ePerformance: What We’ve Learned

1. ePerformance: What We’ve Learned Data collected and presented by AFGE Council 222 In preparation for national negotiations June 12-15, 2007

2. Presentation • Data Sources • Assessment of ePerformance: • Orientation and Training • Development of SMART standards • Use of HIHRTS • Compliance with SMART • Anticipated Application of SMART standards • Actual Application--Progress Reviews

3. Data Sources: AFGE Council 222 conducted two electronic surveys of all Bargaining Unit employees in CPD, Admin, FHEO, CIO, OCPO, GNMA, OCFO, and OHHLHC • February 2007, after implementation. 22% of employees surveyed responded. • June 2007, after Progress Reviews. During the two days the survey was available, 17% of employees responded.

4. Assessment of ePerformance: Orientationand Training • HUD’s promise: • “HUD will deliver a dynamic ePerformance learning tool . . ..” • “In addition to the web-based training module, HUD will provide classroom demonstrations for all employees.” • See p. 15, Performance Management: An Information Guidebook for HUD Employees, September 2006 (ePerformance Guidebook).

5. Orientation and Training (cont.) • What HUD delivered on its promises. • No hands-on training in the field reported. • 19% of respondents reported that they had not received any orientation or briefing by any means. • 13% of respondents reported that they had received training during the week before Christmas. • HUD had to extend the EPPES deadline to January 12, 2007.

6. Orientation and Training (cont.) • Model for Success Requires: ePerformance “only works if you – the employee – understand and actively participate in all stages of the process.” • See p. 3 ePerformance Guidebook

7. Orientation and Training (cont.) • How well did employees understand? • In February 2007, 30% of respondents reported that they did not understand ePerformance and the concept of SMART standards well. • In the same survey, 30% of respondents that received a briefing did not have an opportunity to ask questions and receive meaningful answers.

8. Assessment of ePerformance: Development of SMART Standards • Model for Success Requires: ePerformance “only works if you – the employee – understand and actively participate in all stages of the process.” • See p. 3 ePerformance Guidebook.

9. Development of SMART Standards (cont.) • To what extent were employees able to offer input into the creation of elements and standards at the draft stage? • 65% of respondents reported that they could not offer input into the creation of elements and standards before presented with a draft.

10. Development of SMART Standards (cont.) • To what extent did employees participate in the development of their final elements and standards? • 67% of respondents reported little or no involvement, as follows: • 46% reported that they had no involvement in the creation of their elements and standards for the current rating period. • 21% of respondents reported that they had minimal involvement in the creation of their elements and standards.

11. Development of SMART Standards (cont.) • What was the impact of employee input? • Only minimal changes were made in the elements and standards of the 45% of employees who sought changes.

12. Assessment of ePerformance: Use of HIHRTS • HIHRTS is: “an easy-to-use tool that guides you through the steps of the performance planning and review process, formalizes performance expectations and achievements, and provides the foundation for meaningful manager and employee interaction.” • See hud@work “FAQ’s for ePerformance, a feature of HIHRTS”

13. Use of HIHRTS (cont.) • HIHRTS as an easy-to-use tool • 52% of respondents reported they were not able to input comments about their elements and standards into HIHRTS because either they did not know how (37%) or they were unable (15%). • In June, (30%) of respondents reported that they were unable to input comments during their progress review.

14. Assessment of ePerformance: Compliance with SMART • Specific • In February 2007, 74% of respondents reported that their elements and standards are specific. • In June 2007, 68% of respondents found their elements and standards specific.

15. Compliance with SMART (cont.) • Measurable • “Just because some aspect of your performance can be measured does not necessarily mean that the measure will be useful to you. To maximize the value of performance measures, they must reflect accomplishments that are meaningful and important to you.” See p. 10, ePerformanceGuidebook.

16. Compliance with SMART (cont.) • Measurable (cont.) • In February, 68% of respondents reported that their elements and standards are measurable. In June, only 55% believed their elements and standards were measurable. • In February, only 24% indicated that their elements and standards measure things that are important to measure. In June, only 8% of respondents believed their elements and standards measure things that are important to measure

17. Compliance with SMART (cont.) • Attainable • In February and June, 52% of respondents did not consider their elements and standards attainable • In February and June, 53% of respondents reported that those elements and standards that are attainable, do not reflect things within the employee’s control.

18. Compliance with SMART (cont.) • Relevant • In February, 58% and in June, 60% of respondents reported that their elements and standards are relevant. • Time-bound • In February, 50% and in June, 54% of respondents reported that their elements and standards are time-bound.

19. Assessment of ePerformance: Anticipated Application of SMART • In February, 43% of respondents reported they were very concerned about their ability to succeed under their new elements and standards. 20% were concerned, and 24% were somewhat concerned. • In February, 43% of respondents reported that they believe the ePerformance system would be less fair and more subjective.

20. Assessment of ePerformance: Actual Application-Progress Reviews In June, employees were surveyed after their progress reviews. The goal was to investigate how the Progress Review process worked, and to determine if employee attitudes towards ePerformance had changed. The results . . .

21. Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.) • Self-Assessment • 60% of respondents reported providing a self assessments in HIHRTS. • 12% provided a self-assessment, but not in HIHRTS. • 23% of respondents were not asked to provide a self-assessment. • 20% of respondents that provided a self-assessment had one business day or less to complete their self-assessment (the Red Book states at least 3 days are required).

22. Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.) • Progress Review meetings with supervisors • 40% of respondents did not meet in private with their supervisors to discuss Progress Reviews. • Of these respondents, 47% stated that they were merely told their Progress Review was available in HIHRTS with no discussion about employee progress.

23. Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.) • Assessment of change in performance evaluation process • 14% stated the performance evaluation process improved under ePerformance. • 21% of respondents stated the performance evaluation process has gotten worse. • 24% reported no change, the process is still good. • 24% reported no change, it’s still mediocre. • 16% reported no change, it’s still poor.

24. Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.) • Change in rating under ePerformance • 52% of respondents believe that they will receive a lower rating during this ratings period under ePerformance. • 36% of respondents continue to be very concerned about their ability to succeed under ePerformance. 22% remain concerned and 23% remain somewhat concerned, for a total of 81% expressing some level of concern.

25. Actual Application-Progress Reviews (cont.) • Overall satisfaction with ePerformance process utilized in their office: • 66% of respondents are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the process; • Only 3% are very satisfied.