HomeNewsArticle Display

Civilian mock paypool results announced

HILL AIR FORCE BASE, Utah -- A mock pay pool exercise for the National Security Performance System here, in Aug. The exercise was designed to test the new NSPS rating and rewarding processes and procedures. Rating officials and managers from eleven Ogden Air Logistics Center pay pools participated. They utilized interim assessments completed last May, by both employees and supervisors. Performance results and contributions to the mission were compared to job objectives on individual performance plans, Department of Defense-wide thresholds, and any related feedback, to determine the recommended rating level, assignment of shares, and distribution of shares between salary, bonus or a combination of both.

The results from the exercise are summarized below. Overall, over 60 percent of the records reviewed would have resulted in an employee rating of "3". Almost 30 percent would have resulted in a "4" rating and less than 5 percent would have resulted in a rating of "5". The message the results present is "passing and a score of 81" under the legacy system is now considered a "level 3 rating or Valued Performer" under NSPS.

NSPS promotes a performance culture. To prepare employees for this concept and learn more about job objectives and writing self- assessments, go to the iSuccess computer-based training module at http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/isuccess .

Specific lessons learned in this exercise include:

· Employees need to take an active role in appraisal process--provide self assessments by Sept. 30 of what you actually accomplished over the year.
· Provide assessments in bullet format and address each objective in your performance plan.
· Write to a broad audience as reviewers come from various backgrounds--spell out acronyms and explain results or impact in clear and concise terms.
· Focus on results and their impact to the stated objective, organizational mission, or goal.
· Supervisors should begin their assessment of each job objective with a clear description of their recommended assessment (i.e. not rated, failed to meet, somewhat met, met or exceeded).
· Fully address employee assessment with more than concur or non-concur statements.
· Provide supporting and relative measurements which describe quality, quantity, timeliness-type metrics on how the employee exceeded expectations and results far superior to the applicable job objective(s).
· Provide descriptive rationale including behavioral impact for any contributing factor adjustments.
· Avoid over exaggerated statements if you want to be credible.
· Ensure the performance being written about was actually performed during the rating cycle.
· Supervisors and managers are rated in the same manner as employees. Their ratings may not be adjusted up or down based on the ratings their subordinates received.