Senior Level (SL) and Scientific and Professional (ST) Performance Appraisal System Training 1
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
202-208-5590
Michelle Oxyer
202-208-6943
Carrie Soave
202-513-0874
Executive Resources Division
32