1 / 26

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Oak Ridge Office

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Oak Ridge Office. Performance Management System for Non-Supervisory Employees End of First Rating Cycle Briefing – 9/30/06. Coverage:. DOE Non-Supervisory Employees in Competitive Service General Schedule and Excepted Service positions. 2006 End of Year Process.

sonya-welch
Download Presentation

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Oak Ridge Office

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Oak Ridge Office Performance Management System for Non-Supervisory Employees End of First Rating Cycle Briefing – 9/30/06

  2. Coverage: • DOE Non-Supervisory Employees in Competitive Service General Schedule and Excepted Service positions

  3. 2006 End of Year Process • September 30, 2006 – End of rating cycle • Rating Period 1/01/06 to 9/30/06 for most employees • October 23, 2006 – Deadline for finalizing performance ratings (unless extended to meet minimum 90 days) • October 27, 2006 – Deadline for submitting completed appraisals to HR • Minimum appraisal period - 90 calendar days.

  4. 2006 End of Year Processcont • Can only be extended up to 45 days • If unable to meet 90 days with a 45 day extension – employee gets assumed ME • October 30, 2006 – Deadline for new performance plans to be in place for FY 2007 • December 31, 2006 – Deadline for payment of FY 2006 performance awards

  5. Key Features • Four-Level Performance Appraisal System: • Significantly Exceeds Expectations • Meets Expectations • Needs Improvement • Fails to Meet Expectations • Standards Written at the “Meets Expectations” Level

  6. Key Features (cont.) • Two to Five Critical Elements assigned variable weights to reflect their relative degree of importance: 1. Specific Job Responsibilities • One – Four Critical Elements • ORO – Mandatory Four Elements • Elements weighted 30, 30, 15, & 15 (ORO)

  7. Key Features (cont.) 2. Employee Attributes – Critical Element • Five Attributes • Attribute 1 – Responsibility and Accountability • Attribute 2 – Communication • Attribute 3 – Teamwork • Attribute 4 – Innovation/Quality Improvements • Attribute 5 – Customer Service • All Attributes weighted at 2 points (ORO)

  8. ORO Elements and Weights for Non-supervisory Employees • 4 Job-Specific Elements • Weights: 30, 30, 15, & 15 • Employee Attributes • Weights: All weighted at 2 points

  9. Employee Responsibilities for Appraisal • Reporting on the status of assignments during the year, including any problems which may prevent their successful completion • Maintaining records on work outputs for use during progress reviews and appraisal

  10. Rating/Reviewing Official Responsibilities • Provide subordinates opportunity for input to rating • Coordinate rating with reviewing official, other management, and HR as needed • Ratings MUST be concurred with by the reviewing official prior to discussion with employee • Conduct an appraisal meeting/discussion with the employee to provide the performance appraisal • Assure that the organization’s performance ratings correspond to organizational productivity or effectiveness

  11. DERIVING FINAL RATINGS

  12. Assigning Weights to Critical Elements • Total weight assigned to all critical elements must equal 100 by using the following proportions: • Specific Job Responsibilities Critical Elements = 90 • Employee Attributes Critical Element = 10

  13. Weights for Critical Elements • Weights were initially assigned during the plan development stage. • Weights may be adjusted, along with other related factors, during the progress review stage, consistent with Mgmt policy. • Weights may need to be re-distributed for the final performance rating if no opportunity to perform under one or more elements.

  14. Weights for Critical Elements (cont) • Coordinate with HR before adjusting weights. • Weight for “unused” job specific element will be distributed to other job specific elements. • Weights for Attributes should not be redistributed.

  15. Computing the Summary Performance Rating • Each Element has a numerical weighting • Each rating level has an assigned point value • Multiplying these gives score for each element • Similar “sub” process for Attributes • Add resulting #s to get a total • Total score dictates summary rating (unless an element was rated FME)

  16. Computing the Summary Performance Rating (cont) • Element and Attribute Rating Levels and Assigned Point Values: • Significantly Exceeds Expectations (SE) = 1 point • Meets Expectations (ME) = .5 point • Needs Improvement (NI) = 0 points • Fails to Meet Expectations (FME) = Results in a Summary Rating of FME

  17. Computing the Summary Performance Rating (cont.) Rating Levels: Point Ranges SE 80 - 100 ME 50 - 79 NI 49 and below FME any score with at least 1 critical element rated FME

  18. Computing Summary Performance Ratings Example #1-a Job Specific Critical ElementRatingWeightPtsScore Recruitment SE 30 1 30 Classification ME 30 .5 15 E/LMR SE 15 1 15 HR E-Systems ME 15 .5 7.5

  19. Computing Attribute Ratings Scores Example #1-b Employee Attributes Element AttributeRatingWeightPtsScore Resp & Acc’t SE 2 1 2 Communication SE 2 1 2 Teamwork ME 2 .5 1 Innov/ Qual Imp. ME 2 .5 1 Cust Svc ME 2 .5 1 Totals 10 7pts

  20. Computing Summary Performance Ratings Example #1-c Critical ElementRatingWeightPtsScore Recruitment SE 30 1 30 Classification ME 30 .5 15 E/LMR SE 15 1 15 HR E-Systems ME 15 .5 7.5 Attributes 10 7 Totals 100 74.5pts

  21. Overall Performance Ratings Rating of 74.5 = 75 = ME (Ratings are rounded up) Rating Levels: Point Ranges SE 80 - 100 ME 50 - 79 NI 49 and below FME any score with at least 1 critical element rated FME

  22. Performance Awards Eligibility System Provisions • Mandatory Awards: SE • Discretionary Awards: ME • No Awards: NI or FME ORO Policy • No Performance awards below SE • ME will still be eligible for Special Act Awards

  23. Performance Award Amounts • ORO Policy on awards to employees rated Significantly Exceeds Expectations: • SE/95-100 pts 5% • SE/80-94 pts 3% • ME: Eligible for Special Act Award • Maximum Performance Award approved locally -- $7,500

  24. Timetable • September 30, 2006 – End of first rating cycle • October 23, 2006 – Deadline for finalizing performance ratings • October 27, 2006 – Deadline for submitting completed appraisals to HR • December 31, 2006 – Deadline for payment of FY 2006 performance awards

  25. If you have any questions about this new performance management system, please contact your assigned Human Resources Specialist for assistance.

  26. HR Assigned Specialists Office of Manager Carol Aytes – 576-9586 Public Affairs Office Carol Aytes – 576-9586 Diversity Programs Carol Aytes – 576-9586 Partnerships & Program Development Phil Barker – 574-2636 Office of Chief Counsel Phil Barker – 574-2636 AM Security & Emergency Management Edward Dunbar – 576-0670 Office of Nuclear Fuel Supply Edward Dunbar – 576-0670 AM Administration Brad Thompson – 576-4496 AM Environmental Management Jill Stephenson – 576-0677 Office of Chief Financial Officer Phil Barker – 574-2636 AM Science Phil Barker – 574-2636 AM Environment, Safety & Health Carol Aytes – 576-9586 OSTI Adolphus Brown – 576-4757 PNSO Adolphus Brown – 576-4757 TJSO Adolphus Brown – 576-4757

More Related