OPM: Not Every Senior Executive Is Outstanding

The Office of Personnel Management is urging federal agencies to make more meaningful distinctions in performance ratings and bonuses for senior executives in 2016, according to a memo from Acting Director Beth Cobert.

“More is required to meet the highest performance level (i.e., outstanding) in comparison to the standards set for the next level (e.g., exceeds fully successful level), and so on for each rating level,” said the performance management guidance to agencies that OPM released on Jan. 12. “These distinctions among standards for various performance levels during the establishment of the performance plan ensures that the SES member and his or her rating official are aware of the standards upon which performance ratings will be based.”

In other words, not every employee is outstanding, and for those who are, managers need to provide robust documentation for why. Also, no one should be surprised about their performance rating.

The guidance also reminded agencies that each senior executive’s performance plan “must contain an agency-specific performance requirement in the ‘leading people’ critical element that holds them responsible for improving employee engagement within their organization, and for creating inclusive work environments.”

While OPM’s performance management guidance is geared to all federal employees, the memo emphasized policies and goals affecting members of the Senior Executive Service, senior-level leaders (SL), and those who are part of the scientific and professional (ST) corps. OPM reminded agencies that SES performance awards are 5 percent to 20 percent of the SESer’s base salary; for those in the SL/ST category, bonuses are limited to 10 percent of the employee’s basic rate of pay (agency heads have to sign off on an award that is more than 10 percent up to 20 percent). Agencies also have to be mindful not to go over the aggregate spending cap on executive performance awards. An executive order issued at the end of 2015 raised that cap from 4.8 percent cap to 7.5 percent.

A 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office found that about 85 percent of career senior executives received “outstanding” or “exceeds fully successful” ratings in their performance reviews between fiscal years 2010 and 2013, at the same time that agencies made smaller distinctions in the amount of individual bonuses. That has created a system where nearly everyone is considered outstanding, and truly exceptional senior executives are treated similarly to their above-average peers when it comes to performance ratings and awards, GAO concluded. Agency officials at that time offered several reasons for this trend, including the belief that the highest performance ratings were justified for many senior executives (after all, this is the top cadre of career officials) to the perception that a “fully successful” rating is considered mediocre among employees, despite that not actually being true. 

“Quotas for levels of performance are not permissible,” the latest OPM guidance said. “The ability to demonstrate meaningful distinctions in ratings will depend on the clarity with which rating levels above fully successful are defined by the agency.”

Cobert encouraged agencies to “embrace” the philosophy of “performance management plus,” where employee engagement is the “plus.” Part of that management philosophy involves “continuous engagement” between employees and their bosses throughout the performance appraisal period so everyone is on the same page when it comes to expectations and goals. Staying in regular touch, clearly articulating priorities, and providing coaching are what managers should be doing as a matter of course, Cobert said.

Cobert also doubled down on the importance of official performance appraisals, despite the recent trend among some companies to scrap them. “While some non-federal organizations have recently received attention for taking steps to eliminate the use of annual performance evaluations, the federal government remains committed to including such annual evaluations,” Cobert wrote. “Apart from the fact that they are required by law, we believe they play a role in helping to deliver good performance management and accountability to the public.” 

(Image via TarikVision / Shutterstock.com)