Senior Level (SL) and Scientific and Professional (ST)Performance Appraisal System

Training

1

After this briefing, you will

Understand the new government-wide SL/ST performance system.

Understand how to develop an SL/ST Performance Plan.

Understand how summary ratings are derived.

Objectives

2

Why was a government-wide system developed? Different systems in each agency cause inconsistency of practices, higher risk of non-compliance with regulatory requirements, and greater risk of failing to meet certification criteria

Drawing from leading practices in Federal agencies, an interagency Working Group with representation from 18 agencies convened to: Identify challenges to the performance management of SL/ST employees Determine if consistent SL/ST performance appraisal system/program

features can be implemented Identify areas of a performance appraisal system/program that require

agency discretion/flexibility Recommend improvements to the SL/ST performance appraisal system

certification process

3

Background

4

Benefits

Transparency – Allows continued use of many agency practices, preventing the need for significant change during transition

Equity- Standard mathematical rating derivation formula that is the same as the Basic SES System

Best Demonstrated Practice - Informed by best practices and developed through interagency collaboration and agreement

Transferable - Standard performance appraisal form with flexibility for limited customization by agencies

Current System New System

One standard Department-wide element AND two to six position specific performance elements

Four standard critical elements with an option for an additional Position Specific performance element. Critical elements are focused on project/program management, leadership, leading innovation and business results

All performance elements are weighted equally

Weighting of elements is variable, however,the Business Results element will have highest weight

Percentage driven derivation formula Standard numerical rating derivation formula

Relatively few SL/ST rated “Fully Successful” Clear, descriptive performance standards and rating score ranges that establish mid-level ratings as the norm and top-level ratings as truly exceptional

Certified by OPM through 12/17/16, which allows us to compensate SL/ST at the maximum allowable rate of $187,000 (EX-II)

We have received an extension of our certification through 06/17/17 to allow time for us to transition to the new system.

Comparison

Standardized Form

Date Key Milestone

October 2016 Submitted request for approval of system

November 2016 Received approval of SL ST system by OPM and extension of certification period to June 2017

February 2017 Train senior professionals and executive resources coordinators on new SL ST performance system

March 2017 Sample performance plans received from bureaus by the Executive Resources Division and submit formal certification request to OPM.

June 2017 Expected decision on certification from OPM.

Important Milestones

How to Develop a Performance Plan

8

Three important aspects to planning performance include -

1. Link performance plan to organizational goals.

2. Develop Business Results performance objectives.

3. Rating officials and senior professionals should collaborate on the development of performance plans.

9

Planning Performance

Performance plans must clearly link to

Presidential Orders and Initiatives

Mission Statements

Strategic Plans

Organizational Goals

Budgetary Priorities

10

Align and Plan Work

11

Develop the Performance Plan Critical Elements

Mandatory

Rating Officials consult with Senior Professionals to select applicable competencies (from those below) that contribute to the Senior Professional’s performance toward work assignments or responsibilities:

At least one competency must be selected

Critical Element 1: Program/Project Management

12

Decision Making Problem Solving

Financial Management Project Management

Information Management Reasoning

Legal, Government and Jurisprudence Research

Planning and Evaluating Technical Competence/ Subject MatterExpertise

Mandatory

Select applicable competencies (from those below):

At least one competency must be selected

*At a minimum, all Senior Professionals MUST have Customer Service as a competency

Critical Element 2: Interpersonal Leadership/Responsibilities

13

Collaboration/Partnership Leadership

Conflict Management Leveraging Diversity/Civil Rights Compliance

Customer Service* Mentorship

Influencing/Negotiating Political Savvy

Mandatory

Select applicable competencies (from those below):

At least one competency must be selected

Critical Element 3: Leading Innovation

14

Creative Thinking

Flexibility

Organizational Awareness

Strategic Thinking

Vision

Mandatory

At least one performance objective must be established with a maximum of five

Each objective must include results and their quality indicators that are clearly and differentially identified and describe performance at the Fully Successful level

Result - a consequence of activities, accomplishments and outputs

Quality indicator - descriptive language that explains how the rater will determine the work product is acceptable

Applicable measures of quantity, timeliness, and/or cost-effectiveness may be included

Critical Element 4: Business Results

15

Within the Business Results element, Senior Professionals must develop performance objectives that--

Clearly link to organizational/program goals

Contain measurable results

Include applicable quality indicators

Address the level of success of the achievement, to include accuracy, compliance, appearance, customer satisfaction, relevance, usefulness, functionality, and/or effectiveness

Critical to success in achieving results because it addresses how to know work is acceptable

Critical Element 4: Business Results

16

Examples of quality indicators include the following:

95-97% accuracy rate in case completion

Followed consistent analytical approaches and reached compatible outcomes

Obtain approval and acceptance from the Office of the Director

Completed in accordance with agency policy

Complies with established industry procedures and standards

Critical Element 4: Business Results

17

Optional

To include additional agency specific performance objectives, competencies, or activities

Examples include additional results that demonstrate selected competencies or address agency administrative goals

Objectives must not be already accounted for in Critical Elements 1-4

Supervisory Senior Professionals’ performance plans must contain performance objective(s) within this element that hold the Senior Professionals accountable for performance management of subordinates

Critical Element 5: Position Specific

18

Critical Elements 1-3 – Appraise using common performance standards established in the program

Critical Element 4 (Business Results) – Appraise performance objectives using specifically established measures, including quality indicators, that reflect the same level of performance as the Level 3 common performance standard

Critical Element 5 (Position Specific) – Appraise using applicable performance standards dependent upon how element is written – whether as a competency, objective, activity

Performance Standards

19

The Basic SL/ST appraisal system establishes five performance standards - expressions of the performance threshold(s), requirement(s), or expectation(s) that must be met to be appraised at a particular level of performance – one for each performance level and are part of the performance plan

Clear and descriptive

Government-wide definitions for each of the five rating levels

Comparable to the standards included in the Basic SES System for consistency in use by Performance Review Boards and/or Senior Professional Review Panels

The performance standards are used to rate Senior Professional performance

Performance Standards

20

Differentiate levels of performance in quality indicators and other measures

Comparative Standards: Measures performance that is good (Fully Successful), better (Exceeds Fully Successful) and best (Outstanding)

Generally associated with numeric measures

Additive Standards: Measures performance by describing results to be completed at each level of performance; except for FS, must meet results specified at multiple levels

Fully Successful: Results met/completed

Exceeds Fully Successful: FS results met/completed + other specified results

Outstanding: FS + EFS results met/completed + other specified results

Setting Performance Standards

21

The basic SL/ST appraisal system description requires that all critical elements be weighted.

No single critical element can be assigned a greater weight than the Business Results element.

No mandatory critical element can be assigned a weight of zero points

All weights must be assigned in 5 point increments.

Sum of the weights = 100%

22

Develop the Performance Plan Weighting Critical Elements

Individual Bureaus or equivalent offices will assign standard or variable weights based on the challenges anticipated for the upcoming performance cycle.

Assigned weights will be reviewed annually and changes will be made as appropriate.

Assigned weights meet minimum weighting requirements and total 100%.

23

Develop the Performance Plan Weighting Critical Elements

Rating Performance

24

Level Current System New System

5 Exceptional Outstanding

4 Superior Exceeds Fully Successful

3 Fully Successful Fully Successful

2 Minimally Successful Minimally Satisfactory

1 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory

Rating Level Titles

25

Rating Officials will determine the overall rating for the Business Results element as follows:

Outstanding – A majority of the performance requirements for the Business Results element are rated Outstanding.

Exceeds Fully Successful – A majority of the performance requirements for the Business Results element are rated at least Exceeds Fully Successful with none below Fully Successful.

Fully Successful – A majority of the performance requirements for the Business Results element are rated at Fully Successful with none below Fully Successful.

Minimally Satisfactory – One or more performance requirements for the Business Results element are rated at Minimally Satisfactory with none below Minimally Satisfactory.

Unsatisfactory – One or more performance requirements for the Business Results element are rated at Unsatisfactory.

If the performance requirements are equally divided between Outstanding and Exceeds Fully Successful, then the overall rating will be at the Exceeds Fully Successful level. If the performance requirements are equally divided between Exceeds Fully Successful and Fully Successful, the overall rating will be at the Fully Successful level. 26

Deriving the Business Results Element Rating

1. Appraise each Critical Element and assign the corresponding points for the performance level. Level 5 = 5 points

Level 4 = 4 points

Level 3 = 3 points

Level 2 = 2 points

Level 1 = 0 points

(Note: If any Critical Element is rated Level 1, the overall Summary Rating is Level 1 - Unsatisfactory)

27

Deriving the Initial Summary Rating

2. Derive the initial point score for each Critical Performance Element by multiplying the performance level point value by the assigned weight.

E.g., “Leading Innovation” assigned Level 4 (4 points) and is weighted 20% initial point score = 80.

3. Derive the total point score by adding the initial point score from each Critical Element.

28

Deriving the Rating of Record

4. Assign the Rating of Record using these ranges.

475 – 500 = Level 5 (Outstanding)

400 – 474 = Level 4 (Exceeds Fully Successful)

300 – 399 = Level 3 (Fully Successful)

200 – 299 = Level 2 (Minimally Satisfactory)

Any Critical Element rated Level 1 = Level 1 (Unsatisfactory)

29

Deriving the Rating of Record

Example

A total point score of 430 yields a Level 4 Rating 30

Deriving the Rating of Record

Critical Element Critical Element Point Value

Element Weight

Element Score

1. Project/Program Management 4 20 4 X 20 = 80

2. Interpersonal Leadership/ Responsibilities

5 10 5 X 10 = 50

3. Leading Innovation 3 20 3 X 20 = 60

4. Business Results 5 40 5 X 40 = 200

5. Position Specific (Optional) 4 10 4 X 10 = 40

Total 100% 430

Example

A total point score of 480 yields a Level 5 Rating

31

Deriving the Rating of Record

Critical Element Critical Element Point Value

Element Weight

Element Score

1. Project/Program Management 5 20 5 X 20 = 100

2. Interpersonal Leadership/ Responsibilities

5 10 5 X 10 = 50

3. Leading Innovation 4 20 4 X 20 = 80

4. Business Results 5 40 5 X 40 = 200

5. Position Specific (Optional) 5 10 5 X 10 = 50

Total 100% 480

Jonathan Mack

jonathan_mack@ios.doi.gov

202-208-5590

Michelle Oxyer

michelle_oxyer@ios.doi.gov

202-208-6943

Carrie Soave

caroline_soave@ios.doi.gov

202-513-0874

Executive Resources Division

32