reflective essay two

Running head: SSA APPRAISAL PROCESS

Reflective Essay Two

Appraisal Process the Social Security Administration Field Office in Bryan, Texas

Priscilla D. Johnson

Prairie View A&M University

Educational Leadership Doctoral Program

Dr. Pamela T. Barber-Freeman

October 15, 2011

Author Note

Priscilla D. Johnson, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Prairie

View A&M University.

Correspondence concerning this reflective paper should be addressed to Priscilla D.

Johnson, Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Prairie View A&M University,

Campus Box 519 Mail Stop 2420, Prairie View, Texas 77446. E-mail: [email protected].

1

SSA APPRAISAL PROCESS

Abstract

This reflective essay describes the roles and responsibilities of the personnel evaluators,

evaluatees, supervisors, management and in-service personnel involved in the evaluation of

evaluation system at the researcher’s place of employment, the Social Security Administration

field office in Bryan, Texas. Notable flaws were discovered, but transformed into opportunities

to improve this process. Both evaluator and evaluatee share equal responsibility in the appraisal

process.

Keywords: SSA, HR, performance, appraisals, evaluations, evaluators, expectations

2


The Evaluation Process at the Bryan, Texas Social Security Administration Field Office

The evaluation process at any organization is vital to an employee’s performance and

development. This process differs across organizations. Yet, the objectives remain the same.

Everyone has a part in the evaluation process. Managers and or supervisors are vital to the

integrity and success of the evaluation process. In my opinion, their actions in evaluation process

are just as important as the employee’s performance. This reflective essay is necessary to

understand the Human Resources (HR) function in the evaluation process.

Significance of the Evaluation Process

The evaluation process is most effective when created as essential to the organization’s

primary activities. From leading the performance management process at Target Stores, to

creating and classifying positions at Texas A&M University, I have learned how positions affect

the outcome of organizations. The evaluation process is significant because it holds management

and employees accountable for their contributions to the organization. In my belief, individuals

must understand what is expected of roles in order to achieve success.

This process is a way to document that both the evaluator and evaluatee have reviewed

accountability standards. In addition the evaluation process brings (or should bring) both parties

to state where each knows their roles to enhance the organization’s mission. This process is often

initiated with a review of the employee’s position description. The position description is

significant to include in the evaluation process the employee can visualize how their primary

duties should be performed in order to meet the established standards designed by the agency.

The evaluation process at the Bryan, Texas Social Security Field office is quite similar to

standard evaluation processes. The process is formally called the Performance Assessment and

Communication System (PACS) (2006). The appraisal process primarily involves an evaluator

3


and evaluatee. The district manager (office manager) and office supervisor are the evaluators.

The evaluatees are service representatives and claims representative. The district manager

evaluates the service representatives, while the office supervisor evaluates the claims

representative. Each year the district manager and supervisor trade roles. Figure one is a

graphical representation of the PACS process.

Figure 1: PACS-SSA Appraisal Process

Step One

Step one in the PCAS process is the Expectation Discussion, initiated by the evaluator,

given to evaluatee at the beginning of the appraisal process each year. This process begins on the

1st of October. According to PCAS (2006), “Expectation discussions provide meaningful context

to performance standards and provide a means to convey how employee contributions align to

the agency goals and objectives” (p. 9). The evaluator is responsible for discussing and

explaining all performance standards, especially terminology. The evaluator documents the

meeting with a brief statement of each expectation discussed. This documentation is filed in the

4


employees’ SSA-7B Extension File. The evaluatee is responsible for listening, asking questions,

and receiving a copy of the expectation documentation.

Step Two

Step two in the PCAS process is the Initial Performance Plan Discussion. It is also

completed around October 1st each year, but no later than 30 days after step one of PCAS. Each

evaluator initiates this process by scheduling one-on-one time with each evaluatee. The evaluator

is responsible for discussing the agency’s alignment statement, performance standards, appraisal

measurements, and evaluatee development needs. The evaluator and evaluatee are responsible

for signing this document. The evaluator is responsible for providing a copy to the evaluatee.

The evaluatee is responsible for receiving and keeping this signed original copy. The evaluator

places a copy in the employees’ SSA-7B Extension File. If evaluatees’ position changes in any

way related to step two (a), step two is repeated (see figure one).

Step Three

Step three in the PCAS process describes the Ongoing Two-way Communication

completed by the evaluator and evaluatee. According to PCAS (2006), this is “an effective tool

for successful performance” (p. 10). The evaluator is responsible for communicating

expectations; providing feedback on time; and discussing ways employees could receive

recognition and growth. The evaluator is responsible for discussing the evaluatees’ performance

to date. The evaluatee is responsible for providing the evaluator with a written description of any

disagreements for feedback given about their performance. The evaluatee begins to play more of

an interactive role in this process. They have the responsibility of expressing how they will

contribute to the agency’s goals; showing they understand what is expected of them; asking how

5


they can perform better; and documenting their own contributions that are inline with agency’s

standards and expectations.

Step Four

Step four of the PCAS process describes the Formal Performance Discussions. The

evaluator is responsible for initiating this meeting, which should occur during the mid-point of

the appraisal process. The evaluator is responsible for discussing the evaluatees’ performance to

date. In addition, the evaluator reiterates the expectations and standards utilized to meet the

agency’s mission. The evaluatee is provided with information that helps meet their performance

goals and areas of growth. The evaluatees’ performance is not rated during this process, because

their entire yearly performance must be considered. The evaluatee is responsible for making sure

activities related to agency standards are recognized and recorded. In addition, evaluatees’

describe their contributions thus far. These contributions are recorded on the formal performance

document. Both evaluator and evaluatee sign this document. Again, one copy is filed in the

employees’ SSA-7B Extension File. The evaluatee receives a copy for their personal records. In

reflection, this is a vital part of the appraisal process because the evaluatee has a way to learn of

their productivity and contributions, from their evaluator’s point of view. This process benefits

evaluatees because they are formally reminded of agency standards and expectations. In addition,

they have the opportunity to share and document their contributions with the person responsible

for providing a final evaluation of their work.

Step Five

Step five of the PCAS process is the Annual Performance Appraisal. This step occurs

within 30 days closing the appraisal process. The evaluator is responsible for initiating this

6


process. Beforehand, evaluators rate each evaluatee’s performance using a three-tier measuring

system. Figure two describes the three-tiered rating system.

Figure 2: Three-Tier Rating SSA Rating System

Step five of the appraisal process is essential for both the evaluator and evaluatee. I believe it is

more important to the evaluatee because a level five or level three overall rating makes the

employee eligible for a within-grade increase (WIGI). Employees receive a WIGI according to

their pay on the federal General Schedule (GS) pay scale. The evaluator is responsible for

considering a number of sources relating to the evaluatee performance in Annual Performance

Appraisal step. According to PCAS (2006), these sources include

the extent evaluatees met their expectations standards;

employee Optional Self-Assessment remarks;

feedback from employees’ workgroup or documented team contributions;

feedback from leaders of their work team;

uncontrollable factors effecting the employee;

numeric data (work unit productivity report);

mid-point appraisal (p. 14).

7


This process is most exciting for evaluatees because all of their contributions, hard work, or even

lack of work is considered for their overall performance rating. An optional documentation for

the evaluatee is the one page self-assessment. From witnessing, some evaluatees do not complete

a self-assessment. I believe most evaluatees know they will receive at least a level three-

performance rating. During our last performance meeting, management mentioned that no one

ever receives a level five rating. An evaluatee would have to be perfect in all areas of their

position to receive a level five rating. Step five comments are formally documented. The

evaluator and evaluatee are both responsible for signing and documenting this appraisal. One

document is stored in the evaluatees’ SSA-7B Extension File and one original is provided to the

evaluatee.

According to PCAS (2006), any evaluatee who receives a level one (not successful)

overall rating will require a higher management signature on their performance appraisal, besides

their evaluator’s. These employees are given 30 days to improve their performance, which is

closely monitored by their evaluator. This process is called Performance Assistance. If the

performance did not improve after the 30-day period, the evaluatee is placed on an Opportunity

to Perform Successfully plan. The plan lasts for 120 calendar days, but if performance improves

at any time, the employee is taken off this plan. If the employee’s performance is still below

level one, a Performance-Based Demotion or Removal Action can be initiated. Evaluatees who

fail to raise their performance could be demoted to a position that matches their level of

performance. From reviewing this policy, I realize that evaluatees are given a generous

timeframe to raise their performance to levels acceptability. Upon my employment with SSA,

someone told me, “It is really hard to get fired at this job.” Initially I was blown away by this

statement and was oblivious to the meaning behind their words. The policy I just described is

8


evidence that it really is difficult to get removed from your position, considering an employee

did not commit and unscrupulous act.

Overall Reflection of SSA Appraisal Process

Step five in the PCAS process marks the end of the appraisal cycle. In summary, the

backbone of the PCAS process is an excellent contribution to employee development and

performance measurements. It holds both the evaluator and evaluatee responsible for their

commitment to the agency. In reflection, the implementation of this process has a few notable

flaws. I believe management should encourage employees to complete the optional self-

assessment. A form could be created that employees could use throughout the year to document

their worthy contributions. This is a way for management to provide a resource to improve.

Evaluators may believe evaluatees should take a stance on their own documentation. From my

point of view, employees should be gradually taught how to manage and provide feedback about

their performance. Often, many people come into a well-established organization from a private

corporation that did not have a formal evaluation process. They enter the organization not

knowing how to systematically manage their own performance and development. Another

notable flaw is the On-Going Two-Way Communication process. This step is not only necessary,

but also required. The agency does a suitable job in the appraisal process. Yet, I believe this

process could improve if it is ingrained as a pertinent endeavor that raises employees to higher

levels of performance. I believe the evaluation process becomes more significant when

implemented throughout the yearly evaluation cycle. The authorized manager or supervisor has

to develop a sense of commitment and urgency about the evaluation process. In too many

organizations, most evaluation conversations occur at the beginning of the fiscal year and are

closed at the end of the fiscal year. In my belief, standards that lead to successful performance

9


(and eventually high evaluation ratings) should be continuously creatively communicated

throughout the year. Evaluators could break work groups in teams and have each person teach or

expound on a standard. In addition employees could brainstorm what they could do to reach each

standard. For instance, if a standard is entitled “successful contribution,” have employees write

down at least one way they could successfully contribute to the organization. Too few

organizations, including public, private, and government entities make time for such an idea.

In conclusion, this reflective essay described the Bryan, Texas SSA field office’s

appraisal process. The researcher reflected on the successes and notable flaws of this five-step

appraisal system. These flaws were transformed into opportunities by developing ideas that

allow the appraisal process to become part of the agency’s culture. This reflective essay provided

a way to better understand how employees are evaluated and gaps within this appraisal process.

Most importantly, the appraisal process was found to be an equal responsibility of both evaluator

and evaluatee.

10


References

Performance Assessment and Communication System (PACS). Office of Personnel: Personnel

Policy Manual. 5 USC Chapter 43, Performance Appraisal (2006).

11

reflective essay two

Documents