Performance Management Supervisors All Hands Apr20 09
•Télécharger en tant que PPT, PDF•
0 j'aime•535 vues
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (17)
Similaire à Performance Management Supervisors All Hands Apr20 09
Similaire à Performance Management Supervisors All Hands Apr20 09 (20)
Plus de satyam mishra
Plus de satyam mishra (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Performance Management Supervisors All Hands Apr20 09
- 1. Employee Performance Communication System (EPCS) “Building a Performance Culture” Bernadette Fowler, Program Manager Performance Management Program Office of Human Capital Management April 2009
- 2. Commitment to Performance Culture The Office of Human Capital Management continues its effort to align the Center’s results with OPM, EEOC, and Agency regulatory and policy requirements and the Center’s initiative to “Build a Performance Culture.” Performance management review results were shared with all supervisors to continue development in the effective administration of the performance management practices. This presentation focuses on appraising performance and the impact of appraisal ratings.
- 4. Reassigned, Detailed, and Matrix-Assigned Staff Written input and feedback required when assignment is in excess of 90 days (60 for GESTA) . The supervisor of record always issues the rating. If plan is in place min rating period, consider input from losing supervisor. If less than min period, appraisal will be based on assessment from losing supervisor. Provides a written assessment to the gaining supervisor if employee was on a plan for the minimum appraisal period prior to detail or reassignment. Provides input to plan and accomplishments for appraisal.
- 5. Request for Reconsideration Administrative GESTA AFGE WAMTC Step 1 See EPCS NPR or Performance Appraisal Article Request w/in 15 cal days orally or in writing by Rater or Reviewer Reply within 10 days Request w/in 30 cal days thru Rater by the Reviewing Reply within a reasonable time (14 calendar days) Request w/in 15 cal days thru Rater by Reviewer Meet w/in 7days Reply w/in 10 workdays Request w/in 15 cal days Reply within a reasonable time (14 cal days) Step 2 See AGP NPR 3771.1 or Negotiated Grievance Procedure Written grievance w/in 5 days to Director, OHCM, copy to Labor Relations Officer Final decision within 30-90 days Written grievance w/in 10 workdays to “Director Of” cc LRO Decision w/in 15 workdays Written grievance w/in 7 cal days to “Director Of” cc LRO Meet w/in 15 cal days Decision 10 w/in workdays Written grievance w/in 10 workdays to “Director Of” cc LRO Decision w/in 15 workdays Step 3 Grieve w/in 10 workdays to Ctr Dir cc LRO Final Decision w/in 20 workdays Grieve in 7 cal days to Ctr Dir cc LRO Meet in 15 cal days Final Decision in 15 cal Grieve in 10 workdays to Ctr Dir cc LRO Final Decision in 20 workdays Arbitration w/in 20 cal days w/in 20 workdays w/in 30 days
- 12. Summary Ratings Matrix PERFORMANCE ELEMENT RATINGS Overall Appraisal Summary Ratings Distinguished Accomplished Fully Successful Needs Improvement Unacceptable Significantly Exceeds (SE) Expectations All elements (critical & non-critical) rated SE Expectations Exceeds Expectations All elements (critical & non- critical) rated no lower than Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations No element (critical or non-critical) rated below Meets Expectations Needs Improvement Any element is rated below Meets Expectations* Fails to Meet (FTM) Expectations *Any critical element rated FTM Expectations
Notes de l'éditeur
- First, thank you for the accomplishments during this performance cycle. We are continuing the Center initiative of “Building a Performance Culture. Through the performance plan reviews we saw steady and significant improvement in documenting all areas of performance management discussions Center wide as discussed when Lori Simmons and I visited with you to share the review results. There were two groups that stood out with perfect scores, the supervisors in Code 300 and Code 110. I will also mention the improvement by Code 500 who had a nearly perfect score and submitted a large portion of the plans that were reviewed. I want to reiterate that this is more than checking the blocks. The value derived from the discussions is vital to retaining staff. The three most important items for an employee to remain in the job are: Feeling connected – They understand the business’ goals, strategies and their roles. Growth and development – There are opportunities to develop skills and grow in their jobs or into other areas. 3. Appreciation and recognition – Employees know their contributions are appreciated and they receive recognition for achievements. All of which maybe accomplished through carrying out the performance management practices. Lori Simmons, Director, Equal Opportunity Program Office, and I shared a message of concern about the demographic analysis for Distinguished appraisal ratings and shared a plan that includes raising awareness through conversations, more thoughtful approaches to appraising performance, and offered continued assistance from EOPO and OHCM with reviews, analysis and solutions. OHCM has a fine group of Organizational Development Consultants who are available to partner with you. You’ll remember, about a year and a half ago, this Center went to a “one call” approach for the Honorary awards program. A catalog is issued twice a year including all of the awards that will be selected for that period. We were concerned that doing so could result in fewer nominations. However, that has not been the case. With the support of all of you and our Center leaders and partners, the word has spread and the number of nominations submitted has steadily increased and has never been greater including a level of diversity based upon skill, ethnicity and gender that all of us can be proud of. We’ve done it before, we can do it again. Once again, thank you for the strides we’ve made and the work that we are continuing into the upcoming appraisal and new planning cycle.
- Today, we’ll provide clarity around three areas for this upcoming appraisal period: Rating performance for reassigned, detailed and matrix-assigned employees; What to expect when you get a request for reconsideration; and The Impact of the performance appraisal rating particularly ratings below Fully Successful. Then we have the performance award percentage ranges offering flexibility and the need for consistency For your own perusal we have additional slides with the annual reminders that you may take a look at on your own.
- These are all of the individuals who provide input into the performance appraisal: The losing Supervisors of reassigned employees; the gaining supervisor for detail and matrix assignments; the employee; and the supervisor of record who always holds responsibility for issuing the rating. Important points: For reassignments: If the gaining supervisor has issued a performance plan for the minimum appraisal period, she or he will issue a rating taking into consideration a written assessment from the losing supervisor. If the employee has not been on board for at least the minimum period, the gaining supervisor will issue the rating based upon the assessment forwarded by the losing supervisor. For example an employee is reassigned from Code 500 to Code 600 on December 30. The losing supervisor will complete an assessment based on the performance plan in place and forward it to the gaining organization. The gaining supervisor must have the employee on a performance plan within 30 days of coming into the position, which allows enough time for rating performance prior to the end of the performance period. For details and matrix assignments: The supervisor of record, the rating official, has to account for the work to be performed during the detail or matrix assignment in the performance plan by getting input when the plan is put in place or at the time the employee is assigned to perform the work. The detail and matrix manager must provide feedback on performance for the appraisal. That feedback must be in writing when the assignment is more than 90 days (60 days for GESTA employees)
- Notice: If you have bargaining and non-bargaining unit employees or if employees in your org are represented by several unions, it’s important to reference the procedures for that group. Some of the differences include: The length of time for submitting requests and issuing the decision The use of calendar days or workdays Notice that AFGE procedures build in a timeframe for a meeting with the deciding official before a decision at each step. Be sure to contact OHCM for guidance and to refer to the appropriate document for procedures. NOTE: OHCM has a template decision letter to be used at Step 1 it provides the framework for a reply and is imperative for use at Step 1 because it will provide the date to indicate the timeliness of a Step 2 grievance. Contact the Performance and Work Life Dynamics Office at (301) 286-9218.
- This chart represents impacts of the performance appraisal rating including awards pay, corrective actions and service credit for RIF purposes. For the purpose of this presentation, we want draw your attention to the impact of the Needs Improvement and Unacceptable ratings. WHENEVER PERFORMANCE IS ASSESSED BELOW FULLY SUCCESSFUL, CALL OHCM FOR ASSISTANCE WITH NEXT STEPS. If you think your employee’s performance is below Fully Successful, take a look at whether the employee is due for a within grade increase before the end of the next performance period, April 30. If performance is at the Needs Improvement level, you’ll issue a notice denying the employee’s within grade increase. If performance is at the Unacceptable level, you’ll issue the performance improvement plan and the notice denying the within grade increase. CALL OHCM. WE’LL HELP YOU NAVIGATE THROUGH THE FOLLOW ON STEPS.