Module 5-1 Sustaining 1 Oct 2009.

Module 5-1 Sustaining 1 Oct 2009

CHRM Life Cycle Planning Structuring Acquiring Developing Sustaining
You are here This chart reflects the CHRM Life Cycle. This module describes the sustaining (performance management, MER, and labor) part of the life cycle. 1 Oct 2009

Performance Management Planning
Regardless of the specific systems, TAPES or NSPS, performance management is essentially divided into 4 phases – planning, monitoring, rating and rewarding. We will discuss each of these phases in order. 1 Oct 2009

Learning Objectives - Performance Planning
After completion of this lesson, you will be able to: Describe the performance management cycle and the essential elements of the TAPES and NSPS systems. List the performance conversations required during the performance cycle. Define job objectives and explain the criteria for formulating and evaluating them. Define performance indicators and explain how they are used in the NSPS rating process. Explain what contributing factors are and how they are used in the rating process. Notes to Instructor: Review objectives, then begin a discussion using the following “big picture” script, which will also help to raise expectations and lay foundations for the rest of this course. Take a look with me at hard copy performance appraisal forms that are part of your handouts. As a supervisor, it will not be uncommon for you to have employees who are covered by both the Total Army Performance Evaluation System or TAPES and the NSPS Performance Management System. Despite the seemingly large differences in the two systems, both have at their core the requirement to measure performance effectively in support of the organizational mission. Notice the up-front documentation of organizational missions and strategic goals, a key part of every employee’s performance plan. Then there are performance objectives (for the TAPES system) and Job Objectives (for NSPS). As we proceed through the next several modules, we will be discussing the differences between the two systems with the goal of preparing you to effectively manage the two performance management systems in your organization. 1 Oct 2009

Definition Performance management is the systematic process of integrating performance, pay, and awards systems to improve individual and organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of Army mission and goals. From AR Chapter 4302 Performance management is the systematic process of integrating performance, pay, and awards systems to improve individual and organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of Army mission and goals. 1 Oct 2009

Goals Results-oriented, mission-focused
Establish accountability for and improve individual / organizational performance Improve performance by: Defining mission, goals, and management processes of an organization and work unit Linking individual goals and objectives that support the work unit and organizational goals Clear and understandable Fair, credible, and transparent Provide a direct link between pay, performance and mission accomplishment Reflect meaningful distinctions in employee performance Robust Capable of supporting pay decisions Performance management is a process designed to improve individual, team, and organizational performance and is relevant under both the TAPES and NSPS systems. Performance improvements are accomplished by defining the mission, goals, and management processes of an organization and work unit, then defining individual goals and objectives that support the work unit and organizational goals. An integral part of performance management is establishing accountability for individual and organizational performance at all levels, from the employee through senior management. Other key goals of the performance management system are that it needs to be clear and understandable to all, and it allows supervisors to make meaningful distinctions in employee performance that are reflected in pay decisions. 1 Oct 2009

Five Key Processes of Performance Management
Planning Set goals/measures Establish/communicate Performance expectations Rewarding Recognize and reward good/outstanding performance Monitoring Measure performance Provide feedback Conduct progress review Look familiar? Just like the current NSPS Performance Management Lifecycle which is Plan, Monitor, Develop, Rate and Reward. Rating Summarize performance Assign the end-of-year rating of record Developing Address poor performance Improve good performance 1 Oct 2009

Aligning Work to Mission
Leaders define the organization’s mission and strategic goals Cascaded to the work unit and employee objectives Can also align work horizontally Objectives draw a line of sight between the employee’s work, the work unit’s goals, and the organization’s success When work is aligned to the mission, from any perspective you choose, everyone is working together towards shared goals Army Plan Army Mission and Vision Organization Vision, Mission and Goals Team Mission and Goals Individual Performance All work can be, and needs to be, related either directly or indirectly to meeting organization goals that contribute to mission accomplishment. To drive performance, managers/supervisors have to look at performance from a variety of perspectives—organizational, work unit, manager/supervisor, and employees. When work is aligned to organizational goals and mission, no matter which perspective you choose, everyone is working together towards shared goals. Organizational goals come from a variety of sources, including the organization’s mission statement (required by AR 10-1) and your organization’s strategic goals. Can anyone give me an example of one of your organization’s missions or goals? CHRA example: “Systematically plan and forecast to achieve the civilian workforce necessary to support the Army's mission.” If your organization can record the parts of the Army’s strategic plan that apply to you, and move down by level to the individual work units, this will go far toward achieving this alignment. Note: In addition to the vertical alignment (individual/team up and down to organizations, the entire Army, DoD), the performance management structure also helps attain horizontal alignment between organizations, individuals, and teams by the pay pool panel which looks from a higher level at the performance of these different units. 1 Oct 2009

Emphasize Army Values Rating Officials will
Loyalty Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army your unit and other Soldiers Duty Fulfill your obligations Respect Treat people as they should be treated Selfless Service Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army and subordinates before you own Honor Live up to all the Army values Integrity Do what’s right – legally and morally Personal Courage Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral courage) Commanders, raters and supervisors should continue to emphasis the Army values throughout the rating period. Within Army, rating officials are required to discuss values and ethics with employees, and to document positive aspects of the employee’s support of these values on the annual performance appraisal. A requirement of AR Chapter 4302 (TAPES) is to communicate organizational goals and priorities, and the Army values and ethics to employees. Commanders, raters and supervisors should continue to emphasis the Army values throughout the rating period. Rating Officials will Discuss values / ethics with employees Document positive aspects of Army values on the annual performance appraisal 1 Oct 2009

Laws, Regulations, and Guidance
Total Army Performance Evaluation System Title 5 USC Chapter 43 5 CFR Part 430 DoD Subchapter 430 AR Chapter 4302 National Security Personnel System Title 5 US Chapter 9901 DoD Subchapter 1940 Reference at and Law and OPM regulations mandate that each agency has a performance management system approved by the Office of Personnel Management. The Department of Defense system, of which Army's performance management program is a part, is found at Subchapter 430 (Performance Management) of DoD M (DoD Civilian Personnel Manual). The OPM approval of the DoD system is Appendix B to the subchapter. The Army’s legacy program is described in AR , Chapter 4302 (Total Army Performance Evaluation System, or TAPES), dated May 22, 1993, and Change 1, dated October 16, 1998. NSPS’s system is codified in Title 5 USC Chapter 9901 and further described the Implementing Issuance on Performance Management, DoD Subchapter 1900 1 Oct 2009

TAPES TOTAL ARMY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM AR 690-400 Chapter 4302
While the fundamentals of performance management are similar in any type of system, we are going to talk about TAPES since it is the older of the two systems (TAPES and NSPS). Ask the supervisors how many of their employees are still rated under this system. Explain to the students that you are going to discuss both systems separately, first TAPES, then NSPS. Depending on your audience and who they are supervising, you may want to skip either the TAPES or NSPS sections of this module to concentrate on the one that is relevant. 1 Oct 2009

Designed to improve Total Army performance by:
TAPES Objectives Designed to improve Total Army performance by: Communicating organizational goals and priorities, and Army values and ethic to employees Establishing individual expectations for performance that reflect organizational goals and priorities Facilitate frequent discussion among the rated and rating chain about performance and expectations Provide an environment where all employees understand they are part of the Army team Requires annual written individual performance evaluations From AR Chapter 4302 (TAPES) 1–2. OBJECTIVES The Army’s system for planning and appraising performance, the Total Army Performance Evaluation System (TAPES), is designed to improve Total Army performance by: a. Communicating organizational goals and priorities, and Army values and ethics to employees. b. Establishing individual expectations for performance that reflect organizational goals and priorities. c. Facilitating frequent discussion among the Ratee and the rating chain about performance, expectations, professional development, and DA values and ethics. d. Providing an environment where all understand that they are important members of the Army Team—in which they are recognized for their achievements, counseled and assisted in areas in which they can improve, encouraged to take responsibility for doing things better and to support team endeavors, and challenged to develop professionally and to perform at their full potential. e. Requiring annual written individual performance evaluations that provide supervisors and managers with tools for: ( 1 ) Systematic assessment of performance results achieved to make sound plans and decisions concerning compensation, training, rewards, reassignments, promotions, reductions in grade, retention, reductions in force, and removal. (2) A sound and continuing basis for effective supervisor-subordinate partnerships in pursuit of common goals. 1 Oct 2009

Senior System Base System TAPES – Two Systems
ES, ST, SL, GM, WS/GS-13 and above WS/GS-9-12 Base System WG, WL, WS GS 1-8 Reference - DA Pam , Chapter 4302, Paragraph 1-5 Interns are rated under the Senior System. Interns are rated under the senior system Each systems has two forms. Performance Plans -- Both the Base and Senior Systems have a performance plan form (DA Form for the Base, and for the Senior). The Base System plan is called a Counseling Checklist Record and the Senior System plan is a Support Form, but both serve the same purpose, documenting performance expectations and standards at the beginning of the rating period. Performance Appraisals -- Both the Base and Senior Systems have a form to document the performance evaluation of the employee at the conclusion of the rating period. The appraisal form number for the Base System is DA Form 7223 and the number for the Senior System is DA Form 7222. 1 Oct 2009

Senior System Base System TAPES Performance Cycle 1 JUL-30 JUN
1 NOV-31 OCT Base System Determined locally Examples: birthday, end of fiscal year Reference - DA Pam , Chapter 4302, Paragraph 1-5. Interns receive a special rating at 6 months; first annual at 2 year. The TAPES Performance cycle is tied to specific grades instead of being one timeframe for all employees like under NSPS. CPACs should be prepared to provide detailed information on the timeframes for their serviced installation. CPACs may choose to amend this slide for their training needs. 1 Oct 2009

Performance Objectives
How to Write Performance Objectives Start with an action verb Specify a single key result to be accomplished Specify a target date for accomplishment Be as measurable and verifiable as Realistic and attainable while representing a challenge possible Relates directly to employee’s role and mission Realistic and attainable while representing a challenge Performance objectives/responsibilities describe the actual work elements to be performed during the current appraisal period. They describe a major job component upon which an employee is rated for success. Job objectives/responsibilities are descriptive and relate to what needs to be done. They should be written as clearly and objectively as possible and should be of such impact that failure to accomplish one or more of them could result in the employee's removal from the position. All job objectives/responsibilities in Total Army Performance Evaluations System (TAPES) are critical. 1 Oct 2009

Performance Objectives
Types of Performance Objectives Routine – Addresses repetitive common place duties Problem Solving – Deals with problem situations to produce favorable resolution Innovative – Creates new or improved methods and processes and eliminates wasteful practices to achieve cost savings Personal Development - Furthers professional education and growth Performance objectives/responsibilities describe the actual work elements to be performed during the current appraisal period. They describe a major job component upon which an employee is rated for success. Job objectives/responsibilities are descriptive and relate to what needs to be done. They should be written as clearly and objectively as possible and should be of such impact that failure to accomplish one or more of them could result in the employee's removal from the position. All job objectives/responsibilities in Total Army Performance Evaluations System (TAPES) are critical. 1 Oct 2009

Exercise: Determining the Overall Rating
EXERCISE TIME!! Exercise: Determining the Overall Rating Depending on the size of the class, break the tables or individuals up into small groups (3-5 students). Assign this exercise to each one of them to work as a group. Select various individuals from the group to brief how they arrived at the overall ratings. See next slide with answers and references! 1 Oct 2009

Determine the Overall Rating
Exercise: Determine the Overall Rating Tom Mary Joe Martha Objective 1 Success Excellence Objective 2 Fails Objective 3 Objective 4 Needs Improvement Objective 5 Overall Rating Comments Reference in your handouts– AR , Chapter 4302 TAPES, use the Base System Overall Rating Formulas criteria on page 3, with all employees assumed to be non-supervisory. Tom=Level 2 Rating (Level 4 in 5 CFR 430) Mary=Level 1 Rating (Level 5 in 5 CFR 430) Joe=Fair Rating (Level 2 in 5 CFR 430) At any time during the rating cycle that the Ratee is determined to “Need Improvement” in one or more Responsibilities or Objectives, the Rater Should notify the Ratee and consider providing assistance. Such assistance may include but is not limited to formal training, on the job training, counseling, and closer supervision. Martha= Unsuccessful Rating (Level 1 in 5 CFR 430) - Ratees who fail to meet Responsibilities/ Objectives must be so informed in writing, provided guidance and assistance, and given a reasonable opportunity to improve performance. Non-probationary Ratees who do not improve after being given formal opportunities to do so under Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) will be reassigned, reduced in grade, or removed in accordance with procedures set forth by 5 CFR 432 and AR , Chapter 432. 1 Oct 2009

TAPES Key Points No appraisal permitted without valid support form in place Minimum appraisal period is 120 calendar days (with support form/performance plan in place) Changes can be made to support form at any time (must allow for 120 days on standards) No extension of appraisal period unless permitted by AR , Chapter 4302 1 Oct 2009

TAPES Key Points Rating not due when employee retires/goes to private firm Two counseling sessions required - initial and mid-point Rating chain signs first – then employee All TAPES objectives are critical; do not identify non-critical objectives Level 3 rating required to allow within grade increase (WIGI) Counseling is documented on the DA Forms for each system, Base and Senior. DA Form Senior System Civilian Evaluation Report DA Form 7222–1 - Senior System Civilian Evaluation Report Support Form DA Form Base System Civilian Evaluation Report DA Form 7223–1 - Base System Civilian Performance Counseling Checklist/Record TAPES forms are now available with electronic signature functions at the Army Publishing Directorate’s web page under the DA Forms link. The PERMISS Management and Employee Relations (MER) Team worked successfully with the Army Publishing Directorate (APD) in the digital signature enabling of the Total Army Performance Evaluation System (TAPES) forms. New features of the digital signature enabled forms include: Automatically prints the user name in the signature block. Automatically dates the form when digitally signed. Automatically links information associated with the signer's role once digitally signed. Electronic TAPES forms will provide for digital signature for dispersed locations and transform methods of getting and moving information. The signature enabled TAPES forms are available on the APD website at 1 Oct 2009

Performance Management Linkage
Compensation (WIGIs) Training/Career Development Promotions Reassignments Removal or Reductions in Grade Reductions in Force Rewards Retention From AR Chapter 4303, TAPES, Subchapter 2 Discuss with the supervisors how Performance Appraisal are linked to these actions. 1 Oct 2009

Evaluation so difficult to do?
Why is Performance Evaluation so difficult to do? ...Involves the inherently subjective and inexact process of one human being assessing the work accomplishment of another... Discuss some of the issues that make it difficult. Supervisors have to remain fair and objective when it comes to performance evaluations! Biases and Prejudice -Evaluating the employee’s personality and traits instead of their actual job performance and contribution to the agency. -Allowing personal feelings to affect employee’s ratings. The Halo Effect -When a supervisor has a bias towards a particular person because of a positive (perceived) trait which influences their perceptions about the individual. -Rewarding those with similar backgrounds and beliefs -Failing to see poor performance because of a strong history of god performance The Horns Effect -When a supervisor has a bias towards a particular person because of a negative (perceived) trait which influences their perceptions about the individual. -When an employee achieves satisfactory results but used a different method than what the supervisor does. Central Tendency -Avoiding extremes and lumping all the employees in the “middle of the road”. The whole workgroup may get the same rating, or nearly the same rating. The supervisor may not want “to make waves”. Recentness Effect -If an employee makes a great contribution, or makes a significant mistake, just before the end of the evaluation period, it can affect the entire rating period. Contrast Error -Evaluating an employee against the performance of other employees, instead of against their particular performance standards. Leniency Error -Assigning high ratings to everyone to avoid conflict. 1 Oct 2009

NSPS National Security Personnel System Title 5 USC Chapter 9901
DoD Subchapter 1940 While the fundamentals of performance management are similar in any type of system, we are now going to talk about NSPS. Ask the supervisors how many of their employees are rated under this system. Make sure they understand that you are no longer discussing TAPES at this point. Excellent resource on Army CPOL Web - NSPS Performance Management - 1 Oct 2009

NSPS Performance Management
There are five main steps in the process: Planning - setting objectives Monitoring - greater employee/supervisor communication Development - training, education, mentoring Rating - job objective and contributing factor ratings Rewarding - supervisory recommendation to pay pool panel The NSPS performance management system promotes a performance culture in which the performance and contributions of the workforce are recognized and rewarded more accurately and fully. Performance is an ongoing process comprised of five phases – plan, monitor, develop, rate, and reward. Process is results oriented and mission focused 1 Oct 2009

NSPS Performance Management System Cycle
The Performance management cycle runs 1 October through 30 September. In order to receive a rating, a minimum of 90 days of performance is required. At least one interim review is also required during the cycle 1 Oct 2009

Performance Planning Establish performance expectations
Establish a written performance plan: Identify and discuss job objectives Select contributing factors Establish weighting The performance plan requires higher-level approval Identify developmental needs Basis for ongoing dialogue about performance Phase 1 is the Planning phase. These plans describe what the employee is expected to achieve (measurable job objectives) and how the employee will achieve these results (contributing factors) during the appraisal cycle. Every eligible employee is issued a performance plan containing his or her major objectives and associated contributing factors and weights. For NSPS, performance plans are documented in the Performance Appraisal Application. An employee should receive his or her performance plan, and a full explanation of its components, within 30 days of the start of the rating cycle, start date (for new employees), or job change. These performance expectations need to be communicated to the employee in writing prior to holding the employee accountable for them. The 30-day requirement may be extended up to an additional 60 days in extenuating circumstances (for example, responding to a hurricane or other type of natural disaster may take precedence). Such extensions do not affect or delay the payout effective date. The performance plan is subject to higher-level review to ensure consistency and fairness within and across organizations. It is considered to be approved after the higher-level review has occurred and after you have communicated the plan to the employee in writing. As a manager/supervisor, you must record the employee’s receipt of the performance plan and the manner in which it was communicated to the employee. Each employee’s performance expectations must be described in the performance plan in the form of performance objectives, job objectives, contributing factors, and weights, as applicable. You should ask employees to take an active role in the developing their own job objectives and identifying applicable Contributing Factors. While you should engage your employees as much as possible in the process of setting expectations, it is ultimately your responsibility, and you will be held accountable for it. Oct Sep Oct Jan Planning Planning 1 Oct 2009

Performance Expectations
Performance expectations are: Duties, responsibilities, and competencies required by, or objectives associated with, an employee’s position Contributions and demonstrated competencies expected of an employee Communicated to the employee prior to holding employee accountable Promptly adjusted as changes occur This slide presents the general definition of performance expectations. These expectations are the overall things that management expects of an employee. In the next slide we will present some examples of what all can be included in performance expectations. Communication between employees and supervisors is critical to the success of the performance management system, and therefore performance expectations should be the subject of ongoing discussions between supervisors and employees (more on this later). 1 Oct 2009

Performance Expectations (cont)
Performance expectations must align with and support the DoD mission and goals and may include: Goals or objectives that set performance targets at the individual, team, and/or organizational level Standard operating procedures, manuals, internal rules and directives, etc. Competencies an employee is expected to demonstrate, or the contributions an employee is expected to make Work assignments can be used to amplify performance expectations and may specify quality, quantity, accuracy, and/or timeliness Conduct and/or behavior Performance expectations are the basis on which specific job objectives are developed (discussed starting on the next slide), but actually go further than specific job objectives, in that they can include other things that may or may not be part of the job objectives. Note that work assignments or other instructions can be used to more clearly define what management expects – and that these assignments or instructions do not necessarily need to be in writing. Conduct and behavior that can be expected to affect the value of performance is part of management’s performance expectations. This is a change from our former personnel system, where conduct was always considered separate from performance issues. All Army managers, supervisors, and employees are expected to demonstrate professionalism and standards of appropriate conduct and behavior, including adherence to standards of ethical conduct. 1 Oct 2009

Performance Conversations
Requirement for three performance conversations (documented) between the supervisor and the employee during each performance cycle: Performance Plan: Establish performance expectations Interim Review: Check and adjust employee performance Annual Appraisal: Share final ratings Mandatory for NSPS Jan Sep Oct Perf Plan Interim Review Annual Appraisal Communication between supervisors and employees is a key part of the performance management process. NSPS requires that managers/supervisors and employees participate in at least three performance conversations over the course of the rating cycle, and these are documented in the PAA. Even though these three specific conversations are required, they should not be looked upon as discrete events; rather, performance dialogue should be an ongoing part of your work. The required performance conversations serve as opportunities for managers/supervisors and employees to level expectations periodically throughout the rating cycle, with the end result that neither party is surprised by the outcome of the Annual Appraisal. It is strongly recommended that all conversations take place in person. For geographically dispersed managers/supervisors and employees, that may not be possible. In this instance, the manager/supervisor and employee should agree upon a time and means for conducting each conversation. We’ll be talking more about these conversations when we get to each of those parts of the cycle. 1 Oct 2009

The Performance Plan Conversation
Purposes To reach a joint understanding of performance expectations for the current (new) rating cycle To explain the organization’s goals and to align employee objectives with these goals To establish timelines and measurement methods To identify developmental needs Outcomes Performance plan (formally established in the PAA) Development plan Conversation notes, other relative documentation The primary purpose of the Performance Plan conversation is to reach a joint understanding of performance expectations for the current (new) rating cycle. The primary outcome of the Performance Plan conversation is the employee’s initial performance plan. The Performance Plan conversation occurs at the beginning of the new rating cycle. Under NSPS the Performance Plan is formally established in the PAA. 1 Oct 2009

The NSPS Performance Cycle: Monitoring and Developing
Timeline The NSPS Performance Cycle: 1 Oct-30 Sep* Monitoring and Developing Oct Sep Jan This slide introduces the NSPS performance management cycle as a timeline. We will be revisiting this timeline throughout this lesson as we cover different events. The actual performance year runs from 1 Oct to 30 Sep (same as the fiscal year), although these dates vary in the first few years as organizations spiral in to NSPS. Key dates reflected on this timeline are: Oct – Performance plans need to be established for all employees during the first month of the cycle. Of course, this will vary for new employees or employees moving into an NSPS organization, but the basic requirement is that performance plans need to be established within the first 30 days. Throughout the performance cycle (Oct through Sep), the emphasis is constantly on monitoring performance and developing employees. Oct to Dec of the following year is when employee performance is rated and pay pool panels meet. This is the rating and rewarding phase. But at the same time that you are rating your employees on their performance for the past year, you are also going to be establishing their performance plans for the coming year. The performance payout is effective on the first full pay period in January (just like the General Pay Increase (GPI) is now). Planning Rating Payout A 12-month performance cycle A 16-month process 1 Oct 2009

Job Objectives Job objectives are:
A way to capture performance expectations The platform by which employees are rated A way for managers and supervisors to communicate the major work that needs to be accomplished Required to be aligned with (clearly tied to) organizational goals and the DoD mission When communicating job objectives to employees, supervisors need to fully explain the relationship between an employee’s accomplishments and achieving organizational goals Job objectives are an expression of performance expectations, and form the primary basis by which employee performance is evaluated. Emphasize that job objectives need to be aligned with organizational goals and the DoD mission. You may have excellent employees whose work, although outstanding, is not furthering the organization’s mission and goals. Tying of job objectives to unit and organizational goals is a cultural change in DoD. 1 Oct 2009

Job Objectives = The “What”
Communicate specific individual, team, or organizational responsibilities and expected contributions with related outcomes and accomplishments Draw a line of sight between the employee’s work, the work unit’s goals, and the organization’s success Results-oriented and mission-focused Appropriate for current salary and pay band Must be weighted Written in the “SMART” framework Job objectives represent the “what,” as in, this is what I’m supposed to be doing. Job objectives are initially set up at the beginning of the performance cycle (during October). Establishing objectives should be a joint effort between the supervisor and employee, however, the supervisor is ultimately responsible for them. Objectives can be changed as needed during the year as a result of new functions, changed missions, etc. Generally, job objectives for individuals or groups of employees reflect the performance expectations, duties, and responsibilities for the position(s). When there are a number of employees all performing the same work, their job objectives should be the same, although there can be differences to reflect different experience and salary levels. Job objectives will be linked to the DoD mission and its strategic goals, organizational program and policy objectives, annual performance plans, and/or other measures of performance. We will talk more about weighting job objectives, and the “SMART” framework, later. 1 Oct 2009

Job Objectives Requirements
For managers For employees At least 1 Usually 3 to 5 Must be weighted Linked to mission At least one supervisory objective Everyone in the workforce needs to have a minimum of one job objective. It is best to use three to five job objectives. The objectives must be weighted (more shortly). The objective needs to be linked to the mission. The job objective must clearly identify how it supports the accomplishment of the overall mission or organizational goals. Managers/supervisors need to have at least one job objective that directly addresses their role as managers/supervisors under NSPS. This job objective requires accountability for the effective administration of NSPS (if applicable), equal opportunity employment, or other component-specific requirements. See next slides. There is one aspect not covered on the slide that also is important: It must be possible to accomplish the job objectives within the appraisal period. If an employee is working toward goals that span several appraisal periods, this work should be divided into smaller chunks with milestones that fall within single appraisal periods. These milestones can be used to develop job objectives that fall within a single appraisal period. The slide also does not mention a maximum for the number of objectives. The maximum is 10, but this should be mentioned only if the participants ask, as it may detract from the best-practice approach of keeping the number of job objectives to between 3 and 5. 1 Oct 2009

Effective Job Objectives
Performance focus Objectives should be crafted to bring out the best in individual and team performance They can help keep the focus on the important tasks, not on many needless activities Alignment with the organization Objectives must make sense in the context of the organization Individual objectives must align with the organization’s goals and/or mission Appraisal/management tool Objectives should not only drive the work, they also serve as a method to assess accomplishments They are used as an appraisal tool at the end of the performance management cycle Emphasize that well-written objectives enable a constant evaluation of progress. This means that objectives help constantly monitor progress, resources, and effort and allow for corrections on the path to the fulfillment of the objective. We will have some practice writing and evaluating job objectives later in this course. 1 Oct 2009

SMART Objectives S Specific - Specific regarding the result (not the activities to achieve that result) M Measurable - Quantity (how many), time (how long), quality (how good), resources (how much) A Aligned - Aligned objectives draw a line of sight between the employee’s work, the work unit’s goal, and the organization’s mission R Realistic and Relevant Realistic: Can be accomplished with the resources, personnel, and time Relevant: Are important to the employee and to the organization T Timed - There is a point in time when the objective will start, or when it will be completed SMART works for any objective. It has wide spread application. SMART is an acronym that provides help in writing and evaluating job objectives. Specific means that an observable action, behavior, or achievement is described. It also can mean that the work links to a rate of performance, frequency, percentage, or other number. For some jobs, it may not be easy to be specific. However, to the extent possible and reasonable, encourage specificity, as it ensures that supervisors and employees share the same expectations. The objective should be specific about the result and not about the way in which it is achieved. Measurable (or observable or verifiable) means that a method or procedure must be in place to assess and record the behavior or action on which the objective focuses and the quality of the outcome. As not all work lends itself to measurability, objectives can be written in a way that focuses on observable or verifiable behavior or results, rather than on measurable results. Aligned draws a line of sight between objectives throughout the organization. Supervisors must have a clear understanding of their own job objectives before they can work with their employees to establish their job objectives. R has two meanings. Realistic means the achievement of an objective is something an employee or a team can do with the resources and personnel available and within the time available. Relevant implies it is important to the employee and the organization. It also requires meaningful distinctions between employees of different salaries. The level of responsibility expressed in the objective needs to be appropriate to the employee’s salary. Timed (or timely or time-bound) means there is a point in time when the objective will start or when it will be completed. 1 Oct 2009

Sample SMART Objectives
Completes all project management tasks to enable installation of 150 new computers in the DA Field Office in Arlington, VA, by the end of the 4th quarter. Ensures that the DA Form 3161 issuing the new computer is signed by the user and forwarded to the Property Book Officer within two working days of signature. With only an occasional error, performs the following tasks: Serves as timekeeper for designated senior management officials. Prepares accurate time and attendance records for assigned Directorate staff for each bi-weekly pay period in accordance with regulatory and Directorate requirements. Acquires authorizing signature and submits the input the first working day following completion of the pay period IAW established timelines. Most supervisors should already be familiar with performance objectives. Job objectives under NSPS are very similar. Take a few minutes to look at these examples and determine how they shape up under the SMART criteria and how they could be improved, and then let’s talk about them. Refer back to slide 36 and our discussion about SMART Objectives. Remember there’s almost always room for improvement! Objective 1: S – yes, very specific as to what is to be done. M – yes, although the method of accounting is not specified. Question: How would an employee exceed level 3 on this objective? A – hard to say (without knowing the mission or goals of the activity). R – probably realistic, presumably relevant. T – yes (end of 4th qtr, 2 days to forward). Objective 2: S – Yes, very specific about what is to be done. M – Not real clear how this will be measured. T – yes, must input on the first working day after the pay period, but this is an ongoing task (it won’t get a checkmark when it’s completed). 1 Oct 2009

Mandatory Army Supervisory Objective
Execute the full range of human resources (including performance management as outlined in DoD M, SC ) and fiscal responsibilities within established timelines and in accordance with applicable regulations. Adhere to merit principles. Develop a vision for the work unit; align performance expectations with organizational goals. Maintain a safe work environment and promptly address allegations of noncompliance. Ensure EEO/EO principles are adhered to throughout the organization. Ensure continuing application of, and compliance with, applicable laws, regulations and policies governing prohibited personnel practices; promptly address allegations of prohibited discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. This is the standard supervisory objective that is mandatory for all supervisors in Army. It is found in the DoD M Subchapter 1940 NSPS Performance Management Implementing Procedures, SC1940, Appendix 6. Organizations may add unique requirements as appropriate, and more than one supervisory objective can be used. To meet the EEO portion of this objective, supervisors must comply with those applicable provisions of the DoD Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity Program, DoDD , and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Management Directive 715: Communicate EEO policies and ensure adherence throughout the work unit. Seek early dispute resolution through Alternate Dispute Resolution techniques, promptly address accommodation requests, and ensure that EEO-related training requirements are met. 1 Oct 2009

Using Performance Indicators to Assess Performance
What are Performance Indicators? Descriptions of levels or thresholds of employee performance. Applied in the rating of job objectives Standardized across the DoD Arranged by Pay Schedule (Professional / Analytical, Technician / Support, Supervisory) and Pay Band Benchmarks defined at Level 3 and Level 5 performance Performance Indicators are general descriptions of levels or thresholds of employee performance that are used to measure, evaluate, and score an employee’s achievement of his or her job objective. Performance Indicators are standardized across the DoD to allow the assessment of individual levels of performance. The Performance Indicators act as guidelines to provide a consistent measuring stick for performance. Each job objective is evaluated based on the employee’s accomplishments related to his or her job objectives, and measured by the application of the Performance Indicators. 1 Oct 2009

Performance Indicator Example
Performance Indicators Professional / Analytical Pay Schedule (non-supervisory) - Pay Band 2 Level 3 Level 5 (Additions at this level) Effectively achieved the stated objective, anticipating and overcoming significant obstacles. Adapts established methods and procedures when needed. Results were technically sound, accurate, thorough, documented, and met applicable authorities, standards, policies, procedures and guidelines. Planned, organized, prioritized, and scheduled own work activities to deliver the objective in a timely and effective manner, making adjustments to respond to changing situations and anticipating and overcoming difficult obstacles as necessary. Demonstrated high standards of personal and professional conduct and represented the organization or work unit effectively. Contributed results beyond what was expected; results were far superior in quality, quantity, and/or impact to the stated objective to what would be expected at this level. Exhibited the highest standards of professionalism. The top of the box lists the pay schedule and pay band for this Performance Indicator (in this case, the Professional / Analytical Pay Schedule, Pay Band 2). There are different Performance Indicators for the different pay schedules and pay bands, and there is a separate one for supervisors. Definitions for Performance Indicators are given at two performance levels: levels 3 and 5. Based on an employee’s accomplishments on each job objective and using the Performance Indicators, the supervisor assigns a job objective rating (a numerical score from 1 to 5, expressed as a whole number) to each job objective. Refer participants to which contains the full set of Performance Indicators, and a map that shows which NSPS Performance Indicator to use for every career group, pay schedule, and pay band. The first crosswalk is straightforward – if you are in the Prof / Analytical pay schedule at pay band 2, use the Prof / Analytical Performance Indicator for pay band 2. Students (in the Student Educational Employment Program pay schedule) are addressed on the last line of the crosswalk; basically they use the pay band 1 performance indicator for their target pay schedule and career group, however, a second crosswalk also adds in a salary check (higher salaries may use pay band 2 performance indicators). 1 Oct 2009

Rating Levels for Job Objectives
5 Employee exceeded the assigned job objective at a level of performance equal to, or above, the Level 5 performance indicator. 4 Employee exceeded the assigned job objective at a level of performance above the Level 3 indicator, but below the Level 5 performance indicator. 3 Employee met the assigned job objective at a level of performance equal to the Level 3 indicator. 2 Employee met the assigned job objective at a level of performance below the Level 3 Performance indicator or needed guidance and assistance beyond that described in the Level 3 indicator. 1 Employee failed to achieve the assigned job objective or failed in the performance of a single assignment where such failure had a significant negative impact on accomplishment of the mission or where a single failure resulted in or could result in death, injury, breach of security, or great monetary loss. NR Employee did not have an opportunity to perform the job objective because it became obsolete or could not be accomplished due to extenuating circumstances. Weight of non-rated objective is re-distributed among the other objectives. This table explains how performance related to the benchmark descriptors is assessed and turned into an “objective rating.” As Performance Indicators are not provided for levels 1, 2, and 4, the rating official should determine the job-objective rating using the achievement of the job objectives, the Performance Indicators, and the rating descriptors on this slide. Note that at level 2, the employee has still basically met the objective – but at a level below that described at level 3, or requiring much closer guidance and assistance. This is a different than the level 4 rating under TAPES which was below any kind of satisfactory level. Please note the seriousness in the description of a level 1 rating. If the employee did not have an opportunity to perform the job objective because it became obsolete, or it could not be accomplished because of extenuating circumstances, supervisors may rate the job objective “NR” (Not Rated). This will have an impact on how the weighting is applied later in the process. Even though this is a 5-point scale, don’t confuse this with the 5 rating levels. This table is used to rate individual objectives, and there’s another table (coming up shortly) that rates overall performance based on the weighted total of your ratings on all your job objectives. 1 Oct 2009

Contributing Factors = The “How”
Select up to 3 for each job objective Attributes of job performance that are significant to the accomplishment of individual job objectives Further defined by “work behaviors” and “benchmark descriptors” Standard across DoD Described at the “expected” and “enhanced” level Technical Proficiency Critical Thinking Cooperation and Teamwork Communication Customer Focus Resource Management Instructor Notes: Only 1 contributing factor is recommended per job objective. Contributing factors are attributes of job performance that are significant to the accomplishment of individual job objectives. They describe the manner in which the job objectives were achieved (the “how” as compared to the “what” of job objectives) by assessing the employee’s work behaviors. For example, an employee might accomplish the goal of writing a report, but do so without communicating appropriately with teammates. Rating Contributing Factors reinforces the notion that accomplishing job objectives at any cost is not acceptable. Accomplishment must be within the framework of acceptable and desired work traits, such as good communication and teamwork. Contributing Factors are further defined by “work behaviors” and “benchmark descriptors.” Similar to the Performance Indicators, they are standardized throughout the DoD and are defined for the different pay schedules and pay bands. The complete set is in your Handbook starting on page 106. Not all of the contributing factors apply to each job objective. When job objectives are developed, you select (and document) the ones that are most relevant for accomplishing each objective – at least one, usually 3 to 5. When you plus up or plus down, you are rating the contributing factors as a whole, not each individual factor. Leadership 1 Oct 2009

Contributing Factors Benchmark Example
Cooperation and Teamwork Contributing Factor Professional and Analytical Pay Schedule - Pay Band 2 Expected Enhanced (Additions at this level) Contributes to achieving work unit goals by working collaboratively and flexibly with others and building effective partnerships across units. Treats everyone fairly and professionally, respecting and valuing individual differences and diversity. Shares relevant knowledge and information with others. Contributes to a positive team atmosphere that fosters cooperation, trust, and group identity. Handles challenging work-related disagreements or conflicts and resolves them in a positive and constructive manner; develops options to resolve disagreements or conflicts that require resolution at a higher level. Contributes to achieving organizational objectives by building effective partnerships across organizations. Takes initiative to make extra contributions to work unit efforts; recognizes when others need assistance and provides support to advance unit goals. Fosters a climate of trust by demonstrating respect for and value of individual differences and diversity. Seeks out opportunities to share relevant knowledge and skills with others. Develops formal knowledge sharing systems (e.g., work aids, technical papers, etc.). Anticipates and strives to mitigate potential conflicts or disagreements. Here’s a benchmark example – this one for the Cooperation and Teamwork Contributing Factor, for the Professional and Analytical Pay Schedule, Pay Band 2. Note that the benchmarks for the Contributing Factors are defined on the “expected” and “enhanced” levels. Employees should have a copy of the benchmarks at least for the Contributing Factors that are used in their job objectives; they can then address these factors when writing up his or her self-assessment at the end of the rating year. When you assess an employee on the Contributing Factors, you need to look at the benchmarks that are selected for an objective. Then you should consider how the employee fared on the entirety of the selected Contributing Factors. The complete list of contributing factors (with their benchmarks and the work behaviors) is available at 1 Oct 2009

Requirements for Selecting Contributing Factors
For manager For employee At least one, usually no more than three for each objective Intentional choice Tied to objective rather than employee “Leadership” must be selected for the supervisory job objective You need to make a deliberate (intentional) choice in selecting the Contributing Factors. Selecting all of them for each objective misses the point of identifying the appropriate ones. When selecting the Contributing Factors for each job objective, you should bear in mind the following considerations: They should add sufficient assessment information to affect a job objective materially. They should reflect the manner of performance important for accomplishing the job objective. They should not be selected because of the strengths or weaknesses of the employee in performing the job. Instead, strengths and weaknesses of the employee should be addressed in a development plan. Generally, no more than three Contributing Factors should be selected. In reality, each contributing factor that you add makes the rating process significantly more complex, so a good hint is to focus on the one factor that will have the most impact on the accomplishment of the objective and select that one only. Also, the contributing factor of “technical proficiency” is often inherent in the objective itself – ask yourself, could the employee accomplish this objective if he/she were not technically proficient? Probably not, so although this contributing factor would normally be applicable to almost all job objectives, it should probably not be used for any. Employees in the same organization with similar job objectives and base salaries should be assigned similar Contributing Factors. The Contributing Factor “leadership” plays a special role: It must be selected for the mandatory supervisory job objective described. It also may be selected for a manager’s/supervisor’s other job objectives. It may be assigned to any employee who is responsible for directing work and developing other employees. 1 Oct 2009

Effect on Rating Contributing factor +1 -1
… matching or exceeding the description provided in the Enhanced benchmark descriptor(s). … matching or exceeding the description provided in the Expected benchmark descriptor(s), but below that described by the Enhanced benchmark descriptor(s). … below the description provided in the Expected benchmark descriptor(s). +1 -1 In the execution or accomplishment of the assigned job objective the employee demonstrated a manner of performance… Job objective ratings can be adjusted by one point in either direction based on the selected contributing factors for that objective. The adjustment is based on the overall consideration of the Contributing Factors. Objective ratings may be adjusted only by one whole point based on the assessment of the Contributing Factors. The assessment of the Contributing Factors is in accordance with the information in the table on the slide. The combination of the objective rating and the Contributing Factor assessment (expressed as +1, 0, or –1) results in an adjusted rating for each job objective. Reminder: The adjustment needs to be done separately for each job objective. Each job objective may have different Contributing Factors. 1 Oct 2009

Weighting Objectives Weighting is a way of giving more emphasis to one objective over another Army requires that job objectives be weighted Weight is established at the start of the performance cycle – when the objectives are established and contributing factors identified Rules No objective can be weighted less than 10 percent Total weight must equal 100 percent Weights must be in 5-percent intervals If an objective is not rated (NR), the weight of that objective must be re-distributed among the other objectives This slide shows the basic rules about weighting. We will see how the weighting is applied in the rating process in a moment. Typically, weights will not change during the performance year unless (1) mission priorities dictate a change, or (2) the number of objectives has changed (added or deleted). In either case, weights may need to be redistributed (the total must always equal 100%). 1 Oct 2009

Performance Management: Review
Summary: Describe the performance management cycle and the essential elements of the TAPES and NSPS systems. List the performance conversations required during the performance cycle Define job objectives and explain the criteria for formulating and evaluating them Define performance indicators and explain how they are used in the NSPS rating process Explain what contributing factors are and how they are used in the rating process Questions? Notes to Instructor: Review objectives, then begin a discussion using the following “big picture” script, which will also help to raise expectations and lay foundations for the rest of this course. Take a look with me at hard copy performance appraisal forms that are part of your handouts. As a supervisor, it will not be uncommon for you to have employees who are covered by both the Total Army Performance Evaluation System or TAPES and the NSPS Performance Management System. Despite the seemingly large differences in the two systems, both have at their core the requirement to measure performance effectively in support of the organizational mission. Notice the up-front documentation of organizational missions and strategic goals, a key part of every employee’s performance plan. Then there are performance objectives (for the TAPES system) and Job Objectives (for NSPS). As we proceed through the next several modules, we will be discussing the differences between the two systems with the goal of preparing you to effectively manage the two performance management systems in your organization. 1 Oct 2009

Performance Management: Monitoring
1 Oct 2009

Lesson 5-1 Objectives Performance Management: Monitoring
After completion of this lesson, you will be able to: Explain the importance of maintaining records of your performance Describe the purpose of the Interim Review and what should be covered during that review Explain the importance of continuous feedback Explain when a performance plan can and should be adjusted This section primarily covers specific performance management elements under the NSPS system. This lesson covers the monitoring and developing phases – which really is happening throughout the cycle. It also covers the Interim Review. 1 Oct 2009

Performing, Monitoring, and Developing
Throughout the performance cycle: The employee is working toward accomplishing the established objectives The supervisor is monitoring employee performance and providing assistance, feedback, and direction as needed Both employee and supervisor are taking steps toward developing the employee The performance management process is ongoing throughout the entire cycle. Specifically during this part of the lesson, we will be discussing monitoring performance, employees documenting their performance, developing the employee, dealing with performance issues, and the interim review. Oct Sep Jan 1 Oct 2009

Documenting Performance
Employees need to complete a self-assessment at the end of the rating cycle To facilitate completing the self-assessment, employees are encouraged to maintain a record of their performance throughout the appraisal period Examples: Weekly Status Report Outlook’s Task List Notebook Employees should also complete a self-assessment as part of the Interim Review process – good practice During the performance planning process, employees and supervisors should discuss and identify the best tools for maintaining these records. Discussion: Are there other common tools that would be useful in keeping track of accomplishments? We will talk more about keeping track of your accomplishments, and how to record and report them, later. 1 Oct 2009

Interim Review An interim performance review is required at least once during the performance management cycle Check on progress towards objectives, make necessary adjustments Provides an opportunity for feedback so the employee has the direction to achieve the objectives NSPS - Documented in the PAA Under TAPES and NSPS employees are required to have at least one interim review during the performance cycle. There is no specific due date established for this. For NSPS, it is documented in the PAA. The purpose of this interim review is to ensure that employees are making progress towards job objectives and to make adjustments, if necessary. If employees have been engaged in ongoing communications with their supervisor, this interim review is another opportunity to ensure that expectations are leveled and that the employees are on the right track. As necessary, supervisors will meet with employees to make adjustment to ensure that their employees are able to achieve their job objectives. If there are performance issues, this is another opportunity to address concerns and establish a plan for ensuring that employees get back on track. Oct Sep Jan Interim Review 1 Oct 2009

Continuing Performance Discussions
Recurring: Revisit performance expectations Check progress Formal or informal Establish the relationship and ensure framework for the discussion is in place Ease the process in the event difficult conversation is required In addition to the required performance conversations (what are they? – planning, interim review, and annual appraisal), ongoing performance discussions are also a big part of good performance management. When conducting performance discussions, managers / supervisors need to keep in mind: Discussions should be recurring and ongoing. Discussions do not have to take a great deal of time. You need to understand how your employees want to communicate (some like formal conversations, some like brief meetings, some like ). Building good communications with your employees is critical—if you only speak with your employees about issues or problems, you will not be able to effectively address performance issues. 1 Oct 2009

Feedback Aims & Opportunities
To reinforce positive behavior To acknowledge contributions and accomplishments To anticipate difficulties To remedy shortfalls Feedback opportunities In the moment For instance … When answering a question When things go well (or not) On a schedule Following completion of a project or task During required Performance Conversations Feedback aims to reinforce, to acknowledge, to anticipate, and to remedy. Opportunities for giving feedback – in the moment or on a schedule – are numerous. Feedback should be ongoing and meaningful. Emphasize that performance management expects active and continuing communication between managers / supervisors and their employees to become the norm. Ongoing performance dialogue is part of good performance management. Also emphasize that if managers / supervisors regularly provide feedback, employees will likely view the experience of receiving feedback as positive. Performance management is a shared responsibility. Direct and open communication about all aspects of the employee’s job performance against specific goals, projects, and tasks helps both parties stay focused. Opportunities for giving meaningful feedback come up almost every day. For instance: When an employee asks a question, you might give constructive feedback. When an employee completes a task successfully, you might give positive feedback. 1 Oct 2009

Adjusting a Performance Plan
Guidelines for changing the performance plan Performance plans may be changed during the year Objectives, contributing factors, and weights may be changed together or separately The employee should have sufficient time before the end of cycle to work towards a new performance plan Best practice: Do not change the performance plan after mid-cycle review No surprises Expect change. Do not expect the performance plan to remain the same throughout the year. Performance expectations should be reviewed regularly, and an employee’s performance plan should be adjusted as needed. Any changes to an employee’s performance plan should be discussed with the employee. Be sure to write any new job objective so it can be accomplished within the remaining time of an appraisal period. If the new expectation is likely to take longer than one appraisal period to complete, write the new objective so it includes only the portion that can be accomplished in the current period. Then, at the start of the next cycle, work the rest of the objective into the next performance plan. Job objectives, contributing factors, and weightings may be changed, together or separately. The employee must have sufficient time to make a contribution towards the new performance plan. Ideally, changes to the performance plan should not be made after the mid-cycle (interim) review. If there is only one Interim Review, this would be a suitable occasion. It is not acceptable to change the performance plan which leads an employee in one direction to another direction for the purpose of setting the employee up for failure. 1 Oct 2009

Lesson 5-1 Performance Management: Monitoring - Review
Summary Explain the importance of maintaining records of your performance Describe the purpose of the Interim Review and what should be covered during that review Explain the importance of continuous feedback Explain when a performance plan can and should be adjusted Questions? 1 Oct 2009

Performance Management: Rating
1 Oct 2009

Lesson 5-1 Objectives Performance Management: Rating
After completion of this lesson, you will be able to: Identify the steps required when rating an employee under NSPS Identify the key players and define their roles and responsibilities in the rating process Describe what to include in an employee’s self-assessment and a supervisory assessment Understand the basics of the pay pool Understand how to calculate the value of a share and performance payout options. This lesson covers the rating and rewarding process that occur at the beginning and end of the rating cycle. It also covers pay pools. 1 Oct 2009

Rating and Rewarding The rating and rewarding phase occurs after the end of the rating cycle Employees complete their self-assessments at the end of the cycle Ratings are done immediately thereafter NSPS Pay pool panels meet (Nov-Dec) NSPS - Once approved by the pay pool manager, final ratings are relayed to the employee during the appraisal conversation TAPES – final ratings are approved by the rating official and Senior Rater NSPS - The payout is effective on the first full pay period in January This is the last phase of the entire performance management process – the part that makes the process a 16-month event even though the cycle is 12 months. The cycle has ended, but there’s a lot to be done. It begins with the employee completing a self-assessment, recording his or her accomplishment of the job objectives. Then the supervisor determines the recommended rating and number of shares, and fills out the actual performance appraisal. The second level reviewer also reviews them and may modify them. The Pay Pool Panel reviews and reconciles the ratings, with the Pay Pool Manager making the final decisions. After the employee receives his/her rating, they can request reconsideration. The actual payout occurs in January. These steps will be examined in more detail in subsequent slides. Oct Sep Jan Rating Panels Payout 1 Oct 2009

Roles: Who’s Involved? Employee Rating Official Higher Level Reviewer
Keeps track of accomplishments, provides information to rating official, assists in establishing job objectives. Rating Official Immediate supervisor. Establishes job objectives and performance expectations, monitors performance, rates employees, recommends rating, shares, and distribution to higher level reviewer and pay pool panel. Higher Level Reviewer Manager above supervisor. Reviews and approves performance plans. Adds bullet comments and addresses employee potential during annual appraisal. Reviews and adjusts recommended ratings, shares, and distribution from rating official(s). Pay Pool Panel Comprised of managers who review and recommend final ratings, shares, and distributions (“reconciliation”) to the pay pool manager. Pay Pool Manager Senior manager who makes final decisions on all ratings, shares, and distributions. Appoints pay pool panel members and makes certification decisions. Performance Review Authority Higher level official (or group), that oversees several pay pools, establishes pay pool funding levels, and looks into employee requests for reconsideration. This slide introduces the primary players in the NSPS performance management process. One role not included on this list is the “Pay Pool Administrator.” This is the person (usually not a manager) who provides administrative support to the pay pool panel and assists with the automated tools that the panel uses. Higher Level Reviewers approve performance plans, provide bullet comments on the employee’s performance, and complete the “potential” section of the performance appraisal form. They can change the rating official’s recommendations. Their review helps insure an equitable distribution of ratings between organizational segments. Certification: Army has established requirements for certification for some of these roles. Attendance at this course is required for all rating officials (supervisors), and you will need to provide your course completion certificate to your pay pool manager. 5 May 2009

Rating Recommendations vs. Final Rating
The supervisor recommends the rating, number of shares, and payout distribution Based on the job objective rating, adjustments due to contributing factors, weighting The higher level reviewer / senior rater may change the recommendations The pay pool panel may change the recommendations NO rating is final until approved by the pay pool manager and/or Performance Review Authority Recommendations are not to be shared with employees When you prepare your appraisal, you will be rating each job objective, adjusting them as called for based on the contributing factors, applying the weighting, and ending up with a recommended rating. You will also be providing your recommendation as to the number of shares and the way the payout should be distributed between a salary increase and a bonus. After you complete your appraisal and your recommendations, these go to the higher level reviewer who can modify your recommendations. Remember, the higher level reviewer has a higher level view of the organization’s overall accomplishments and the relative worth of individual contributions. After that, the pay pool panel will be looking at these recommendations across the entire pool. Their job is to reconcile ratings across the organization, to help insure fairness and consistency. No rating is final until the pay pool manager approves them. Employees may want you to share your recommended rating and/or number of shares with them This information is not to be shared with employees What do you say? My recommendation is just that – a recommendation – that I will not share with you The higher level reviewer, and the pay pool panel, will be looking at my recommendations in terms of the larger organization They can see how our work unit’s contributions fit into the larger picture They can also compare individual employee performance across the organization 5 May 2009

Early Annual Ratings Early Annual Rating:
When the supervisor leaves a supervisory position within 90 days of the end of appraisal period When the employee is reassigned within NSPS within 90 days of the end of the appraisal period Employee participates in pay pool (and payout) if the employee remains Refer specific situations to your servicing CPAC An early annual rating works just the same as a regular end-of-cycle rating, in that the employee’s rating is part of the pay pool process. Quick Reference Guide to Interim Review, Early Annual, and Closeouts Oct Sep Jan Early Annual 5 May 2009

Employee Self-Assessment
Provides an opportunity for the employee to describe their accomplishments relative to performance expectations, including job objectives and associated contributing factors, organizational mission and goals, team goals, etc. Input will assist the rating official in evaluating more fully the employee’s performance and results of that performance Supervisors can talk to their employees to clarify information that the employee provides Not a required conversation Emphasize that employees should treat this just like any other work assignment, and it is to their benefit to do so, and to be thorough. It should be done right around 30 Sep (the end of the rating cycle) so they can provide it to their supervisor who will then be able to begin the rating process. Army requires that it be done within 7 days of the end of the rating cycle. Briefing slides on writing self assessments Isuccess Link for Writing Job Objectives and Self-Assessments 1 Oct 2009

Writing the Self-Assessment
When writing your self-assessment: Address each of your job objectives specifically; remember, you will be rated on each objective individually Highlight your most significant achievements for the year, focusing on the results of your work Make the connection between what was done and why that should matter to the organization Show how your performance matches the Benchmark Descriptors for selected Contributing Factors Note challenges that were encountered and how they were handled Managers/supervisors and employees need to maintain a record of events and accomplishments during the year. The slide provides helpful information about how and what records to keep regarding performance and accomplishments. This model is a suggestion. Participants may want to find a different or simpler method of keeping records. As necessary, managers/supervisors may keep “memory-joggers.” Write only what you need to remember for the end-of-year evaluation, capturing observed behaviors and activities that are relevant to the work tasks. These statements should not be judgmental or personal. Such notes or records are not part of the official record and will not be shared with other managers/supervisors. Employees are encouraged to maintain a personal record of their accomplishments, achievements, and performance throughout the appraisal period. This information facilitates completion of the self-assessment. More information on keeping track of your accomplishments and writing your self-assessment is in the NSPS Handbook starting on page 86. 1 Oct 2009

Supervisory Assessment
Rating official prepares an assessment for each employee Describes the employee's accomplishments and contributions to the organization relative to his or her performance expectations Includes an assessment of job objectives and associated contributing factors Input for the supervisor assessment can come from: The employee’s self-assessment Closeout assessments from other supervisors Consider the employee-written accomplishments, but put them into perspective, considering the work of the entire organization, what the whole group did, who did what Don’t copy and paste from the employee’s write-up Army values are listed on the performance appraisal form and rating officials need to document positive aspects of the employee’s support of these values The employee’s self-assessment gives the supervisor a starting point for preparing the supervisory assessment. The supervisor, however, has a higher level perspective on the value of the employee’s accomplishments, as well as better knowledge of the organization’s overall performance and how the employee’s work fits into that larger picture. Hence it’s important that the supervisor prepares a separate narrative assessment (not just copy the employee’s). Ask the class if they know the Army values. Use of Army values (loyalty, duty, respect, self-service, honor, integrity, and personal courage) is retained under NSPS. Supervisors should discuss Army values and ethics with employees, exchanging ideas about what the values mean and what types of behavior indicate adherence. The values are listed on the performance appraisal form (although not in the automated tool). Supervisors are to document positive aspects of the employee’s support of Army values in Part Q (Component Use) of the form. However, these do not replace job objectives and are not scored or used in the determination of the rating. 1 Oct 2009

NSPS Rating Levels Standard rating levels used in DoD Cultural Change
Level of Performance Performance Description Level 5 Role Model Almost always meets the standards described by the Role Model benchmarks Level 4 Exceeds Expectations Almost always meets the standards described by the Valued Performance benchmarks and, typically, but less than almost always meets the standards described by the Role Model benchmarks Level 3 Valued Performance Almost always meets the standards described by the Valued Performance benchmarks Level 2 Fair Almost always meets the Valued Performance benchmarks, but only as a result of guidance and assistance considerably above that expected at the Valued Performance level Level 1 Unsuccessful Performs below Level 2, or fails a Standard Performance Factor in the performance of a single assignment where such failure has a significant negative impact on accomplishment of the mission or where a single failure to perform could result in death, injury, breach of security, or great monetary loss These are the rating levels being used across DoD. Don’t confuse this slide with the slide showing the 5-point scale for job objective ratings. This one is for an employee’s overall rating considering all the job objectives. It’s a 5-point scale, with 1 the lowest and 5 the highest. Think about “almost always” as “happening nearly all the time.” So, the Role Model or Level 5 rating level would be assigned to an employee who “almost always” or “nearly all the time” performed in a manner that met the Role Model level. Most employees should fall at level 3 – this is not an easy standard. Showing up to work each day will not get you to level 3. Stress that Level 1 (Unsuccessful) and Level 5 (Role Model) ratings are rare ratings. Recalibration of rating level expectations will be needed, and it’s probably best to do this from the outset (when NSPS is implemented) – harder to start people with high ratings and then try to lower them later. This is a cultural change in DoD – most employees rated at the “3” level (currently most employees are rated at the highest level). The assessment of a Level 1 rating on any job objective results in an overall rating of Level 1. This decision was made because it was deemed that the objectives form the basis of performance and failure in any one objective is unacceptable. As such, managers or supervisors will need to be able to support giving employees a Level 1 rating. 1 Oct 2009 Cultural Change

The NSPS Rating Process
Objective Rating (1-5) Adjustment (+1, 0, -1) Adjusted Rating (1-5) Weighting Applied Job Obj #1 Contr Fact Cust. Focus Weight: 40% 3 3 3 X .40 1.2 Job Obj #2 Contr Fact Commu. Weight: 35% 4 +1 5 5 X .35 1.75 Total: 3.45 Take some time and review this slide carefully. It is a progressive slide so segments appear in sequence. Each component of the slide has been covered in earlier slides, but this summarizes them. Job objectives are set up at the start of the performance cycle, including designation of applicable contributing factors and amount of weighting. In this case, we have an employee with three objectives, each worth a different amount of weight, and each using different contributing factors. (click) At the end of the cycle, the supervisor uses the Performance Indicators to identify an “objective rating” for each job objective. (click) The applicable contributing factors are then reviewed, and the rating on each objective may be adjusted up or down by one point (or stay the same). Notice the rules of adjustment – the “2” rating on objective 3 cannot be reduced to a “1” based on contributing factors. (click) This results in an “adjusted rating.” (click) Weighting is then applied by multiplying the adjusted rating by the weight of the objective as identified at the start of the cycle. (click) Weighted ratings are added together to derive the total, and (click) The total is rounded according to the rounding chart (next slide) to arrive at the recommended rating. Job Obj #3 Contr Fact Leadership Weight: 25% Apply rounding 2 -1 2 2 X .25 .5 Recommended Rating: 3 Use Performance Indicators Use Contributing Factors 1 Oct 2009

Rounding to Determining the Recommended Rating
Weight the adjusted ratings and total them Round the result as shown below: Result is the recommended rating Average Rating Range Rating of Record Rating of Record Descriptor 4.51 to 5.00 5 Role Model 3.51 to 4.50 4 Exceeds Expectations 2.51 to 3.50 3 Valued Performer 2.00 to 2.50 2 Fair 1 on any objective 1 Unacceptable After deciding on a rating for each objective, and adjusting it for contributing factors, the ratings are weighted and totaled. The total is rounded according to the table on the slide. Remember: A rating of 1 on any job objective results in an average rating of 1. If a job objective was not rated (it has the rating “NR”), it is not considered in calculating the average. This becomes the recommended rating. You submit this recommended rating to the pay pool (via the higher level reviewer) for its final decision. Supervisors cannot communicate their recommended rating to their employees. Individual managers may be unaware of certain considerations in the pay pool’s assessment. Also, it reduces the temptation for a manager/supervisor to inflate ratings, yet not have to take responsibility for the final ratings. 1 Oct 2009

Rewarding Employee Performance
Performance Rating Employees are eligible to receive: 5 Performance based pay Rate range adjustments Local market supplement increases 4 3 2 1 No increases This table summarizes the types of rewards that employees can receive based on their performance rating. Final Rule NSPS NDAA for 2008 mandates all employees with a performance rating above “unacceptable” receive at least 60 percent of the annual General Schedule (GS) Government-wide pay increase as a base salary increase. Prior to the NDAA becoming law, NSPS employees received the January 2008 performance pay increase in this manner. References § Setting and adjusting rate ranges § Eligibility for general salary increase § Local Market Supplements 1 Oct 2009

Share Ranges Shares in the pay pool are awarded as shown in the table:
Share ranges allow further distinction between levels of contribution The estimated value of a share reflects a percentage of salary (the actual share value will not be known until the Pay Pool Panel completes its work) Rating Level Share Range 5 5 or 6 4 3 or 4 3 1 or 2 2 1 You have a choice in how many shares within the share range to assign to distinguish between levels of performance. If the overall performance is rated below level 3, the employee is not entitled to a performance payout. For anyone at level 3 or above, the manager/supervisor will recommend a share allocation. The decision on a share allocation allows for a further distinction of levels of performance. The value of a share is a percentage of the employee’s salary. The final dollar value of one share, therefore, is different for employees with different base salaries. While an estimate of a share value may be provided early in the rating cycle, the final value of a share may change as a result of the pay pool process. The share allocation is again a recommendation by you and is not to be communicated to employees until after all recommendations are reviewed by the Pay Pool Panel and finalized by the Pay Pool Manager. . 1 Oct 2009

Performance Payout Performance payout may be paid as a:
Base salary increase Bonus Combination of the two Considerations in deciding the distribution: Position in pay band Motivational effect Salary and work in comparison with colleagues Competitive market comparisons Performance-based payouts made from the pay pool funds consist of increases to base salaries, bonuses, or a combination of the two. Bonuses are cash payments and are not considered part of base salary. As managers/supervisors, you can recommend how the performance payout be divided into the two components. Exercise care to determine an appropriate distribution of the payout value between a base salary increase and bonus. Consideration should be given to the following areas when making these determinations: Current position in pay band. An increase in base salary may not lead to a salary above the pay band limit. An increase in base salary is carried forward to following years, whereas a bonus is not. The two elements are accounted differently in pension calculation. Bear this difference in mind—and also that this may affect the motivation of the individual. Current salary and the level or complexity of work performed in comparison with others in similar work assignments. Local market salary levels of comparable occupations in private sector and other government activities. Attrition and retention rates of critical-shortage skilled personnel. 1 Oct 2009

Pay Pool Basics What is a pay pool? Two definitions:
A group of employees who share in the distribution of a common pay-for-performance fund Money that is fenced to fund performance payouts How are membership and boundaries of a pay pool determined? By organizational structure By similar lines of occupations or jobs By geographical location By organizational mission Other considerations: pay bands, career groups, etc. Army guidance: size should range from 35 to 300 Pay pools will be structured differently in different organizations Some basic information about pay pools. The actual designation of pay pools is being done at the Command level. More information on pay pool processes and functions is provided in the following slides. This may differ depending on your organization. 1 Oct 2009

Pay Pools: Army Guidance
Pay pool structures may be redefined each cycle All pay pool officials/raters will be management officials Sub-pay pools may be considered when size exceeds 150 Separate pools may be created for supervisors This is Army’s guidance about how pay pools should be structured (keep in mind that these are guidelines for the most part). 1 Oct 2009

Pay Pools: Communicating with Employees
Employees will be notified during the performance year about: Roles and responsibilities of employees, raters, pay pool panel members, and pay pool managers Pay pool composition Pay pool panel membership General pay pool policies and business rules The factors that may be considered in making specific share assignments The supervisor will communicate to the employee before the effective date of the payout the: Approved rating of record Share assignment Payout distribution These are the requirements for keeping employees informed about pay pool operations. The first major bullet refers to a requirement to inform employees about their pay pool structure and related items. This is normally done within the first few months of the rating cycle. Note in the second main bullet that the employee will be given his/her actual rating of record, number of shares, and payout distribution information before the actual date of the payout (the first full pay period in January). But this cannot happen until AFTER the pay pool manager has approved this for the whole pool. So the actual window for informing employees will be fairly small depending on how long the pay pool panel and pay pool manager take. 1 Oct 2009

Rating and Pay Pool Hierarchy
Supervisor recommends: Performance rating Number of shares Distribution between salary increase and bonus Higher level reviewer: Reviews supervisor’s recommendations, changes as appropriate Pay Pool Panel: Reconciles ratings, shares, and distribution within the pay pool; changes as appropriate Pay Pool Manager: Makes final decisions on rating of record, number of shares, and distribution Supervisor conveys final rating, shares, and distribution to employees After the pay pool manager is done This slide re-emphasizes the supervisor’s recommendation and pay pool’s action on that recommendation. Review these roles with the class. The primary take-away from this slide is that there are a number of occasions where ratings and shares are reviewed to help insure fairness and consistency. Also be sure to re-emphasize that the supervisor’s recommendations are just that – recommendations – until the ratings, shares, and distributions are approved by the pay pool manager. In fact, supervisors and pay pool panels should NOT keep their own data, recommended ratings, recommended share assignments, etc. These may become subject to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests and would need to be provided. Only the final rating information, that will be in the Performance Appraisal Application, is official. How do we ensure consistency and fairness? 1 Oct 2009

Higher Level Reviewer The higher level reviewer function is retained under NSPS Called “Senior Rater” in TAPES Normally the immediate supervisor of the rating official Provides final approval of the Performance Plan Role during rating: Reviews rating official recommendations and changes as appropriate (rating, shares, and distribution of payout) Provides bullet comments on the employee’s potential to perform different and/or higher level work (documented in Part Q – the Component Use section – of the Performance Appraisal Form) This slide outlines the responsibilities of the higher level reviewer. During the rating process, this is the first of several reviews that will help to insure that ratings are fair and consistent across the organization – normally the higher level reviewer will manage several organizational components and can begin the reconciliation of ratings by comparing organizational performance at a higher level than the rating official, and can therefore make sure that ratings are reflective of the organizational performance. 1 Oct 2009

Pay Pool Funding Elements
Element 1: WGIs, QSIs, in-band promotions Minimum floor set by DoD Less ACDP, Reassignment $ For salary increases only Element 2: Remainder of General Pay Increase Set by SecDef Less rate range adj, LMS Salary increases or bonuses Pay Pool Money for the pay pool comes from a variety of sources. The key point to realize is that THIS IS NOT NEW MONEY. Pay pool funds are funds that used to be spent for other payroll purposes. Under NSPS, the same dollars are distributed differently. Element 1: There are no “steps” in NSPS, we use pay bands instead. Hence the funds for pay pool payouts are coming from within-grade increases (WGIs) that would have been expected to occur during the year, and quality step increases (QSIs) that would otherwise be awarded. DoD sets the minimum floor for this item (covered next). (SC ) Element 2: For FY09, the Secretary of Defense allocated 60% of the GPI for element 2. The other 40% went into the pay pool and contribute to the pay-for-performance fund. (SC ) Element 3: There is performance award money, usually associated with annual performance ratings. Some of this money can be set aside for Organizational Achievement Awards (OAR), Extraordinary Performance Recognition (EPR), incentive awards (non-performance), and a reserve fund for such things as people leaving the pool prior to the payout date, or for people whose rating and payout are increased as a result of a reconsideration request. (SC ) All of these elements are expressed as percentages of the total basic pay of the employees in the pool. The percentages of the three elements are designated for use either for salary increases or bonuses or both (as shown). Element 3: Performance awards Budgeted by organization Less OAR, EPR, inc awds, reserve fund For bonuses only Elements and the pay pool are expressed as percentages of base pay 1 Oct 2009

Value of a Share The value of a share depends on:
The total amount of available pay pool funds The total number of shares awarded to employees in that pay pool The base salary of employees who have been awarded a payout The value of a share cannot be exactly determined until the pay pool panel process is complete The size of an employee’s payout should reflect that employee’s relative contribution to the organization in comparison to other employees in the organization This slide shows the three variables that will determine the value of a share. Key points: The value of a share is dependent on an employee’s base salary, so the actual payout amount will vary between employees with the same number of shares. The actual value of a share cannot be computed until the process is complete. We’ll see how the process works, mathematically, shortly. The more shares assigned within the pay pool (i.e., the higher the rating levels), the lower the value of each share. If the pay pool has many level 5 performers, the value of each share will be less. The more shares assigned within the pay pool, the less the value of each share 1 Oct 2009

Calculating Performance Payouts
An employee’s performance payout is calculated by multiplying the employee’s base salary at the end of the appraisal period by the share value percentage, and then by the number of shares earned by the employee: Employee Performance Payout = Base Salary X Share Value per Share (%) X No. of Shares The total performance payout is distributed between an increase in base salary or a bonus, or a combination of the two: Salary Increase + Bonus No salary increase can cause an employee's base salary to exceed the maximum rate for the employee’s pay band Any excess amount will be paid as a performance bonus For employees who receive retained rates above the applicable pay band maximum, the entire performance payout is in the form of a bonus These are the basic formulas that are used to determine the payout value to the employee. A simplified example (this is an example only): If an employee has $50,000 basic pay and the share value per share is 1%, and the employee is rated at level 3 and given 2 shares, the payout = X .01 (1%) X 2 = $1000. The payout can be awarded as a salary increase or a bonus or a combination of the two, as discussed earlier. 1 Oct 2009

Pro-Rating of Payouts In Army, payouts will be pro-rated based on hours worked in the calendar year to reflect: Leave Without Pay (LWOP) Part time and intermittent employment Entry into an NSPS position from a non-NSPS position Hours Worked Percent of Payout 100% 75% 50% 0-520 25% Pro-rating applies to the categories listed. Basically it boils down to dividing a work year into quarters. Point out that this is calendar year (Jan 1 to Dec 31), not rating year (Oct 1 to Sept 30). Hours worked includes hours in an approved leave status (in addition to hours actually worked). Part time employment: Only the bonus part of the payout is pro-rated. The salary increase part of the payout automatically includes an adjustment for part time hours (these employees are paid for the number of hours worked). During the transition to NSPS, when rating cycles may vary in length, the hours worked requirement is adjusted to reflect the cycle length (for example, the hours are divided by two for a six-month initial cycle). 1 Oct 2009

Annual Appraisal Conversation
Preparation Review comments from Pay Pool Panel (if any) and incorporate them into the final written appraisal Plan your feedback, particularly if the rating is below Valued Performance or otherwise not what the employee is expecting Tips There should be no surprises; all concerned want the appraisal to be fair If the rating of record is below Valued Performance, it is important to discuss next steps immediately Do not criticize or blame the pay pool panel or senior rater for lowering a rating The third required conversation with employees is the annual appraisal conversation. This is when the supervisor relates the final rating, shares, and payout distribution to the employee. It should occur in November or December (whenever the pay pool panel has concluded and ratings have been finalized). The supervisor is responsible for editing the written appraisal he or she submitted with an employee’s recommended rating, should the pay pool panel communicate revisions. You should not share with the employee any notes or comments received from the pay pool panel in connection with the employee’s appraisal. 1 Oct 2009

Starting Over: Setting and Communicating Performance Expectations for Next Cycle
Purpose: Set up and communicate performance expectations and job objectives for the coming year Done when the performance cycle starts over Note that the new cycle begins before the former cycle completes Coverage: Discuss goals and expectations for the next period Help your employee improve his or her performance Summarize the discussion and sign documentation The purpose of this slide is to point out that performance management is part of a cycle – and that even while the payout is being decided, the next cycle has already begun (remember, a 12-month cycle and a 15-month process). Considering dates, the new performance plan conversation with employees should be held during October (the first 30 days of the new performance year). Keep in mind that at that time, you and the employee will not yet know the employee’s final rating, number of shares, etc., from the prior year. Oct Sep Oct Jan Planning 1 Oct 2009

Reconsiderations Employees can challenge:
Their individual job objective ratings as well as their overall final rating of record Employees cannot challenge: Performance payout Number of shares Value of shares Distribution of payout Recommended Rating of Record Interim Reviews Closeout Assessments The reconsideration process defines a simple, quick, fair, and credible process that employees can use. The DoD reconsideration process to challenge a rating of record under NSPS is the sole and exclusive method for all non-bargaining unit employees to challenge their ratings of record. Guidelines regarding the administrative grievance procedures are in the DoD NSPS Implementing Issuance, SC Basically, employees submit their request to the pay pool manager, who consults as needed with the rating official, higher level reviewer, etc., and renders a decision. If the employee is not satisfied with the decision, the employee can elevate the request to the performance review authority, whose decision is final. A bargaining unit employee may challenge a rating of record or job objective rating through a negotiated grievance procedure unless explicitly excluded from that process. If an employee is precluded from challenging a rating of record through a negotiated grievance procedure, the employee may use the reconsideration process outlined in SC An employee’s performance rating should remain the same or go up as a result of the reconsideration process. Questions regarding the avenues of bargaining unit employees to challenge their rating of record should be referred to your CPAC Advisor. Reconsideration procedures apply only to an employee’s challenge of his or her own rating of record. Performance payout, number of performance shares assigned, value of performance shares, or distribution of payout between increase to basic pay and bonus are not subject to reconsideration procedures. Decisions made through this process do not cause the recalculation of the payout made to other employees in the pay pool. There are funds reserved to cover any changes to payouts resulting from the reconsideration process. 1 Oct 2009

Recent Changes Under NDAA 2008 Impacting Performance Management
Mandates employees with a performance rating above ‘‘unacceptable”, or who do not have current performance ratings, receive no less than 60% of the annual GS pay increase and locality pay in the same manner as other GS employees Reconsideration opportunities have been expanded to permit reconsideration of individual performance objective ratings in addition to the overall rating of record. Requires organizations to share aggregate pay pool results with NSPS employees. Mandates that all employees with a performance rating above ‘‘unacceptable’’ or who do not have current performance ratings receive no less than sixty percent of the annual Government-wide General Schedule pay increase (with the balance allocated to pay pool funding for the purpose of increasing rates of pay on the basis of employee performance). Requires that all NSPS employees with a performance rating above “unacceptable” or who do not have a current performance rating receive locality pay in the same manner and extent as General Schedule employees Employee performance reconsideration opportunities have been expanded to permit reconsideration of individual performance objective ratings in addition to the overall rating of record. Requires organizations to share aggregate pay pool results with NSPS employees. At a minimum, these pay pool results will include the following: Average rating, ratings distribution, share value (or average share value), and average payout (expressed as a percentage). 1 Oct 2009

Performance Management: TAPES vs. NSPS
Ratings based on job objectives One cycle (1 Oct – 30 Sep) Rating scale 5 (top) to 1 (bottom) 90 day minimum rating period Pay Pool Manager approves ratings TAPES Ratings based on performance objectives Many performance cycles Rating scale 1 (top) to 5 (bottom) 120 day minimum rating period Senior rater approves ratings If you discussed both Performance Management Systems (TAPES and NSPS) take the time to make these comparisons. 1 Oct 2009

Lesson 5-1 Objectives Performance Management: Review
Summary: Identify the steps required when rating an employee under NSPS Identify the key players and define their roles and responsibilities in the rating process Describe what to include in an employee’s self- assessment and a supervisory assessment Understand the basics of the pay pool Understand how to calculate the value of a share and performance payout options. Questions? This lesson covers the rating and rewarding process that occur at the beginning and end of the rating cycle. It also covers pay pools. 1 Oct 2009

EXERCISE TIME!! Case Studies: NSPS vs. TAPES
Refer to Case studies-TAPES & NSPS-Answers. Total of 5 exercises. Depending on the size of the class, break the tables or individuals up into small groups (3-5 students). Assign an exercise to each one of them to work as a group. Inform them upfront that a spokesperson from each group will brief the class after they complete the exercises. Case Studies: NSPS vs. TAPES 1 Oct 2009

Question 1. Rick Astilbe, a supervisor of 18 employees, comes to you and complains about all the paperwork and counseling he’s supposed to do. He can’t see any value in it at all. Also, he wants you to give him an extra 60 days to complete his appraisals on 5 of his employees who are TDY. After all, he can’t counsel them while they are gone. How would you handle this under TAPES? NSPS? This lesson covers the rating and rewarding process that occur at the beginning and end of the rating cycle. It also covers pay pools. 1 Oct 2009

Question 2. Marcia King was temporarily detailed to another job for the last 9 months. Her rating cycle is now coming to a close. How would you handle this situation under TAPES? NSPS? This lesson covers the rating and rewarding process that occur at the beginning and end of the rating cycle. It also covers pay pools. 1 Oct 2009

Question 3. Karen Schmidt is the supervisor of 3 employees who are due their annual appraisals within the next 90 days. Ms. Schmidt receives a promotion to another organization and is leaving. Describe what kind of appraisal she should give to the 3 employees prior to her departure under TAPES and NSPS. This lesson covers the rating and rewarding process that occur at the beginning and end of the rating cycle. It also covers pay pools. 1 Oct 2009

Question 4. Michael Donahue is very dissatisfied with the rating he received. He wants to challenge it because he claims that he should have received a higher level rating. What information should you provide him under TAPES? NSPS? This lesson covers the rating and rewarding process that occur at the beginning and end of the rating cycle. It also covers pay pools. 1 Oct 2009

Question Kathleen Brady has made some significant revisions to the performance plan of Doug Kinney, one of her “problem employees.” Kinney’s annual rating period comes to a close in 90 days. Ms. Brady wants to know whether she can rate Kinney against the revised expectations in completing her annual evaluation under TAPES? NSPS? Can she get an extension of the rating period with either system? This lesson covers the rating and rewarding process that occur at the beginning and end of the rating cycle. It also covers pay pools. 1 Oct 2009

Performance Management: Rewarding
1 Oct 2009

Lesson 5-1 Objectives Performance Management: Rewarding
After completion of this lesson, you will be able to: Identify the various tools available to supervisors to recognize, reward and motivate employees. Identify the three categories of awards and their appropriate usage. Identify the different situations that preclude an employee from receiving an award. This lesson covers the various tools available to supervisors to recognize, reward and motivate employees. 1 Oct 2009

Regulatory /Legal Basis
5 USC, CHAPTERS 45, 53, AND 54 5 CFR, PARTS 430, 451, AND 531 DoD M Subchapter 451 AR (Incentive Awards) DA PAM (Incentive Awards Handbook) 1 Oct 2009

Awards Special Act and Special Service Awards Rating-Based Awards
Quality Step Increases On-The-Spot Awards Time-Off Awards Career Service Recognition Informal Recognition Honorary Awards Public Service Awards 1 Oct 2009

The Award Spectrum Three Categories Non-monetary (Honorary) Monetary
Time-Off 1 Oct 2009

Honorary Awards 7 Awards for DA Civilians Public Service Awards
Essentially equivalent to DA Honorary Awards for Military Equivalent nature of recognition Equivalent approval level Public Service Awards Army employees and contractor employees not eligible Noncareer Government officials and non- Government personnel are eligible AR 1 Oct 2009

NOTE: Nomination must be coordinated with employee’s supervisor
Honorary Awards Honorary awards may be given to separating employees provided accomplishments fully meet criteria Manager outside employee’s chain of command may nominate employee for an award NOTE: Nomination must be coordinated with employee’s supervisor 1 Oct 2009

New Awards Secretary of Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom
Eligible if a DoD civilian employee is killed or wounded by hostile action while serving or while rescuing or attempting rescue of another employee Aligned very closely to the Military Purple Heart Approved by the Secretary of the Army Secretary of the Army Award for Valor For civilian employees and private citizens Acts of heroism, courage or sacrifice, with voluntary risk of personal safety in the face of danger either on of off the job 1 Oct 2009

DA Awards Hierarchy Civilian Award Authority Military Award
Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service Sec of Army Distinguished Service Medal Chief of SA Meritorious Civilian Service Award ACOM Commander Legion of Merit ACOM Commander LTG+ Superior Civilian Service Award Commanders MG + and Civ Equiv. Meritorious Service Medal Commanders MG+ Commanders Award for Civilian Service Commanders COL+ and Civ Equiv. Army Commendation Medal Commanders COL+ Achievement Medal for Civilian Service Commanders LTC+ and Civ Equiv. Army Achievement Medal Commanders LTC+ AR Chapter 8 Civilian Award for Humanitarian Service Armed Forces Civilian Service Medal 1 Oct 2009

Monetary Awards On-the-Spot (OTS) Special Act/Service Award
Currently $50-$500 Special Act/Service Award Use Table of Tangible Benefits and Table of Intangible Benefits to determine amount Up to $10,000, or $25000 with AIAB review Rating-Based Awards (Performance) Up to 10% of Base Salary Up to 20% with Major Commander approval Quality Step Increase Not more than 1 per 52-week period Must be rated Success Level 1 On The spot - AR is incorrect - Changed from $50-$250 to $50-$500 with August 9, Special Act or Service - – Tables in AR Chapter 7 (AIAB – Army Incentive Awards Board) Ratings Based (Performance) and QSI - 1 Oct 2009

No Performance or Achievement Awards for Employees:
Under investigation or with disciplinary / performance-based action pending Having had disciplinary action in last 120 days Involved in “unlawful discrimination” AR Chapter 2 1 Oct 2009

Time-Off Awards Benefits to Government similar to Special Act or OTS
Supervisor can approve awards up to one day or less Benefits to Government similar to Special Act or OTS Maximum Award Amounts Hours for any single award Hours for any 1-year period Limitation --Must be used within 1 year of the approval date --Cannot be transferred outside of Army --Cannot be restored or paid in lump sum AR Chapter 4 and Table 7-3 1 Oct 2009

Rewarding Employees: What do they really want ?
Managers have fewer ways to influence employees Coercion no longer works: managers must be coaches rather than demanding Employees are being asked to do more with less oversight Managers need to create a workplace that is positive and reinforcing Soon there will be fewer workers with fewer skills New pool of employees has different values Work needs to have purpose Rewards and recognition = Effective and low cost encouragement and motivation! 1 Oct 2009

Lesson 5-1 Performance Management- Rewarding Review
Summary Identify the various tools available to supervisors to recognize, reward and motivate employees. Identify the three categories of awards and their appropriate usage. Identify the different situations that preclude an employee from receiving an award. Questions? 1 Oct 2009

Module 5-1 Sustaining 1 Oct 2009.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Module 5-1 Sustaining 1 Oct 2009."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Module 5-1 Sustaining 1 Oct 2009.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Module 5-1 Sustaining 1 Oct 2009."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback