Performance Management Performance Management FAQs

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.

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

No. The only basis for granting additional service credit for reduction in force is a rating of record.

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, under current law, performance ratings must be a factor in the reduction in force process. Only under a demonstration project that waives pertinent law or regulation could an agency drop the use of performance in a reduction in force.

Agencies must look at the nature of the work done by various organizations and determine what length of time is appropriate as the basis for measuring employee performance.  Agencies are encouraged to designate a single appraisal period (i.e., 1 year) as the standard appraisal period throughout the agency, with the built-in flexibility to accommodate individual or mass transitions between programs.  Otherwise, an agency system must define any limits (maximum length, minimum length, or acceptable range) within which it will permit appraisal programs to select their appraisal periods.

Yes. OPM must approve any cash award over $10,000 up to $25,000. Awards over $25,000 must be submitted through OPM for the President's approval. The Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may approve awards up to $25,000.  (SES performance awards and Presidential rank awards for SES and SL/ST employees have their own requirements).

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

Yes.  Statute requires that employees be evaluated against their performance standards.

Non-critical elements are not required but, if used, they must be expressed as elemenst and standards, be included in the employee's performance plan, and be used in assigning a summary level for the rating of record. However, non-critical elements cannot be used as a basis for taking a performance-based action. Other features of non-critical elements:

• they cannot be used in two-level appraisal programs (i.e., pass/fail)
• they can be given more weight than critical elements when assigning a summary level above "Unacceptable" (Level 1)
• they must have a performance standard written for at least one level, the written standard need not describe the "Fully Successful" or equivalent level

No. Governmentwide regulations require a rating of record of at least Level 3 (Fully Successful or equivalent) as the basis for the acceptable level of competence determination. There is no provision to consider anything other than the rating of record.

No. The number of summary levels is an exercise of management rights and not subject to collective bargaining. However, where the agency system permits some flexibility in deciding about a program's pattern of summary levels, employee involvement could play an important role in program acceptance.

No, the agency may only vary credit if the competitive area includes employees with ratings of record being credited for this reduction in force that were received under more than one summary level pattern. If all ratings being credited were given under a single pattern, the agency must use the 12/16/20 system regardless of the pattern used.

The regulations specify that appraisal periods shall generally be designated so that employees are provided a rating of record annually.  Agencies may establish different appraisal cycles (starting and ending dates) for different employees under the same appraisal period.

An Unacceptable rating of record bars granting step increases, may result in a performance-based adverse action, and removes retention rights in a reduction in force.  For these reasons, there must be an extra measure of assurance that a Level 1 rating of record has been properly assigned.  The requirement for higher-level review of a rating of record that could have significant consequences for the employee is a prudent measure of protection for employees.

As a general principle, when an agency has discretion over a condition of employment of bargaining unit employees, and that discretion is not reserved to management by law, there is a duty to bargain on how the agency will exercise that discretion. Even when the decision is reserved to management, there is a duty to give notice to the union and, upon request, bargain on the impact and implementation of the otherwise protected decision.

Performance management regulations specifically address veterans seeking medical treatment. Agencies may not lower the rating of record or performance rating of a disabled veteran seeking medical treatment.

Yes, so long as the employees the agency excludes are covered by another performance appraisal system (unless the employees are in the excepted service and the agency has obtained, from OPM, a separate approval for their exclusion).

Yes. Under statute and the implementing regulations, such awards are subject to the OPM and Presidential approval, respectively. Note: The Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service only have to seek approval from OPM to grant awards over $25,000.