I am the Union representative for the Performance Management Incentive Plan (PMIP) Committee and this post is a review of what the Committee has been up to for the month of October.
Over the past few weeks the PMIP Committee has been meeting to discuss how to improve the PMIP Award process. We met last week to finalize our DRAFT proposal to Management Team and the Director. The Committee has been given a very tight timeline to turn around these recommendations with the Department's intention of implementation by the end of October.
Last week I solicited feedback from Union represented staff about the recommendations that the Committee is making. Both a meeting was provided and an email request went out to Commerce staff email addresses. Through this feedback process it was requested that more time be provided for review of the recommendations and to provide feedback. I made a request for more time of the Committee Chair (Jan Marie Ferrell) and that request was denied. Therefore, the recommendations from the Committee with the feedback from Union represented staff that was provided as of Thursday 10/21/10 will go forward to Management team.
Below is the text of the Director's original email that put the Committee into action, the DRAFT recommendations that the Committee has put forward, and the feedback from Union represented staff about those recommendations.
Thank you to all that provided feedback. Stay tuned for further information as the PMIP Award process is revised.
Tanya (tanya.mercier@commerce.wa.gov)
_________________________________________________
From: "Weed, Rogers (COM)"
To: "COM DL ALL COMMERCE"
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:07:36 -0700
Subject: PMIP Update
Commerce,
As you all know, we’ve been doing a management team review of your survey comments about the performance management incentive plan (PMIP). We prefaced our review on the strong belief that the program is a valued reward plan – we know many people worked hard to construct this program and earn approval from the Department of Personnel. Our program is a rare performance incentive that sets us apart from the vast majority of state agencies. We also acknowledge that, to achieve its potential and hold genuine value, the program needsimprovement. Management team heard from you that you generally agree with that premise and we are committed to make the effort needed to improve on this important incentive program.
Below we outline the categories of feedback we got from the survey and our preliminary thinking on how we might move forward. We will take this initial thinking on changes to leadership team on October 4 to get their thoughts and comments. Following that review, we will likely call again on the performance management confirmation team that helped design and present the program to DOP two years ago, to evaluate proposed changes and develop final recommendations that we will share with you. Our goal is to complete this process by the end of October so that we have roughly 2/3 of the year to operate under the new program and with a more consistent view of SuccessFactors.
Here are some of the improvements we are considering:
TRAINING:
We offered four trainings, open to both employees and supervisors, in the weeks preceding the end of this year’s review period. We also offered several trainings throughout the review period. Attendance was very light. In fact, only one employee attended. As always, we could have been more proactive in advertising the training to all staff, and given the concerns about this year’s process, we should consider strongly encouraging all of our supervisors to attend. We plan to offer more training sessions this year and to make sure that each training covers both our SuccessFactors evaluation tool and process and the required PMIP criteria.
COMMITTEES:
This was the biggest area of concern in the feedback you provided us. We could shift our thinking on this requirement to allow for a broader range of internal or external agency service as agreed between a supervisor and employee. We could accept supervisory signature as evidence of compliance. We will contact SuccessFactors to see if we can make it a review form field, so that the signature can be completed electronically. This may or may not be possible—our subscription to this software does not allow for full customization.
APPEALS/REVIEW:
The criteria for the merit-level award were designed to be objective. The first year of implementation, we chose not to strictly enforce the criteria and to reinforce the expectations for the following year. This year we did strictly enforce the criteria, which needed to happen to fully implement our plan. However, we failed to adequately communicate about that shift. We could add a condensed appeal process—perhaps an e-appeal to the director.
We could also include a seven-day grace period for review and corrections. This would allow division supervisors and approvers to thoroughly check their review and nomination forms for all required elements.
GOAL CHANGES:
SuccessFactors allows for goal adjustment for a reason--because stuff changes during a review period. Many supervisors and employees are happy with this feature. For folks who wish to retain documentation, hard copies can be printed at any time during the review period, and if desired submitted for retention in the personnel file. For employees and supervisors who wish to retain uncompleted items, we could allow assistant directors to determine if employees substantially met the spirit or intent of the their development plan, while perhaps not completing all specific items.
INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
We can certainly increase emphasis on IDP completion in all training. We can also send out additional reminders to everyone to pay attention to noting completion when reviews are conducted. We will check with SuccessFactors to see if we can include a reminder screen and improve the clarity of the form fields. This may or may not be possible—our subscription to this software does not allow for full customization.
CONSISTENCY:
This is a tough area, but a very common complaint—one we are unlikely to ever fully address with the subjective element of performance evaluation systems. We do experience great disparity in supervisory approaches. Management team and leadership team will review the ratings of each of our supervisors using the SuccessFactors reports function. We could also encourage division management team meetings with all supervisors well before the conclusion of the review period. This would allow them to discuss their preliminary thinking and ratings and baseline as a group. Leadership Team can follow-up to ensure more consistency at the agency level.
360 DEGREE FEEDBACK:
Our SuccessFactors software includes a 360 degree review tool that some are already using. We will be encouraging broader use.
I encourage each of you to let your manager and Leadership Team members know what you think of these starting ideas. Otherwise, we will be back to you with more information as we work our way through the process of finalizing our thinking and implementing.
Thanks for your patience as we work to get this right.
Rogers
DRAFT Recommendations from the PMIP Committee
TRAINING
1 . Human Resources will offer mandatory training on the mechanics of SuccessFactors and
PMIP, and how they work together in terms of Performance Management. Training will
address:
A. The significance of our Performance Management Confirmation and why the
Director and management team have elected to continue its use;
B. What performance management is, what a successful organization using
performance management looks like, and why it is critical that we continue to
strive to infuse performance management culture within Commerce;
C. Goal and Individual Development Plan creation and the ins and outs of
successfully using them, including SMART criteria;
D. Each employee’s responsibility for his/her own evaluation; and
E. An explanation of the SuccessFactors roles and process to ensure employees and
their supervisors work together to ensure that all sections of the SuccessFactors
form are accurate and completed.
2 . Human Resources will offer optional workshops to assist staff in communicating better
with their supervisors about SuccessFactors and PMIP so they can be more active
participants in the evaluation process to ensure their PDPs accurately reflect their work,
their personal goals and the skills they believe they need to improve.
This training will also address assertiveness and listening skills.
3 . Human Resources will maintain and update a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page
on the intranet. This document will highlight the technical details that are important
to having a complete and accurately completed PDP and PMIP nomination form,
including “pot holes” to be avoided.
4 . Human Resources will aggressively pursue opportunities to discuss the performance
management throughout the agency at unit and division meetings, in addition to
offering stand-alone trainings. Human Resources will also work with ADs to provide
training to entire divisions to ensure vertical and horizontal consistency of information
flow.
INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS
1. Individual Development Plans will be jointly developed by the employee and supervisor.
2. To be considered for a PMIP award, each employee must have at least one IDP goal and
all IDP goals must be completed (not documented as postponed due to lack of resource,
etc.) This does not preclude the employee and supervisor from editing or removing IDP
goals during the evaluation period.
3. When and if possible, the SuccessFactors system will be enhanced to prevent a PDP
form from moving forward to signature without indication of completion of each IDP
goal.
CONSISTENCY
1. As mentioned previously, basic training will be mandatory for supervisors and
employees.
process to bring greater consistency to our performance appraisals across managers.
Calibration meetings will include supervisors and managers responsible for conducting
performance appraisals and the executive(s) to whom they report, and provide a forum
for discussions about individual employees' performances with the goal of making
sure managers apply similar standards for all employees. These meetings will include
discussion of each employee's overall performance rating and the supervisor's reasons
for that rating.
3. We will continue to encourage supervisors and employees to check-in throughout the
evaluation process and to specifically discuss the criteria for meeting or exceeding
performance competencies and goals so employees have an idea where they stand
throughout the review period.
4. The Director will send a message reaffirming Commerce’s values related to performance
management.
REVIEW
1. Time will be provided in the process for Division Directors (or their designees) to
perform a thorough review of PMIP nominations. According to the PMIP Policy Roles
and Responsibilities:
“Division Directors are responsible for screening nominations for performance
incentive awards against established criteria and forwarding recommendations to
the Human Resource Manager for processing” and the “HR Manager is responsible
for conducting a systemic review of performance plans and evaluations for quality
and for providing feedback to each division Division Director.”
2. The PMIP nomination form will include a signature line for each Division Director to
indicate that a review has been completed.
APPEALS
1. At the conclusion of the PMIP nomination process, an employee may appeal a merit
award decision if denied by either the Division Director or Human Resources. This
process will begin with the employee bringing the appeal to the Division Director and
providing any needed documentation to support their appeal. If the Division Director
finds the appeal to have merit, he or she will forward a recommendation to the Agency
Director, who would make the final decision regarding the award.
COMMITTEES
1. We will expand the definition of what qualifies to meet the threshold requirement for
committee participation to include active participation on one of the following work-
related groups or activities:
A. A chartered Commerce committee;
B. State or Federal Interagency committee, workgroup;
C. Governor or Director appointed council, committee or taskforce
D. Commerce-sponsored or coordinated Community Service Project which benefits
the community, enhances the relationship between Commerce and stakeholders
E. Professional, occupational, or industry organizations
2. Each supervisor will be responsible for approving the work-related committee
participation. The PMIP nomination form will include a signature line for the supervisor
to certify that the employee has met expectations regarding work-related committee
participation.
GOAL CHANGES
1. Goals will remain as flexible as possible:
A. During any one year review cycle goals can change and we want to be able to
remove goals that are no longer valid and replace with current goals.
B. As the Department of Commerce keeps evolving and we find ourselves doing
more with less employees’ assignments may change as well and we want to
capture and measure those changes throughout the year.
As goals evolve, supervisors and employees will discuss changes to the PDP, which may
include:
A. Removing (or adding) a goal(s)
B. Changing the weight of a goal
C. Rating a goal that may remain incomplete
3. For employees wishing to retain original goals as documentation of the changes to their
assignments:
A. A hard copy document may be printed at any time during the review cycle and if
desired submitted for retention in the personnel file.
B. Comments may be documented in SuccessFactors about the details regarding
changes in goals.
360 DEGREE EVALUATIONS
1. We will require a 360-degree review for each supervisor at least every four years.
Human Resources will work with each assistant director to ensure that the 360 degree
respondents reasonably reflect the respective peer and subordinate groups. Human
Resources will develop a review cycle that will ensure supervisors are on a four-year
rotation schedule.
Union Represented Staff Feedback
Training
arranging the mtg.”
skillful.
“Is the incentive program on a curve or is it an absolute standard? That is, can only 10 % of employees
get an A or can everyone who earns it get an “A”? This needs to be made clear.”
Individual Development Plans
Consistency
last year, a boat load of apps were not turned in when submitted, in my unit. I never knew if mine was
submitted or not…”
“I think a union rep should be invited to attend [the calibration meetings] as a process observer for
feedback.”
“Ensure equal treatment across the Department”
“Develop a set of guidelines that supervisors/managers should use that apply to all staff when rating
work performance.”
“The burden on performance evaluation MUST BE on the supervisor to have clear goals, and those
goals must be good and useful for the enterprise. The emphasis in this program should be on training
supervisors.”
“What does calibration mean?”
“’Calibration’ should be consistent across the department. Employees need to know what standard they
are being held to. Words are by nature slippery, so this is a tough proposition, but it needs to be done.”
A systematic review of the Performance Management system should be conducted at least every two
years. Is the system working effectively, is the incentive plan doing what we want it to do, are there any
unintended consequences that need to be reviewed and revised, do staff support the incentive plan.
Review
has handled the form and each reviewer will be given a very specific timeframe in which to
review the form before passing it on. This step is meant to prevent the inadvertent loss of a
form or from being held up on someone’s desk.”
“If a nomination form needs to be submitted to OFM after the main batch of forms have
it. [It may be helpful to have a meeting with OFM regarding situations like this and include all
Division Directors in that meeting or in the results of that meeting.]”
“Use a checklist to ensure that the PMIP nomination form does not get lost in the process.”
Once the review period in Success Factors has been complete, have HR provide a list of all eligible
PMIP award candidates to each AD so that they know who’s packet of information to be expecting. If a
person’s nomination information does not find its way to the AD they will know to inquire as to where
the information is. This will help keep nomination packets from going missing and help supervisors be
held accountable to nominating their staff that are eligible.
Appeals
route. It also makes it sound like if the AD doesn’t think the appeal has merit that the appellant is out
of luck.” “[I]n most [environments] a person can appeal to higher authority. An AD is not the highest
authority. Ordinarily an employee can appeal up the chain to the ED and often to the board if there is
one.”
Committees
in order to get an award. Even with the broader definition, it still doesn’t work well. Some staff are
required to participate as part of their regular job, and some need to participate on top of their regular
job which is not very equitable. Those in the later pool, have to then choose between attending a
committee meeting not really related to their job here in Olympia or being out in the field doing their
job and working with clients – if they choose working with their clients they get dinged for missing
meetings. My suggestion is to make committee participation one of the success factors items just as
other goals/activities are and make it a percentage of the total. This way if a person were to rank high
enough on other goals/activities and didn’t serve on a committee (or they missed too many meetings),
they might still be eligible if they ranked high enough in other areas. “
Goal Changes
that there really are good reasons for not completing them—two big reasons that come immediately to
my mind are a) lack of resources, and b) lack of time due to higher priority items.
While I understand that a supervisor and staff member can agree to pull an individual goal out of the
employee’s PDP, the way it is set up seems not to support creative thinking. For instance, I had a goal
that I wanted to research other fund sources for CSBG last year (e.g. contact Evergreen and find out
how they fund their independent foundation, which raises funds to support the College), but because of
ARRA, I just couldn’t get to it.
This is an example of an idea that I don’t want to let loose of, but in this time of downsizing, and
increased workload, I didn’t get to it, forgot to remove it, and so was not considered for an award—and I
feel like I worked harder this past year than I’ve ever worked!
I’d like to see a way to capture good, innovative ideas and goals like this without having to delete them
if a person doesn’t get to them for whatever reason—sometimes they are the “gravy” ideas that could
really bear fruit.”
360 Degree Review
supervisor and Commerce could lose good workers during that time due to frustrations with their
supervisors. If Rogers is serious about holding managers accountable, this item should be changed.”
“Four years is too long! At the very least 2!!!! Really this has to change.”
“2 year cycle for a 360 review.”
“Supervisors should be evaluated on their ability to manage their employees in a way that leads to a
reasonable percentage of [their staff] receiving incentive awards
two years would be better. Four years is a very long time for an employee to report to an ineffective
“I suggest conducting the 360 evaluations of supervisors more frequently than every four years. Every
“My only concern about making it mandatory to complete all goals before you can receive an award is
“My one big concern continues to be that a person MUST serve on a Committee (however it’s defined)
“It states that an appeal can start with either HR or the AD but doesn’t say anything about taking the HR
been submitted, there should be no hesitancy on the part of the Division Director to submit
“The PMIP nomination form [should] include a mechanism such as check boxes, to show who
“One change I would like to see is some form of acknowledgement of receipt of the application, because
No feedback provided
A performance management system should focus on helping us to do our jobs better and be more
“I think unit MDs should be required to host HR one time a year in a unit mtg and be accountable to
and is relevant to Commerce’s goals and mission; and/or
2. Calibration will become a fundamental part of the performance management
No comments:
Post a Comment