Category Archives: Performance Management

The How and Why of an Effective Performance Improvement Plan

Posted on by
Reply

As explained in our [MSPB’s] 2009 report, Poor Performers and the Law, title 5 of the U.S. Code currently provides two avenues by which agencies can demote or remove poor performers. The first avenue is codified in Chapter 43, while the second is in Chapter 75. Chapter 43 requires that agencies offer assistance to employees in an attempt to improve their unacceptable performance prior to implementing a performance-based adverse action[1]. Chapter 75 does not require agencies to provide such assistance. However, under Chapter 75, an adverse action’s reasonableness depends, in part, on the extent to which the employee was on notice of the required behaviors[2]. Therefore, a performance improvement plan (PIP) and a reasonable period of time to improve under the plan is necessary under Chapter 43, and can be helpful under Chapter 75.

An effective PIP will typically: …..

To continue reading this article, click here.

Did any of this content surprise you? Have you seen it put into practice? What would you emphasize if you were advising a supervisor on the use of a performance improvement plan?

360-Degree Feedback: For Development or Evaluation? You Make the Call

Posted on by
Reply

360-degree feedback is a process in which an employee’s supervisor, peers, direct reports, and sometimes customers and suppliers, provide input about the employee’s work behaviors. The most common format is a questionnaire about the employee’s demonstration of critical competencies. Feedback is summarized for the employee in the form of both numerical ratings and narrative comments. The information provided by the raters is usually anonymous except for the feedback provided by the employee’s direct supervisor.

The application of 360° feedback can be divided into two broad categories: (1) employee development and (2) employee evaluation. Employee development applications include individual development planning, coaching and career counseling. The objective is to help the employee understand both strengths and developmental needs from the varying perspectives of the raters and provide an impetus to improve personal performance. Employee evaluation applications include performance appraisal, succession planning, and selection. The objective is to assess employees’ performance for annual appraisal or to select employees for jobs or special opportunities.

Organizations need to carefully consider their goals and organizational culture, as well as legal and ethical issues, before deciding how to apply 360° feedback. The considerations summarized below are based on recognized 360° research in organizations.

Employee Development Applications

• Raters are assured of anonymity. No records are kept of individual ratings. When raters believe they are anonymous, they provide more accurate ratings.

• Raters provide more candid feedback than for evaluation-type applications.

• Raters distinguish between different behaviors of the target employee, allowing the employee to better identify areas for development.

• Employees focus on the overall developmental value of the feedback rather than on numerical ratings.

• Participants are more comfortable with the process, more satisfied with it, and more trusting of their coworkers than when 360s are used for evaluation.

Employee Evaluation Applications

• When a 360 instrument is intended for performance appraisal or selection, the organization must be able to prove that the ratings are a valid and reliable indicator of the employee’s performance, i.e., that high 360 ratings correlate with demonstrated high performance and low 360 ratings correlate with demonstrated low performance.

• If 360 ratings are used to make personnel decisions, specific raters and their ratings must be identifiable in the event of an investigation or law suit.

• Raters for 360 evaluation applications tend to distinguish less among specific behaviors, using an overall impression to color responses.

• Research shows that raters tend to inflate their ratings for evaluation-type applications.

• Disgruntled raters may negatively distort ratings to “get back” at someone for real or imagined slights.

• Conscious or unconscious discrimination may occur based on personal prejudices of gender, race, or other personal characteristics not related to performance.

• Employees often focus more on which rater might have said what and on the numerical ratings rather than on the developmental value of the input.

• Evaluative applications can damage morale, teamwork and employee trust.

• If 360 feedback is used to appraise performance for supervisors and managers, they may avoid managing people appropriately due to concerns about obtaining favorable ratings from direct reports.

Development or Evaluation, But Not Both

The same 360 feedback process should not be used for both development and evaluation. The decision about how the feedback will be applied must be made when it is designed. The behaviors of raters and ratees differ with each application, and the basic premise of the ratings differs. For development, raters need to consider only the relative strengths and development needs of the individual employee. When a 360 tool is used for evaluation, raters need to differentiate among all the employees rated because decisions are made in which some employees receive “more “ of something based on the raters’ input, such as a higher appraisal rating, more pay or an opportunity. Because of these factors, organizations must be prepared to provide a strong foundation for the process before implementing 360 feedback, particularly when used as part of the formal evaluation process. It is especially critical that organizations clearly identify what they are trying to achieve. ¯

Reprinted from Issues of Merit, a publication of the Office of Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

Transforming the Organizational Culture to Focus on Performance

Posted on by
Reply

The personality of an organization can be changed through its pay system.

Each organization has its own unique personality and way of doing things. These shared norms are commonly known as the organization’s “culture.” Cultures tend to be remarkably enduring and serve to provide employees with guidance about what to expect when they come to work each day—for example, how communication flows through the organization or whether they should view their peers as collaborators or competitors. This guidance can also serve to promote the achievement of individual and organizational goals by identifying what types of behaviors are desired and how they will be rewarded.

In an ideal situation, employees join organizations with cultures well-suited to their values and needs. If their employer is not a perfect match, employees may be able to adapt to fit the culture. In contrast, changing organizational culture generally requires substantial time and effort due to the long-entrenched norms, behaviors, and traditions that must be changed to overcome organizational inertia.

Nevertheless, organizations can and do change their culture, particularly in response to external pressures from competitors or customers to improve efficiency or service quality. They may also need to drive cultural change following mergers or executive succession. Although these influences on culture have been studied primarily in the private sector, most of them are also relevant to the public sector. In particular, the Federal Government has faced increasing pressure in recent years to provide better services at lower costs, while experiencing unprecedented reorganizations and accompanying changes in leadership—all in the hopes of becoming more results-focused.

At the same time, agencies are increasingly being given the flexibilities to develop new employee compensation systems. These new systems can serve as powerful tools to align organizational culture with the focus on results. In particular, a pay for performance compensation strategy ties salary dollars directly to the achievement of organizational goals, rather than to the traditional basis of pay increases—years of satisfactory performance. As a result, pay for performance “raises the bar” by shifting the emphasis from “getting by” to distinguishing oneself as a top performer. Further, by aligning individual performance objectives with organizational goals, the agency coordinates the efforts of the workforce to accomplish mission-driven results.

However, these changes don’t occur overnight. Agencies must be prepared to invest substantial time, money, and effort into creating an organizational culture consistent with pay for performance. Agency leaders should demonstrate their commitment to a performance-based pay system and ensure that employees understand why it is necessary. Supervisors must be willing and able to distinguish between employees’ performance levels, reward them accordingly, and be held accountable if they don’t. Employees need to be involved in the development of the system to facilitate buy-in and after implementation as part of the on-going process of communicating with supervisors about performance goals and progress towards achieving them. In this manner, pay for performance can serve to align employee efforts with organizational goals, resulting in a culture that emphasizes performance. ¯

Reprinted from Issues of Merit, a publication of the Office of Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

The Crucial First Year in Federal Employment–A Time For New Approaches

Posted on by
Reply

In this fedsmith.com article, Robbie Kuenther discusses use of the probationary period to affirm the decision to hire since “…the selection process is fallible. The best resume and interview do not always predict the best person available for that position. Once we observe their interpersonal skills, willingness to accept direction (or work without direction), ability to manage job stress, etc. our impressions of that individual may change for the worse. That’s why management is given up to one year to finalize their initial decision to hire. Every day a probationer comes to work (or doesn’t), the decision to hire can be reaffirmed or reversed.”

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/1546/using-probationary-period-effectively.html

In your HR or supervisory career, have you seen probationary periods used effectively? Have you watched potentially good employees terminated or an agency saddled with a problem employee because of a supervisor’s inaction? Share your experiences with us here.

10 Reasons Supervisors Give for Not Trying to Resolve Employee Problems

Posted on by
Reply

As a federal supervisor, Personnel Officer for a federal agency, and ex-fed developing and delivering HR training for current federal employees, I have heard many supervisors bemoan how impossible they think it is to deal with problem employees, regardless of whether the difficulties result from performance and conduct. While I agree that dealing with difficult employees isn’t always easy–it does require some work and careful adherence to detail and rules/regulations–I completely disagree with the notion that it cannot be done or that the possibility of a not-completely-satisfactory end result makes the work involved not worth it.

In fact, I believe that the supervisor has a responsibility to deal with problem employees–a responsibility to the problem employee, to other successfully-performing employees in the unit, and to the taxpayer. Not dealing with a problem almost certainly causes morale problems. A lack of action implies to the problem employee that there is a positive aspect to not doing their job or disrupting the work unit, that the comfort of the status quo is more important than the temporary discomfort of dealing with a difficult situation. It causes satisfactory employees to question whether it is really all that important to meet the expectations established for their jobs. It shows excellent employees that the reward for good work is more and more work as they pick up the slack for problem employees. And your inaction impairs the unit’s ability to accomplish the goals for which it was established, cheating the taxpayer out of good service and good value for their money.

In the following article from fedsmith.com, Bob Gibson delineates 10 reasons he has found that supervisors give for not trying to resolve employee problems and sorts out the myths and facts behind those reasons. Read the article and then let us know what you think—-Is it worth the risk to resolve your employee problems? What have your experiences taught you? Do you have any advice to share?

www.fedsmith.com/article/2188/reasons-supervsiors-give-not-trying-resolve-employee.html

Improving Performance through Fair Treatment of Employees

Posted on by
Reply

 

So, what actions can agencies take to foster a fair environment in which employees can and want to do their best work? Here’s a brief overview of some of the necessary steps.

  1. Conduct a thorough workforce analysis. This analysis should identify workforce requirements, including identifying where representation lags behind the available workforce and possible barriers to a fully representative workforce.
  2.  Ensure that human resources policies and practices do not create barriers to merit-based selection, recognition, advancement, and retention. For example, agencies should use a balanced set of recruitment strategies and hiring authorities. Selection criteria should be clearly job-related, with assessment strategies that are well-designed and carefully implemented. Additionally, the diversity and depth of the resulting candidate pool should be examined at each stage of the process to identify any unintentional impacts.
  3. Select supervisors with care and assure that they exercise their authority in a fair and transparent manner. Agencies must recognize that the supervisor employee interface represents one of the most critical points at which employees can experience fair—or unfair—treatment. Therefore, supervisory selection and accountability are critical. Supervisors may also need training, as well as the time, to fairly and effectively manage their employees.
  4. Earn the confidence of employees through daily decisions and routine interactions. It isn’t sufficient for supervisors to feel that they are treating employees fairly. They must earn employee confidence through their actions—whether giving assignments, constructive feedback, training opportunities, performance ratings, awards, and pay raises. All workforce decisions should be based on merit factors—matching individual abilities and performance to organizational requirements. Relying upon less rigorous assessments that can’t hold up to external scrutiny has the potential to seriously undermine employee engagement and subsequently, organizational performance.
  5. Ensure employees have knowledge of and access to effectual redress procedures, such as grievance and EEO complaint processes. Although these procedures serve as a safety net to guard against misuse of authority or mistreatment of employees, agencies should work to avoid getting to this stage by maintaining high standards as discussed in the points above.

Reprinted from Issues of Merit, a publication of the Office of Policy and Evaluation , U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. More details can be found in the report, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Progress Made and Challenges Remaining, found at www.mspb.gov/studies.

What do you think? Are there other actions that agencies should take so that employees can do their best work?

Stay Interviews: Listen to Your Valued Employees So You Can Keep Them

Posted on by
Reply

It is critical that the information gleaned from stay interviews leads to visible action and isn’t just filed away.

Employee engagement and motivation are critical for work unit success and organizational mission accomplishment. Yet, it is not always obvious why employees are engaged or motivated or why they stay committed to their particular jobs and organizations. Similarly, it is not always apparent when or why employees are dissatisfied with their work, role, or work environment and are looking for employment elsewhere. One tool for obtaining such information—and becoming aware of opportunities for action—is stay interviews with employees.

In a stay interview, employees are asked to provide their candid perspectives on what is going well and what could be improved in their jobs and in the organization. Content areas could include the employees’ appraisal of their:

  • Work, role, and responsibilities;
  • Working conditions and flexibilities;
  • Feedback, review, and performance management practices;
  • Appreciation and recognition practices;
  • Growth and development opportunities;
  • Work unit or organizational culture;
  • Communication, interpersonal, and teamwork dynamics; and
  • Leadership.

Employees may also be asked to discuss their career aspirations and ways in which their current job or organization is or is not conducive to achieving them. Regardless of the questions or content area discussed, the key is to get honest feedback from employees about why they continue to stay in their jobs and with their organizations, instead of taking their knowledge, skills, capabilities, and career aspirations elsewhere.

Interviews are typically conducted between the employee and his or her manager. It must be emphasized to employees that their participation is voluntary; their views will be kept strictly confidential; and their views will not influence their performance appraisals in any way. An HR Specialist or individual other than the manager could conduct the interviews to ensure that employees are comfortable with candidly expressing their views. Trust is essential for stay interviews to have value.

While any employee can be interviewed, high-performing employees should be at the top of the list, along with those who have mission-critical skill sets or who fill unique roles in the organization. These individuals provide the foundation for mission success. Thus, awareness of the factors that keep them committed, engaged, and motivated in their jobs will help organizations enact supportive practices. Similarly, awareness of factors that could be improved gives organizations an opportunity to do so before critical staff members are tempted to take jobs elsewhere. Talented employees always have job options, even in a weak job market.

In addition to providing the organization with critical data for supporting and retaining current talent, stay interviews can provide essential information for recruiting new talent. The pros and cons learned from candid stay interviews can be invaluable for designing realistic job previews and vacancy announcements. Further, taking the time to solicit employees’ perspectives about their jobs and organization goes a long way towards conveying to them that the organization values their engagement. Employees appreciate knowing that their opinions matter.

Clearly, stay interviews can be a valuable tool for organizations. However, it is critical that the information gleaned from stay interviews leads to visible action and isn’t just filed away. This means taking steps to support the job-related, environmental, and organizational factors that keep employees committed, motivated, and engaged. This also means taking steps to remedy the factors that detract from employee morale. The overall goal is using the stay interview to identify strategies for making good employees… stay.

[Reprinted from Issues of Merit, February 2013, a publication of the Office of Policy and Evaluation, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.

What is your experience? Does your agency use similar interviews or employee conversations in its retention efforts? Do you believe that the author is correct in indicating that such interviews are valuable retention tools? What do you think is the key to retaining the best and brightest?

Expecting and Rewarding Excellent Performance

Posted on by
Reply

[The introduction and report excerpts below are from the Partnership for Public Service 2014 report, Building the Enterprise: A New Civil Service Framework.]

The way forward: A transformed civil service

A modernized civil service system should continue to be based on these long-held principles. It should have the consistent policies and procedures and level playing field that are characteristics of a single enterprise, but also be flexible and adaptive enough to accommodate the wide variety of agency missions, cultures and constituents.

The system should be designed to more easily attract, hire, promote and retain the best qualified employees, and place greater attention on the development of leaders. It should be based on state-of-the-art human capital practices and have a total compensation system that is occupation specific and market-sensitive. And it should have career paths that support progression and job mobility, and be designed to reward performance, not just time on the federal payroll.

Expecting and Rewarding Excellent Performance [report excerpt]

Do you believe a performance management system such as the one discussed in the report excerpt could work in your agency? Why or why not? What components would you add to (or subtract from) this system to make it work in your agency?