When situations arise where it is not possible to close out appraisal periods in a normal manner before shifting to a new appraisal program, what advice does the Office of Personnel Management have for how an agency could transition between appraisal programs (i.e., handle appraisal periods, minimum periods, performance ratings, and ratings of record) in the following situations? (See descriptions (a) through (e))
Few straightforward answers are possible
here. Agencies have a lot of flexibility for how mid-period
transitions
could be handled. At the same time, however, such
transitions may
stimulate employee complaints and grievances. This is
especially true
as many agencies seek to implement changes and transitions
during
a time when the Government is facing serious downsizing. It
is only
prudent to consider the effect and timing of program changes
in light
of their possible reduction-in-force implications.
A few simple principles can help guide decisions about
program
transitions:
- The appraisal regulations in part 430 of title 5, Code
of Federal
Regulations, contemplate only one formal rating of
record per
appraisal period.
- The reduction-in-force regulations in part 351 of
title 5,
Code of Federal Regulations, defer to ratings of record
as defined
in part 430.
- A sense of fairness and equity is generally not well
served
by "changing the rules late in the game" unless there
is clear evidence that the rule changes are well
understood and
widely accepted by the affected parties. It's generally a
good
idea to stick by the "rules" that are in place when
the employee's performance plan is communicated, unless
program
changes are imminent (see (a) below).
- It's generally a good idea to let employees get credit
for their
positive achievements, rather than ignore them.
These principles were applied in developing the following
advice
about situations (a) through (e) below. Please note that
in each
situation, the new program would have to be in effect and
employees
would have to be under their new performance plans for the
minimum
period before a rating of record could be prepared under
the new
program. Also, a new program should not be implemented
with its
performance plans and ratings of record unless management
and employees
have received appropriate preparation and training.
(a) It's early in a new appraisal period (or rating
cycle) and
the minimum period has not been completed yet.
This is the simplest case. Because it is not permissible
to rate
performance under the old program before the minimum
period is complete,
implementing the new program should not cause serious
problems.
However, agencies must remember to comply with the
requirement to
communicate with supervisors and employees about the
relevant parts
of their appraisal programs.
(b) It's near the end of the current appraisal period
and the
new appraisal program has fewer summary levels than the
old.
This may be the second simplest case. Assuming adequate
warning
and preparations are made, relevant parties are in
agreement, and
the agency system allows the flexibility, it should be
possible
to in effect "shorten" the old appraisal period to close
out the old program. Ratings of record would be prepared
using the
old pattern with more summary levels. The agency could
have the
discretion to lengthen the next appraisal period so that
two ratings
of record would be assigned to cover a 24-month period.
This approach
would be most consistent with giving employees credit for
their
accomplishments and avoids disadvantaging employees by
"changing
the rules late in the game."
(c) It's near the end of the current appraisal period
and the
new appraisal program has more summary levels than the
old.
In this situation, it may be more desirable to let the
rating of
record be assigned under the new program with more summary
levels.
A performance rating could be prepared (with or without
assigning
a summary level) to "close out" the old program before
implementing the new program. When the appraisal period
ends and
a rating of record must be prepared, that earlier
performance information
would be available and applied as appropriate. Of course,
an employee
could not be rated under the new program or assigned a
performance
rating or rating of record until the new program's minimum
period
was completed, which in effect could lengthen the
appraisal period.
In that event, the agency would have the option of
shortening the
subsequent appraisal period to end up with two ratings of
record
covering a 24-month period. Agencies should consider
designing their
programs to accommodate the need for a transitional
appraisal period.
d) It's the middle of the current appraisal period and
the new
appraisal program has fewer summary levels than the old.
In this situation, unless relevant parties are in
agreement and
a lot of groundwork has been laid with employees, it may
be advisable
to delay implementing the new program until the next
appraisal period.
Closing out the old program with a summary rating of
record (as
in (b) above) by substantially "shortening" the appraisal
period might be more acceptable than just implementing the
new program
with its fewer summary levels, but it's still "changing
the
rules" in midstream.
(e) It's the middle of the current appraisal period and
the new
appraisal program has more summary rating levels than
the old.
In this case, the fact that more summary levels would be
available
under the new program may make shortening the appraisal
period less
desirable. As in (c) above, the old program could be
closed out
with a performance rating (with or without a summary
level)
that "counts" when the rating of record is prepared under
the new program at the end of the appraisal period. This
presumes
the new program is more attractive and there is shared
interest
in implementing it. If that is not the case, the scenario
in (b)
above still could be played out.
-
Thank you for your feedback!