HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaawua0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCOMENZ RESUMEB
051514 - [B0685600]
Federal Employee Performance Rating Systems Need Fundamental
Chanqes. FPCO-77-80; B-150411. March 3, 1978. 53 pp. + 9
appendices (89 pp.).
Report to the Congress; by Elmer a. Staats, Comptroller General.
Issue Area: Personnel Management and Compensation (300);
Personnel management and Compensation: Inploye Conflicts of
Interest (301).
Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div.
Budget Function: GeLeral Government: Central Personnel
Management (80'! .
Orqanization ConcErned: Civil Service Commission; Departmont of
the Navy; Department of Agriculture; Department of Health,
Education, and Velfaze; Department of Transportation;
General Services Administration.
Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Post OffLce and
Civl.1 Service; Senate Comittee ca Governmental Jffairs.
Authority: Pertornance Rating Act of 1950 (5 0.s.C. 'l3).
Chisholm v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 8 (196C). F.P.R. ch.
430. Incentive Awaris Act of 1954. Salary Reform Act of
1962. 5 U.S.C. 4303.
The Perzormance Rating Act of 1950 requires performance
evaluation, and ratings through use cf one or more performance
,'ating plat.s subject to approval of the Civil Service Commission
(CSC). is; requires icuat. each system prcyide for making
peLornance requiretents known to the .m1.oyee, giv. g 'air
appraisals of employee perforvance, using a~praisalS to ±aprove
employee performances strengthening supervisor-employee
relationships, and keeping enployees advised of their
performance and promptly notified of ratings.
Findings/Conclusions: Summary performance ratings-- utat ading.,
satisfactory, or unsatisfactory--have become essentially a
single rating system of satisfactory. Such ratisgs do not
ad quately inform employees about their performance cr provide
management with a basis for personnel decisions. ls, because
of court decisions, unsatisfactory ratings may not ke used as a
basis for dismissal of employees. Clost of the 10 performance
rating systems in redezal agencies which were reviewed do not
aeet object-ivs of the legislation. Inadequacies of the syetems
are: graphic rating scale methods do act provide useful
performan.e data, most procedures have not provided adequate
guidance for rating employees, aad there is insufficient linkage
between performance and rewards. In private systems examined,
there was better guidance for supervisors, and there were
different systems for various occupational groups. A potential
for improvement was seen in ccilaborative systems in which the
employee participates. Recommendaticns: CSC should ask the
Ccnqress to anand 5 U.S.-. 43, formerly the Performance Rating
Act. deletin.9 ::'.quirements for performance summary xatings and](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaawua0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)