Under the administration’s plan, appraisal systems would
include an unacceptable performance rating, a fully
successful rating and at least one level above that for
employees other than those in entry level of developmental
bands.
Pay determinations would be based on this “rating of
record,” as would awards, eligibility for promotion,
additional service credit in a reduction in force, or
other actions — but agencies would not be allowed to place
a quota or cap on summary rating levels.
The draft specifies that performance expectations
corresponding to agency missions, strategic goals, etc.,
be put in writing at the beginning of the appraisal
period.
Performance measures for supervisors and managers would
include planning, assessing, monitoring, developing,
correcting, rating, and rewarding subordinate employees’
performance.
However, some performance expectations would not need to
be in writing and could be “amplified through particular
work assignments or other instructions.”
According to the draft, supervisors would have to involve
employees in the development of performance expectations
as far as practicable, though management would have the
final say over that.
If a supervisor found an employee’s performance
unacceptable he or she could assign remedial training,
an improvement period, a reassignment, an oral warning,
a letter of counseling, a written reprimand, or an
adverse action.
Employees could still appeal adverse actions based on
unacceptable performance to the Merit Systems Protection
Board. The draft can be found at www.results.gov.
