701 Performance Management

Georgia State Seal

Georgia Department of Human Services
Human Resources Policy #701

Performance Management

Release Date:

June 1, 2002

Revised Date:

October 17, 2023

Next Review Date:

October 16, 2025

References:

State Personnel Board Rule 478-1-.14 – Performance Management
E-Performance Management Process: Manager’s Guide, September 2009

The Georgia Department of Human Services (DHS) employees provide essential services for the citizens of the State of Georgia. The level of knowledge, skills, and abilities each DHS employee possesses ultimately determines how well they perform their job duties and the quality of services that are delivered. A performance management system is an essential tool in evaluating the overall quality of performance by DHS employees. Evaluating supervisors and reviewing managers are required to complete DHS’s ePerformance Management Process eLearning prior to developing, completing, or reviewing performance plans or evaluations. In addition to the formalized training, there are also online tools made available through the Department of Administrative Services, Human Resource Administration to assist with navigating through the process: Performance Development Resources | Georgia Department of Administrative Services (ga.gov).

Section A: Evaluation Period

  1. The performance evaluation period begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year.

  2. Employees newly hired in State government during the performance evaluation period are to be evaluated from the date of hire through June 30.

  3. Performance-based salary increases, if approved by the General Assembly, are effective in the fiscal year following the end of the performance evaluation period.

Section B: Developing Performance Management Plans (PMP)

  1. Evaluating supervisors are responsible and accountable for developing performance management plans using the PeopleSoft E-Performance Management System.

  2. The Performance Management Plan (PMP) is used to specify the statewide core competencies, individual goals and competencies, job responsibilities and should also include an individual development plan. Expectations are to be written at the Successful Performer level which is equivalent to a rating of three on the five-point rating scale.

    Employees on hourly positions, re-employed retired employees or temporary employees on positions not eligible for benefits are:

    • not required to have PMP, and,

    • not eligible for performance-based salary increases.

  3. The first three sections of the Performance Management Plan are given a weight that assesses the relative importance of each section as it relates to overall performance. Guidelines for assessing weights may be agency specific or manager specific. The total weighting for the sections should total 100%.

  4. The fourth section of the plan (the Individual Development Plan) is not weighted but is a necessary and important part of the plan.

  5. Those areas determined to be more essential to an employee’s success in a position should be more heavily weighted than those areas determined not to be equally essential.

  6. The Peoplesoft E-Performance Management System will calculate an employee’s overall rating based on the section ratings and their associated weights.

  7. In the process of creating the Performance Management Plan (PMP), the evaluating supervisor should seek input from the employee, specifically in reference to creating the Individual Development Plan. The employee should be allowed an opportunity to identify objectives and activities on which he/she would like to work during the review period for this section of the plan.

  8. The evaluating supervisor should then identify individual goals and competencies, as well as job responsibilities for the upcoming year using the goals of the agency/division, responsibilities for the position, as well as the input received from the employee concerning the Individual Development Plan.

  9. Evaluating supervisors must discuss the proposed PMP with reviewing managers and receive approval before meeting with employees or providing copies of the plans to employees. Supervisors who do not comply with the above are subject to disciplinary action.

  10. Reviewing managers are to assume responsibility for developing the PMP if:

    1. evaluating supervisors are absent for an extended period.

    2. evaluating supervisor positions are vacant; or,

    3. new supervisors have not been trained in the performance management process.

Section C: Performance Management Plans (PMP) Meeting

  1. Evaluating supervisors (or reviewing managers, if necessary, as indicated above) are to meet and present employees with their PMP for the upcoming performance evaluation period.

    1. Plans are to be presented to employees as soon as possible following:

      1. The beginning of the performance evaluation period; or,

      2. placement of employees in new/different positions (e.g., appointments, transfers, promotions, demotions).

    2. Plans must be presented to employees no later than forty-five (45) calendar days following the above.

  2. If evaluating supervisors are unable to meet with employees during this time frame due to unusual or extenuating circumstances on the part of employees (e.g., employees are absent for an extended period), the circumstances must be explained on the PMP. The plans are to be presented and discussed when employees return to duty.

  3. If evaluating supervisors are unable to meet with employees due to their own absence for an extended period, reviewing managers are to hold PMP meetings.

  4. Evaluating supervisors and employees are to meet to discuss the statewide core competencies, individual goals and competencies, job responsibilities, and the individual development plan.

  5. Efforts are to be made to resolve disagreements between employees and to evaluate supervisors on responsibilities and expectations on the PMP.

  6. Employees may be given a specified period, not to exceed five (5) workdays, to review their PMP before verbally acknowledging receipt. Evaluating supervisors should document employees' acknowledgement of their performance management plan in their supervisory file.

  7. If responsibilities and expectations change during a performance evaluation period, changes are to be discussed with employees and modifications made to PMP.

    1. Minor modifications to a PMP may be made without prior review and approval from reviewing managers.

    2. Significant modifications to a PMP should be reviewed and approved by reviewing managers prior to implementing new responsibilities or expectations. Employees must be notified within fifteen (15) calendar days of the modifications.

Section D: Request for Review

  1. Employees may request a review of their PMP.

    1. If employees express the belief that their PMP is arbitrary, capricious, non-job- related or unrealistic, and efforts to resolve the differences are not successful, evaluating supervisors must inform employees of their right to request a review.

    2. This written notice is to be provided to employees within two (2) workdays of being advised of the employees' intent to request a review. The name and address of the appropriate reviewing official is to be provided to employees.

    3. Employees who receive at least an overall rating of Successful Performer or higher cannot request a review of their performance evaluations.

  2. Evaluating supervisors should verify the name of the appropriate designated reviewing official prior to providing this information to employees.

    1. Division/Office Directors (or designees) are responsible for designating reviewing officials for their organization.

    2. Designated reviewing officials cannot be the first or second level supervisors of employees requesting reviews or involved with developing the employees' PMP.

  3. A written request for review must be submitted to the designated reviewing official within five (5) workdays of receiving the completed PMP.

Section E: Review of PMP

  1. Designated reviewing officials are to review the PMP, and information provided by employees and evaluating supervisors. Discussions should be held with employees and evaluating supervisors regarding the requests for review.

  2. Designated reviewing officials will determine whether the PMP is arbitrary, capricious, non-job-related or unrealistic and issue findings that either uphold the PMP as written or determine that changes are to be made.

  3. Designated review officials are to issue their findings in writing to the employees, evaluating supervisors and reviewing managers within fifteen (15) workdays of receiving an employees' requests for review.

  4. If changes are to be made to the PMP, determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis regarding the appropriate official to make the changes (i.e., the evaluating supervisor, reviewing manager or designated reviewing official).

  5. If changes are made to a PMP, employees are to be given an opportunity to review and sign the modified PMP.

  6. Decisions made by designated reviewing officials are final. Issues concerning the performance management process are not grievable or appealable to the State Personnel Board.

Section F: PMP Not Received

  1. Employees may contact their designated HR Generalist to discuss concerns if they do not receive a PMP within forty-five (45) calendar days of:

    1. the beginning of a new performance evaluation period; or,

    2. placement in new/different positions.

  2. OHR will take appropriate steps to ensure that employees receive an individual PMP within fifteen (15) calendar days of notification. Evaluating supervisors and reviewing managers are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including separation, if PMPs are not prepared and presented to employees in a timely manner.

Section G: Interim Reviews

  1. Evaluating supervisors should meet with each employee on an ongoing basis to give performance feedback throughout the evaluation period.

Evaluating supervisors must meet with each employee at least once during the performance evaluation period to conduct interim reviews of employees' work performance and adherence to terms and conditions of employment. Interim reviews are to be completed manually using the PMP Interim Review short form.

Section H: Completing PMP Process

  1. The Performance Management evaluation must be completed using employees' individual PMP to evaluate employees. (See exception in #4 below)

    1. Evaluating supervisors should begin preparing performance evaluations in early May to allow sufficient time for completion, review, and processing.

    2. Evaluating supervisors will be advised of time frames for processing completed PMP evaluations each year.

  2. Employees may complete their online self-evaluation, outlining any major accomplishments achieved during the performance evaluation period to their evaluating supervisors.

  3. Employees hired between February 1 and June 30 of the current evaluation period should be evaluated using the PMP only if evaluating supervisors have had sufficient time to adequately evaluate performance in one or more areas of responsibility. If there has not been sufficient time to evaluate performance, the “not-rated” option should be used with appropriate comments.

  4. Evaluating supervisors are required to complete performance evaluations on employees who are promoted, demoted, or transferred to other positions within DHS or from other state agencies. This includes completing evaluations when employees leave during the evaluation period, as well as performance evaluations ending June 30.

  5. Employees who are promoted, demoted, or transferred after the performance evaluation period ends on June 30 must be evaluated by the supervisors who supervised them at the end of the evaluation period ending June 30.

  6. When employees have been promoted, demoted, or transferred to new positions during a performance evaluation period, evaluating supervisors as of June 30 are to complete performance evaluations. Evaluating supervisors may take into consideration any performance evaluations completed during the performance evaluation period by previous evaluating supervisors.

  7. Consideration of rating(s) from previous position(s) rests with the evaluating supervisor.

  8. Evaluating supervisors are to rate employees' performance on the Statewide Core Competencies, Individual Goals and Job Responsibilities according to the following scale:

    • 0 = Not Rated

    • 1 = Unsatisfactory Performer

    • 2 = Successful Performer - Minus

    • 3 = Successful Performer

    • 4 = Successful Performer - Plus

    • 5 = Exceptional Performer

  9. Appropriate corrective action must be taken against employees who receive an overall rating below a Successful Performer.

    1. Appropriate action includes but is not limited to adverse action, other disciplinary action, and memorandum of concern, placement on a Work Plan or placement on an Attendance Plan.

    2. Evaluating supervisors or other authorized officials should contact OHR for assistance in this area.

  10. Evaluating supervisors must provide comments on actual performance for each section of the electronic Performance Management evaluation. Specific comments which support ratings of Successful Performance Minus (rating level 2), and Unsatisfactory Performer (rating level 1) are required.

  11. Evaluating supervisors must discuss proposed performance evaluations with reviewing managers and receive approval before meeting with employees. Supervisors who do not comply with the above may be subject to disciplinary action.

  12. Reviewing managers are to assume the responsibility of completing performance evaluations if:

    1. evaluating supervisors are absent for an extended period.

    2. evaluating supervisor positions are vacant.

    3. new supervisors have not been trained in the performance management process; or,

    4. new supervisors have not had sufficient time to evaluate employees' performance and adherence to the terms and conditions of employment.

  13. Reviewing managers are responsible for reviewing performance evaluations prepared by evaluating supervisors to ensure consistency, accuracy, and timeliness.

  14. Reviewing managers have the authority to change the ratings proposed by evaluating supervisors if the managers disagree with the ratings and can articulate a reasonable basis for the disagreement.

    1. This should be considered a ‘last resort' as the expectation is that in most instances in which there is an initial disagreement, the reviewing manager and evaluating supervisor will engage in discussions sufficient to resolve the disagreement and reach consensus.

    2. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, a request will be made to OHR to transfer the performance document to the reviewing manager who will make the rating and comment changes. A comment should be entered on the electronic performance management evaluation that was completed by the reviewing manager. The reviewing manager will present the evaluation to the employee. The original evaluating supervisor will not be required to meet with the employee but will be required to accept the reviewing manager’s decision as the final agency action.

  15. Divisions and Offices should have a process in place to review performance evaluations to ensure consistency, accuracy and timeliness throughout each Division or Office.

Section I: Performance Evaluation Meeting

  1. Evaluating supervisors must meet with employees to discuss their completed performance evaluations.

    1. If evaluating supervisors are unable to meet with employees due to unusual or extenuating circumstances on the part of employees, (e.g., employees are absent for an extended period). The performance evaluations are to be presented to the employees upon their return to duty.

    2. If evaluating supervisors are unable to meet with employees due to their own absence for an extended period, the reviewing managers are to hold the PMP evaluation meetings.

  2. The name, title, address, and telephone number of the appropriate designated reviewing official should be provided in writing to employees who receive an overall summary rating of below Successful Performer for Statewide Core Competencies, Individual Goals, or Job Responsibilities.

  3. Evaluating supervisors should verify the name of the appropriate designated reviewing official prior to providing this information to employees.

    1. Division/Office Directors (or designees) are responsible for designating reviewing officials for their organization.

    2. Designated reviewing officials cannot be the first or second level supervisors of employees requesting reviews or involved with completing the PMP evaluation.

Section J: Review of PMP Evaluation

  1. Designated reviewing officials are to review performance evaluations and supporting documentation provided by employees and evaluating supervisors. Discussions should be held with employees and evaluating supervisors regarding the requests for review.

  2. Designated reviewing officials will determine if performance evaluations are arbitrary, capricious, or not reflective of actual performance or adherence to terms and conditions of employment and issue findings that either uphold performance evaluations as written or determine that changes are to be made.

  3. Designated reviewing officials are to issue their findings in writing to the employees, evaluating supervisors and reviewing managers within fifteen (15) workdays of receiving employees' requests for review.

    If changes are to be made to performance evaluations, determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis regarding the appropriate official to make the changes (i.e., the evaluating supervisor, reviewing manager or designated reviewing official) and the appropriate official(s) to sign modified PMP evaluations.

  4. If changes are made to performance evaluations, employees are to be given an opportunity to review the modified electronic performance evaluations. If employees refuse to acknowledge their modified performance evaluations, evaluating supervisors must document in the employee’s supervisory file that the evaluation was discussed and the employee’s refusal to acknowledge. Evaluating supervisors should use the system override to acknowledge the evaluation on behalf of employees.

  5. Decisions made by designated reviewing officials are final. Issues concerning the performance management process are not grievable or appealable to the State Personnel Board.

Section K: Performance Evaluation Not Received

  1. Employees who have not received their performance evaluations by August 31 in a calendar year should contact their evaluating supervisors to discuss the status of the evaluations.

  2. If no resolution is reached after five (5) calendar days, employees should contact their designated HR Generalist.

Section L: Failure to Comply with Policy

  1. Evaluating supervisors and reviewing managers who fail to carry out the responsibilities outlined in this policy and/or who do not meet the required performance management deadlines may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including separation.

For additional information or assistance, please contact your local Human Resources Representative.