Performance Management Performance Management FAQs

Once an agency determines how it will assign the amounts of additional service credit based on performance, everyone who has ratings of record with the same summary level within the same pattern in the same competitive area will get the same amount of additional service credit. This is a uniform and consistent application of service credit for everyone who meets the specified criteria (i.e., level, pattern, and competitive area).

It depends on the type of award granted. For the most part, compensation-related information in the Federal Government is a matter of public record or obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act. Generally, this includes award payments except for rating-based awards. Agencies may not disclose award amounts if doing so could reveal the recipient's rating of record, which is protected information under the Privacy Act. For information on specific situations, contact your Office of General Counsel or Privacy Officer.

If the proposed program covers bargaining unit employees, the agency is obligated to notify the union and afford it the opportunity to negotiate on the impact and implementation of the appraisal program. In addition to the agency's legal requirements, OPM encourages agencies to involve employees in the design and implementation of their appraisal program.

Only cash and time-off awards must be reported to the Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI). However, if an agency grants a cash stipend or honorarium with an honorary award, it should report that cash payment to the EHRI. For additional information on how to report cash awards to the EHRI and refer to Guide to Processing Personnel Actions.

Yes. An agency may give length of service certificates and/or pins in recognition of years of service in the Government of the United States. The agency decides whether to credit both civilian and military service when computing eligibility for career service recognition. Note: For individual employees, Government service as defined for purposes of issuing length of service certificates is not necessarily identical to "creditable service" used to calculate eligibility for things such as leave accumulation or retirement.

The modal rating is the latest rating of record summary level given most often within a single pattern to the employees in a specified group that is no smaller than the competitive area and no larger than the agency undergoing a reduction in force. It is important that the employees undergoing a reduction in force understand the basis used to determine the modal rating.

There should be no significant difference between managing the performance of a teleworker and managing the employee who works in the office.

Yes. Each competitive area must be looked at individually to analyze what the situation is regarding the ratings of record being credited.

At a minimum, these four features must have a single definition for each program:

• employee coverage
• appraisal period length
• pattern of summary levels for ratings of record
• summary level derivation method

If multiple definitions are intended for any one of these features, separate programs must be established.

Additional years of service credit are added to an employee's length of service based on the employee's three most recent ratings of record during the four years prior to the reduction in force. In a competitive area where all the ratings of record being credited were done under a single pattern of summary levels, the additional service credit is computed by averaging the three most recent ratings of record given in the previous four years using the following values: 20 years of service for each Level 5 (Outstanding or equivalent rating); 16 years of service for each Level 4; and 12 years of service for each Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent rating). In an agency where employees in a competitive area have ratings of record being credited for reduction in force that were done under more than one pattern of summary levels, the agency can establish the values for the summary levels (within 12 to 20 years) so that performance crediting will be as fair and equitable as possible. Within a competitive area, the agency must use the same number of years additional retention service credit for all ratings of record with the same summary level in the same pattern of summary levels.

No. The regulations specifically restrict the delay of a within-grade determination to two conditions. Permitting the delay of a within-grade determination for employees completing a PIP would give an unfair advantage to an employee whose performance has been determined to be unacceptable (a condition upon which the PIP is based) over employees whose most recent rating of record is Level 2 (marginal, minimally successful, etc.) and who are not eligible for a within-grade increase. There is no requirement to give an employee a rating of record before beginning a PIP. If a within-grade increase determination is due during an employee's PIP, the agency needs to make sure it reviews the employee's most recent rating of record and determines whether a new rating of record is needed to support the within-grade decision. If the last rating of record does not support a within-grade denial, a new rating of record must be given for that purpose. If the agency chooses to use the last rating of record of Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent) or better and grant the within-grade, they need to realize they are certifying the employee as performing at that level and jeopardizing any future performance-based action that might have been based on performance during that time period.

If an employee has fewer than three ratings of record during the last four years, the actual rating(s) of record available would serve as the sole basis of the employee's credit (no assumed ratings would be used). Consequently, if an employee has received only two actual ratings of record during this period, the value assigned to each rating would be added together and divided by two to determine the amount of additional retention service credit. If an employee has only one actual rating of record, the value assigned to that rating would be used. If, however, the employee has no ratings of record during the last four years, the modal rating for the appraisal program that covers the employee's position of record at the time of the reduction in force is used to grant performance credit.

No. Prizes cannot be granted under law and regulation governing awards. The awards law does not support including the element of chance (e.g., as it occurs with a raffle drawing) in an employee awards program.

Yes, as long as employees with higher ratings of record receive higher dollar amounts than those with lower ratings of record (e.g., an award program must grant GS-9's who receive an outstanding rating a higher dollar amount than GS-9's who receive a fully successful rating). Agencies may use their discretion whether to pay rating-based awards as a lump-sum dollar amount or a percentage of base pay.

No.  Higher-level review of ratings of record above Level 1 is not a Governmentwide requirement.  However, agencies may decide that higher-level review is a good practice and provides a measure of fairness.

Yes, but only to the extent that the program covers awards for suggestions, inventions, or scientific achievements.

The importance of team performance can be emphasized through the creation of appropriate awards.  Where goals are reasonably stable, measurable and achievable, agencies may wish to establish incentive awards that are granted on the basis of achieving team performance objectives or sharing savings from gains in team efficiency and productivity among team members.

The law intends critical elements to be used to establish individual accountability.  This restriction is clearest for non-supervisory employees who may be serving as team members.  Consequently, critical elements generally are not appropriate for identifying and measuring team performance, which by its definition involves shared accountability. A supervisor or manager can and should be held accountable for seeing that results measured at the group or team level are achieved.  Critical elements assessing group performance may be appropriate to include in the performance plan of a supervisor, manager or team leader who can reasonably be expected to command the resources and authority necessary to achieve the results (i.e., be held individually accountable). However, agencies can use other ways to factor team performance into ratings of record or other performance-related decisions, such as granting awards.  One approach to bringing team performance into the process of deriving a rating of record, and certainly to the process of distributing recognition and rewards, is to establish team performance goals within the team members' performance plans as either non-critical or additional performance elements.

In designing their award programs, agencies have a responsibility to look beyond the award regulations themselves and make sure that the specific reward and incentive programs that are being proposed do not conflict with other laws or regulations. Examples of other rules that can be directly related to incentive/reward schemes are procurement, travel, Fair Labor Standards Act, and tax withholding. These compliance issues surface most often when we are asked to review an agency's proposal for an innovative award scheme.