|
|
The Scorecard
Grading implementation of the PMA.
|
|
The Five Initatives
Updates on five aspects of the PMA.
|
|
Department Updates
Departments report on the PMA.
|
|
How They Did It
Stories about achieving breakthrough results in government.
|
|
Other Reforms
Additional management improvements.
|
|
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about the PMA.
|
|
STANDARD FOR EXECUTIVE EXCELLENCE
The major elements of this standard describe the fully
successful level of performance. Although each of these
performance elements is rated independently, they are
interrelated. Each element contributes to the executive's
overall performance and is designated as a critical element. The
second element, Results Driven, is the primary tool for
assessing the results of the executive's efforts. This element
encompasses the goals and means in the agency's Annual
Performance Plan as well as appropriate business/work plans for
which the executive is responsible.
While this Standard is designed to provide a uniform reference
point for the assessment of executive performance across an
organization, the applicability of each element and sub-element
of the Standard itself will vary from one executive to another,
based on the actual scope of the executive's position.
Raters should take this variability into account at the end of
the rating period. Similarly, the Standard contemplates the
development of annual work plan for the executive. Events and
circumstances can in intervene which require alterations in
plans, and work plans should be formally modified to reflect
changed circumstances. There may be occasions when this is not
possible or practical. Raters should take changed circumstances
into account at the end of the appraisal period.
In addition to organizational results, customer satisfaction and
employee perceptions will be taken into consideration in rating
the various performance elements. Formal surveys are one way to
obtain customer and employee feedback. Less formal indicators
include repeat customer business and level of business brought
in (for reimbursable functions), unsolicited compliments from
customers and employees; affirmative action reports; and
grievance and EEO findings; etc. A "fully successful"
performance standard is provided for each performance element.
Performance standard definitions for other levels are:
|
Outstanding:
|
Job performance consistently and significantly exceeds that expected as described in the performance standard at the Fully Successful level. The Senior Executive has demonstrated unusual initiative in achieving results. This rating represents a level of performance that is unusual and of such quality that it would normally occur among only a small percentage of executives.
|
|
Exceeds Fully Successful:
|
Job performance consistently exceeds that expected as described in the performance standard at the Fully Successful level.
|
|
Minimally Satisfactory:
|
Job performance was occasionally less than that expected in the Fully Successful performance standard.
|
|
Unsatisfactory:
|
Job performance was generally less than that expected in the Fully Successful performance standard.
|
SUMMARY RATING
A summary rating is derived from an assessment of the Executive's
overall performance as follows:
|
Outstanding (O)
|
The majority of elements are rated Outstanding, and must include an Outstanding rating for Results Driven. No element is rated below E.
|
|
Exceeds Fully Successful (E)
|
The majority of elements are rated at the E level or above. No element is rated below F.
|
|
Fully Successful (F)
|
All elements are rated at least F.
|
|
Minimally Satisfactory (M)
|
One or more elements are rated M.
|
|
Unsatisfactory (U)
|
One or more elements are rated U.
|
If the rating official believes that a higher or lower rating is
justified than that derived by the process above, specific
performance-related reasons should be noted on the appraisal
coversheet. Ratings may not be raised or lowered more than one
performance level.
An Unsatisfactory summary rating cannot be raised nor can a
Minimally Satisfactory rating be lowered to Unsatisfactory since
a rating of Unsatisfactory on a performance element is required.
OPM Form 1653
February 2002
|
|