1. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) APEX 29 Executive Roundtable Discussion Performance Management September 2009

2. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 2 The purpose of this “Performance Management” Executive Roundtable Discussion is to...  Stimulate Thinking – to stimulate your thinking about the intent of DoD Directive 1403.03: “The Career Lifecycle Management of the Senior Executive Service Leaders within the Department of Defense” (October 25, 2007)  Examine Rating and Pay Data – to examine SES performance rating and pay data for the past four years (2005-2008)  Solicit Suggestions – to solicit your proposed suggestions about what should and can be done to achieve the objectives of DoD Directive 1403.03

3. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 3 Overview – the framework for SES Performance Management is shaped by...  DOD Directive 1403.03: “The Career Lifecycle Management of the Senior Executive Service Leaders within the Department of Defense” (Oct 25, 2007) 5.1.3.4 Performance Management: A performance management culture that encourages and rewards creativity, innovation, intelligent risk-taking, and critical thinking will be sustained.  The Secretary of Defense’s commitment to an executive appraisal system that: Makes meaningful distinctions in performance based on individual and organizational results Promotes a culture in which results and contributions of executives are valued, recognized and rewarded.  Executive responsibilities that include: Aligning individual performance plans with organizational goals Setting results-driven performance requirements Communicating and providing feedback to employees Assessing performance fairly Making meaningful distinctions in performance

4. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 4 And, that framework takes into account the following considerations  There must be an ability to make meaningful distinctions in performance results using well-written, executive-level “SMART-Q” performance requirements and rigorous performance assessments  The forced distribution of ratings is illegal  The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) requires, at a minimum, MORE than a Pass/Fail to meet its certification requirements  A senior executive who fully meets performance requirements and does all that is expected “Achieves Expectations”  The “Exceptional Results” rating is limited to performance that far exceeds that which is expected, as evidenced by exceptional or breakthrough results in contributions to the mission

5. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 5 Here’s what the data tell us about “overall” and “career only” SES performance ratings for 2008

6. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 6 Here’s what the data tell us about SES performance ratings by component (2005-2008)

7. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 7 Here’s what the data tell us about …

8. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 8 SES Average Pay Adjustment and Average Bonus (2005-2008) (Dollars) DoD-Wide

9. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 9 SES Average Performance Pay Adjustment (2007-2008) DoD-Wide by Component

10. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 10 SES Average Bonus (2007-2008) DoD-Wide by Component

11. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 11 And finally, here’s what the data tell us about … Achieved (Score 70-85) “3” Exceeds (Score 70-85) “4” Exceptional (Score 95-100) “5” # of Shares

12. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 12 Given the Performance Management objectives and historical data, how would you answer the following? Since every executive, rating official, and leader has the responsibility to help the Department maintain certification...  Support. What type of support is needed for executives and supervisors to successfully write compliant and meaningful Performance Requirements and Assessments? o What has worked well in the Components? o What has not worked well in the Components?  Meaning. How would you suggest driving new meaning for rating levels? Should final performance ratings be 1-5 or 1-100 or something else? When we talk about a “meaningful distinction in performance,” what should we mean? Distinction in ratings, shares or both?

13. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 13 And …  Culture. What suggestions would you have for building a culture where: “Achieved Results” is: o Considered a high standard o Is for those who deliver expected, customary, universal type results of high quality and creativity o A rating that makes executives feel valued? “Exceeds Expectations or Exceptional” performance is: o Considered a very high standard o Reserved for executives who deliver uncommon, extraordinary, or breakthrough results of exceptional quality and creativity that are significantly more difficult, challenging or high-risk to meet o Ratings that make executives feel like the exemplars?

14. Excellence in Executive Leadership UNCLASSIFIED – For Official Use Only (FOUO) 14 And …  Recognition. How might the performance management system better recognize executives who demonstrate the attributes highlighted by DoD 1403.03? (E.g., those who “[possess] a broad background of skills and experiences that will have prepared them to support the warfighter and meet the continually changing management requirements of the Department and exhibit: Enterprise- spanning perspective, strategic vision and strategic thinking ability; Competency in joint matters; Global and cultural astuteness; Business acumen; Leadership proficiency; Results-driven focus; and Capability to build partnerships and communicate effectively”) Should the performance management system incentivize and recognize executives who emulate the desired behavior? If so, how should DoD approach this? For example, should additional “bonus” points be awarded to those SESers who have demonstrated these competencies and attributes?