Resources

• HB104 (2022) Performance Management Online Training (link to Learning Portal)*

• Performance Management Training Outline (slide deck)

• Best Practices Refresh (document)

• Written Policy Sample (annotated document)

• Quarterly Evaluations Options in UPM (video)

• Off the Shelf Playlist (webinars focused on performance management)

• A.P.P.L.E. Training (optional advanced performance management training)

*DHRM-provided training. Check with your agency HR office to see if this fulfills the requirements for your agency.

Quarterly Reviews 

For most agencies the performance plan will continue to function as an annual plan. The written quarterly reviews will be added as notes or attachments to the annual plan each quarter.

One of the requirements of the new law is that supervisors will conduct quarterly written performance reviews as part of an annual performance plan. For most agencies this will mean a formal meeting between the employee and supervisor. This meeting is a discussion clearly stating the employee's progress toward meeting expectations. A written note will then be added to the employee's performance plan stating whether or not the employee is on track to meet performance standards and behavioral expectations.

Goals vs. Standards vs. Expectations

HB104 continues to require that state employees have an annual performance plan on file. This plan will contain goals with specific performance standards and behavioral expectations laid out clearly. The following definitions differentiate these terms:

• Performance Standards: Standards describe the conditions that must exist for the performance objective to be rated satisfactory. A standard focuses on task completion. It is specifically tied to duties and responsibilities. A standard establishes a baseline for successful performance that can and should be able to be surpassed. It may be expressed in terms of quantity, quality, time, cost, effect, or method of doing.  

• Performance Goals: Goals are measures that require an employee to surpass the baseline standard. They can be expressed in similar language to standards, but should require some level of stretch to achieve. Achieving standards equals successful performance while achieving ambitious goals exceeds standards. Therefore, goal measures may be tied to ratings that exceed successful ratings.    

• Behavioral Expectations: Behavior is the day-to-day manner of performance with which people produce results. It relates closely to the process side of work. For example, speed and accuracy may be valued and measured, but there is likely a behavioral expectation that the employee act within agency policy, maintain security measures and collaborate with colleagues. 

Rating Scales

Most agencies plan to employ a three-tiered rating scale similar to this:

• Does Not Meet Expectations

• Meets Expectations

• Exceeds Expectations

A few agencies are planning to expand on the three-tiered scale with one more categories similar to this: 

• Does Not Meet Expectations

• Meets Expectations

• Exceeds Expectations

• Set New Standard

Funding

Funding for pay for performance will work similarly to how annual COLAs awarded by the legislature have worked. Every year, DHRM evaluates the job market and inflation rates and makes recommendations to the governor for the annual budget. These recommendations include funding requirements in all aspects of compensation, including pay for performance. To maintain integrity and consistency, DHRM will continue to include funding recommendations for the state's entire workforce each year to fund pay for performance. Other incentives and administrative salary increases are not changing. 

Calculating Rewards

Agencies will develop a process for calibrating performance rewards based on the funding provided by the legislature. Generally speaking, employees not meeting expectations will not be rewarded, employees meeting expectations will be rewarded, and employees exceeding expectations will also be rewarded at a higher rate than those who met expectations. For agencies using 4 or more ratings, the pattern continues. The higher the rating the higher the reward. 

This process will be calibrated for the entire agency, and not by work unit, but to illustrate the process, we've created the snapshot dashboard below. Here you will see an example of how a 12-person team might distribute a 2.5% Pay for Performance system. The tabs at the bottom will allow you to look at 3-tier, 4-tier, or 5-tier versions of the distribution. 

This sheet is only an example and should not be considered authoritative. If you'd like to create a copy of the sheet to use for calibration for your agency click here.