Valuable lessons learned during NSPS mock pay pools

  • Published
  • By Kevin Gilmartin
  • ESC Public Affairs
Hanscom AFB, Mass. --  Will help ensure upcoming performance period closeout goes smoothly

Electronic Systems Center's recent round of National Security Personnel System mock pay pools yielded a number of lessons learned that will prove valuable as supervisors and employees prepare for the first performance period closeout, which begins Oct. 1.

At that time, employees will have the opportunity to offer assessments on how they have performed against their job objectives since NSPS was implemented for non-bargaining unit employees Jan. 21. Supervisors will then rate the employees' performance and pass those ratings on to a higher level reviewer. Following the higher level review, each of ESC's five wings as well as the Center Staff will conduct separate pay pools to determine the compensation each employee will receive based on their contribution to the unit's mission. These fiscal year '07 ratings will become effective January 1.

Starting in October, supervisors and employees will also begin writing job objectives for the next performance period.

Despite this being ESC's first attempt at conducting pay pools, the exercise went very smoothly, according to Bob Youtt, ESC's NSPS program manager.

In all, 721 ESC employees were processed during the mock pools, and were rated on a scale of one to five. The large majority of employees processed, 74 percent, received ratings of three, which translates to "valued performer," while 19 percent were rated at the four level, indicating "exceeds expectations," and two percent were rated as fives, or "role models." Only three percent were rated as twos, or "fair" performers, and less than one percent were rated as ones, or "unsuccessful."

"With this new rating system, people have to understand that a rating of three, or valued performer, is a really good rating," Mr. Youtt said.

"The most significant lesson we learned from the mock pay pools, and something we can't stress enough, is the importance of well-written, concise employee self appraisals," Mr. Youtt said. "This is everyone's opportunity to tell their boss how the work they accomplished directly contributed to the success of the organization. Strong self assessments that are clearly tied to the job objectives make it much easier for the supervisor to rate the employee, and they help the higher level reviewer quickly understand the impact of the work accomplished."

Mr. Youtt said that, since space is limited on the on-line Performance Appraisal Application, people should use bullet format, and clearly tie their assessments to each of their job objectives, using numbers that correspond to the appropriate objective. These and more tips on writing effective job objectives and self assessments can be found using the NSPS on-line "iSuccess" course available at http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/iSuccess/ .

Additionally, raters' assessments validate the employees' self assessments, so communication between supervisor and employee is critical. Raters should state up front whether they concur with the employee's assessment of how he or she performed against each objective. Raters should also use clear terms such as "met, did not meet, or exceeded" job objectives, and provide impact statements that show how or why that determination is correct.

"Members of one pay pool advised not to bury your overall assessment in the body of the bullet" said Mr. Youtt.

Pay pool members also felt that some job objectives were not written at the appropriate responsibility level, leaving the complexity of the position unclear.

"We have to be careful to not set the bar too high or too low when writing job objectives," Mr. Youtt said. "Also, job objectives must be within an employee's control, not something that is out of their hands."

For those functional employees who work in an ESC wing, for example a contracting specialist who works in the 551st Electronic Systems Wing, pay pools recommended job objectives be reviewed by both the functional and wing leadership.

Some of the pay pool lessons learned are relatively easy to implement across the Center, Mr. Youtt said. For example, each job objective should be numbered and titled, and raters should address each objective in order. Also, if you cut and paste into the PAA, be sure to review the text carefully to ensure there are no errors, he advised.

"These might seem simple, but believe it or not, many people did not number and title their objectives, and there were some typos that resulted from cutting and pasting," he said.

Getting the process right - from writing job objectives with clear mission impact to writing effective self assessments and ratings - is extremely important, Mr. Youtt said, because ultimately, it helps determine the amount of compensation an employee will receive.

The pay pools are funded by portions of the government wide annual pay increase along with funds that historically have been used for within-grade increases, quality step increases and promotions between General Schedule grades that no longer exist under NSPS, and annual bonuses.

The employee "shares" of the pay pool will be distributed to the employees with a "valued performer," "exceeds expectations" and "role model" ratings in the first full pay period 0f 2008. Employees with a "fair" and "unacceptable" rating will not receive any shares of the pay pool.

Employees rated a two will receive any salary increase due to rate range adjustments in their pay band or local market supplement but no shares. Employees rated three or higher will receive any rate range change along with the local market supplement. Additionally, employees rated a three will earn one to two shares of the performance award pool, those rated a four will earn three to four shares, and those at the role model, or five level, will receive five or six shares of the performance award pool.