Performance Appraisals / Performance Awards - FY 2007

In FY 2006, VA Puget Sound supervisors evaluated the performance and proficiency of their staff as above fully successful from 45% of the time for one group of employees to 100% of the time for another group of employees.  And yet, in FY 2007, VA Puget Sound struggled to meet many of the national performance measures; had unacceptable backlogs and wait times; and received a preliminary denial of accreditation from the Joint Commission.  What the supervisors measured and found as excellent performance/proficiency, does not seem to relate to the performance goals and priorities of the health care system as a whole, the VISN and the VHA.

In order to reduce rater variance, we wanted to provide this overview and definitions for your use as you evaluate your employees and do your own self-evaluation for FY 2007.

Overview:

1.  High performers are people who bring solutions.  They exhibit excellent technical and team skills.  They take ownership of and work toward accomplishment of organizational goals and priorities.

Middle performers are people who can identify problems, but may lack the experience or self-confidence to bring the solutions.  They are technically competent and contributing members of the team.

Low performers tend to blame others for problems.  Their work contribution is reluctant and/or intermittent.

2.  Appropriate recognition of high performance encourages high and middle performers.

Definitions:

Achievement Levels.  The overall level of accomplishment for each element as measured against the pre-established performance standards. Achievement levels are defined as follows:

     (1)  Exceptional.  All Fully Successful performance standards for the element are significantly surpassed.  This level is reserved for employees whose performance in the element far exceeds normal expectations and results in significant contributions to the organization.

     (2)  Fully Successful.  Performance standards for the particular element when taken as a whole are being met.  This level is a positive indication of employee performance and means the employee is effectively meeting performance demands for this component of the job.

     (3)  Less Than Fully Successful.  A level of performance that does not meet the standards established for the Fully Successful level.  Assignment of this achievement level means that performance of the element is not acceptable.

Summary Rating.  The record of the appraisal of each critical element and the assignment of an overall rating.  These ratings will be assigned in accordance with the following criteria:

(1)  Outstanding – an extraordinary level of individual achievement and major contribution to accomplishment of organizational goals and objectives, as evidenced by exceptional ratings in all performance elements.

            (2)  Excellent.  The achievement levels for all critical elements are designated as Exceptional.  Achievement levels for noncritical elements are designated as at least Fully Successful.  Some, but not all, noncritical elements may be designated as Exceptional.

             (3)  Fully Successful.  The achievement level for at least one critical element is designated as Fully Successful.  Achievement levels for other critical and noncritical elements are designated as at least Fully Successful or higher.

             (4)  Minimally Satisfactory.  The achievement levels for all critical elements are designated as at least Fully Successful.  However, the achievement level(s) for one (or more) noncritical element(s) is (are) designated as Less Than Fully Successful.

             (5)  Unsatisfactory.  The achievement level(s) for one (or more) critical elements is (are) designated as Less Than Fully Successful.

Awards

When arriving at a monetary award decision for an employee, please ensure that you are aware of recent prior awards to ensure the act or contribution being recognized is not duplicating any prior awards.    Guidelines for award amounts for this year’s performance awards are:

Cash Award:

Outstanding Rating: Supervisor may recommend up to $3,000,

Excellent Rating: Supervisor may recommend up to $2,000,

Fully Successful Rating:  Supervisor may recommend up to $1,000 for the attainment of an exceptional achievement level on at least one critical element.

Quality Step Increase:

Supervisor may recommend a QSI to recognize, on an individual basis, consistently high achievers by granting faster than normal step increases.  QSIs have extended benefits in that they affect future compensation and retirement benefits.  Therefore, a QSI should be reserved for only the highest levels of performance – those employees who are rated Outstanding and whose contribution are expected to continue at the Outstanding level.

Action:

1.  Look at the group of employees you are evaluating.  Which ones are the high performers?  Middle performers?  Low performers?

2.  Look at the tentative performance evaluation you have determined for each employee.  Does it appropriately recognize the employee’s performance in light of the overview and definitions above?

3.  Review your proposed ratings with your supervisor before you write them up or present them to your employees, so that your supervisor can assure rater consistency throughout the section/service.

4.  Considering awards already received during FY 2007, determine appropriate award recommendation for those employees under your supervision whose performance should be recognized by a performance award.  Appropriate recognition of high performance encourages high and middle performers.

FY 2008 Performance Standards

As we establish FY 2008 Performance Standards, we need to build on common performance measures, strategic goals and VHA, VISN and facility priorities and objectives.  We will be providing more information about that over the next few months.