallace-barrett
Download Presentation

Performance Management System for Non-Supervisory Employees

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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

  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 organization’s 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 employee’s 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 ElementRatingWeightPtsScore 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 AttributeRatingWeightPtsScore 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

  26. Computing Summary Performance Ratings Example #1-c Job Specific Critical ElementRatingWeightPtsScore 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/ScoresOpt AOpt BOpt COpt 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

More Related