Performance Management Performance Management FAQs

An employee who meets the agency-established criteria for such a bonus, whose official duties do not include recruitment, and who is not involved in any way in the selection of the referred individual would be eligible for a referral bonus. Also, an employee cannot refer a relative, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 3110(a)(3).

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. Rating-based cash awards are based on the rating of record, which is the written justification for the award.

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

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.

Performance at the individual level means the accomplishment of outputs and work processes for which the employee can be held individually accountable. Because failure of a critical element can result in an employee's reduction in grade or removal, critical elements would measure those outputs/outcomes and processes over which the employee is expected or intended to have control and exercise authority.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

When the rating of record is completed at the end of the appraisal period, a summary level must be assigned.  A summary level can be determined at any time agencies deem appropriate and specify in their appraisal programs (e.g., performance rating, progress review).  However, the ways in which summary levels are applied (e.g., granting within-grade increases and additional service credit in a reduction in force) are always in the context of the rating of record.

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.

No. Only ratings given by Federal Government entities can be used and only when they meet the requirements for equivalent ratings of record as specified in the performance management regulations.

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.

No. In giving agencies some discretion on performance crediting, the reduction in force regulations make clear that any decisions must be uniformly and consistently applied throughout the competitive area. Since competitive areas normally also include non-bargaining unit employees, there is no obligation to bargain on otherwise negotiable proposals that are aimed at the entire competitive area. Management is not required to negotiate with the union the conditions of employment of non-bargaining unit employees.

OPM has concluded that cash surrogates are an appropriate option for delivering cash awards, subject to all the limitations and requirements that apply to cash awards. A current example of a cash surrogate is "gift cheque" purchased through a vendor and easily and widely redeemable for cash, not merchandise.

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

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