Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
· Example provided below essential components of role delineat
1. · EXAMPLE PROVIDED Below:
Essential Components of Role Delineation
Examples /Supporting Evidence
Role Delineation based on NP Competencies
Narrative format plus evidence is required
1. Management of Patient Health/Illness Status
Reflections on class lectures, discussions, clinical experiences,
readings, assignments
2. NP-Pt Relationship
Reflections on class lectures, discussions, clinical experiences
readings, assignments
3. Teaching-Coaching Function
Sample of outline of teaching rounds, poster, in-service etc
4. Professional Role
May be evident in C-V, ,Proof of attendance at BON meeting
5. Negotiating HC Delivery Systems
Attendance at Lambda Chi Meeting, Pri-Med, CMS seminar
6. Monitoring/ Ensuring Quality of HC
Sample of peer reviews, quality improvement activities, Magnet
offerings
7. Cultural Competence
Article citation, Web References
· Management of Patient health/Illness Status: As a Family
Nurse Practitioner I will use ethical decision making to elicit a
comprehensive health history, perform a comprehensive
physical examination, order diagnostic test when appropriate,
formulate a list of differential diagnoses, verify diagnoses based
on findings, determine appropriate pharmacological, behavioral
and other non-pharmacological treatment modalities, analyze
risk/benefit ratios to design and develop personalized plans of
care, and evaluate patient outcomes, modifying the plan as
indicated.
2. · NP-Pt relationship: As a FNP I will work with my patients to
create a tailored plan of care. I will respect the autonomy of my
patients and I will educate them so they can make informed
decisions regarding their health. I will be their advocate. I will
abide by the ethical principles of beneficence, non-malfeasance,
justice, veracity and autonomy. I will strive to create an
environment where they can feel accepted and are able to
express their concerns openly. I will address my patients
holistically and will be cognizant of the key role that mental
health plays in our overall well-being.
· Teaching Coaching Function: As a FNP I will go above and
beyond to make sure my patients understand the information
regarding their health status, their treatment options and the
expected outcome of each treatment or no treatment. On each
patient encounter, I will look for the opportunity to teach them
about primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, including but
not limited to, screening and educating about disease modifying
risk factors, instructing on actions that can be taken to improve
outcomes of diseases, and available rehabilitation options when
appropriate.
· Professional Role: As a FNP I will keep my practice current
and provide evidence-based interventions to my patients. I will
be an active participant in my professional organizations, read
professional journals and attend local and/or national
conferences.
· Negotiating Health Care Delivery Systems: As a FNP I will
maintain records that reflect diagnostic and therapeutic
reasoning, and deliver cost-effective care that demonstrates
knowledge of patient payment systems and provider
reimbursement systems.
· Monitoring/Ensuring Quality of HC: As a FNP I will apply
3. knowledge of the regulatory processes to deliver safe, effective
patient care and will maintain continuous self-actualization of
current practices by accessing professional journals, evidence
based research and publications of national organizations.
· Cultural Competence: As a FNP I will be cognizant of the
diversity of cultures and beliefs of the society in which I
practice. Furthermore, I will be aware of my own preconceived
cultural beliefs in order to steer clear of interference with my
professional goal of providing culturally sensitive care to all my
patients.
This article was downloaded by: [Central Michigan University]
On: 17 February 2015, At: 08:16
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered
Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH,
UK
Public Performance &
Management Review
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mpmr20
Systemic Bias in Federal
Performance Evaluations
Dmitry V. Eremin a , James F. Wolf b & Colleen A.
Woodard b
a Northcentral University
4. b Virginia Tech
Published online: 08 Dec 2014.
To cite this article: Dmitry V. Eremin , James F. Wolf &
Colleen A. Woodard (2010)
Systemic Bias in Federal Performance Evaluations, Public
Performance & Management
Review, 34:1, 7-21
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.27 53/PMR1530-
9576340101
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of
all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make
no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,
damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or
5. indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the
use of the
Content.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mpmr20
http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340101
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can
be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
C
en
tr
al
7. http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Articles
systemic BiAs in FederAl
PerFormAnce evAluAtions
does Hierarchy trump a
Performance management Process?
dmitry v. eremin
Northcentral University
JAmes F. WolF
Virginia Tech
colleen A. WoodArd
Virginia Tech
ABSTRACT: Individual performance evaluations provide the
link between
individual and organizational performance. Employees expect to
be rated based
on their success in meeting their individual performance
objectives regardless of
their grade or position in the agency or other nonperformance-
related criteria.
This study examines performance appraisal ratings from three
federal agencies
(U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban
Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency) to
learn whether the
10. 17
F
eb
ru
ar
y
20
15
8 PPmr / september 2010
(Hrm) in the federal government. Performance evaluations,
based on the work an
individual is performing, serve to inform a variety of human
resources decisions,
including pay/recognition, training, promotion/demotion, and
adverse action/
termination. From management by objectives through 360-
degree performance
appraisals and the current results-oriented systems tied to pay-
for-performance,
performance management has become the primary tool for
measuring individual
and organizational effectiveness and supporting compensation
decisions. like all
merit-based Hrm systems, performance management is built on
the presumption of
a fair evaluation of an individual’s performance of his or her
11. duties. the employee
expects the evaluation to be based solely on the expectations
defined in his or her
performance plan. of critical importance to an effective
performance management
system is employee belief in the inherent fairness of the system.
However, there
continues to be an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with
performance management,
due in part to the lack of trust that managers will make fair and
unbiased decisions
of individual performance. there is ample anecdotal evidence
indicating employee
unhappiness with the rating process. in the five-level rating
systems, in which a
rating of 3 is considered acceptable performance, employees
often file complaints
over what they consider an unacceptable rating. First-line
supervisors frequently
share their frustrations of being told to lower employee ratings
to reduce the rat-
ings creep and of the difficulty they have explaining to an
employee why he or
she is a 3 when they think the employee should be a 4 or a 5.
this article investigates one potential bias in performance
management sys-
tems—namely, that professional employees in higher grades
(that is, 13, 14, and
15) have a greater chance of receiving a rating level of 4 or 5
than do employees
in lower grades (e.g., 11 and 12). the study starts with the
assumption that per-
formance management systems seek to evaluate how employees
are performing
against explicit or implicit standards and that employees expect
12. to be rated on
how they perform regardless of their grade/position level in the
organization. We
examine the ratings distribution in three u.s. federal agencies
(u.s. department
of education [ed], u.s. department of Housing and urban
development [Hud],
and the environmental Protection Agency [ePA]) to assess
whether an employee’s
position in the hierarchy of the organization has an effect on his
or her opportunity
to be rated above average. to understand better the context for
this discussion, it
is important to have some understanding of performance
managements systems
in the federal service.
Federal Performance Management Systems
At the federal level, the civil service reform Act of 1978 created
an important
departure from the traditional pay and recognition system to tie
public servants’
pay more closely to the results of their individual and their
agency’s collective
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
14. ru
ar
y
20
15
eremin et al. / systemic BiAs in FederAl PerFormAnce
evAluAtions 9
efforts. those federal employees who were not in the senior
executive service
(ses) or were not part of the merit pay system for managers and
supervisors were
brought under new performance appraisal systems. these
systems required that the
development of specific performance standards for each job to
be a joint respon-
sibility of the supervisor and the employee. the results of the
annual appraisals
could then be used as the basis for a range of personnel actions
deemed necessary
and appropriate given the employees performance level (Perry
& Hondeghem,
2008, p. 203). the effort to link individual and organizational
performance was
strongly reinforced through the management initiatives of the
clinton and Bush
administrations designed to support pay-for-performance
compensation systems
and enhance results-oriented organizational performance
15. outcomes.
several agencies sought and received the flexibility to create
performance-based
pay systems, including the Federal Aviation Administration, the
u.s. Government
Accountability office (GAo), the department of defense (dod),
the department
of Homeland security (dHs), and the securities and exchange
commission, in
addition to agencies participating in office of Personnel
management (oPm) ap-
proved demonstration projects since 1978. the Bush
administration tried to move
the entire executive Branch to such a system in 2006 when the
oPm proposed
the Federal Workforce Performance Appraisal and management
improvement
Act
(www.opm.gov/news_events/congress/testimony/109thcongress/
6_29_200
6.asp). When that program failed to garner necessary political
support, the title
v departments and agencies adjusted their current perfor mance
management
practices to differentiate employee performance based on results
and to recognize
individual contribution. there was renewed emphasis under the
five-level ratings
systems to have more ratings at level 3 demonstrating
acceptable-level work and
to reduce the ratings creep not tied to performance. Pass/fail
systems, which had
become popular in the 1990s, were eliminated as not responsive
to measuring how
individuals contributed to the overall organizational
16. performance.
developing and implementing such performance management
systems, howev-
er, has not proved easy. Public sector performance management
systems have been
roundly criticized over time with complaints over a lack of trust
in management
to rate employees fairly and the lack of money available for
meaningful rewards
or to distinguish among performance levels. even with the
extensive effort that
the dHs and the dod have made to develop performance
management systems
that can identify top performers, there is doubt that fairness and
equity can truly
ground performance decisions. the dHs maxHr personnel system
has received
no further funding from congress, effectively killing it, and the
administration has
recently told the dod to eliminate the national security
Personnel system and
return employees to the General schedule system. the major
federal employee
unions, in addition to decrying their inability to negotiate over
the new personnel
systems, have continued to claim that managers are not able to
rate employees
D
ow
nl
oa
de
18. F
eb
ru
ar
y
20
15
10 PPmr / september 2010
fairly and consistently. they cite bias in systems from multiple
angles, including
their belief that employees at lower grade levels do not have the
same opportunity
as those at higher levels for 4 and 5 ratings.
nonetheless, the performance management process still serves as
the essential
Hrm system for appraising and rewarding individual
performance in federal
agencies. the ratings that employees receive can directly impact
their career op-
portunities and benefits, especially if we take into account that
a number of critical
personnel decisions are based almost entirely on ratings. For
example, the depart-
ment of commerce Performance Management Handbook
(http://hr.commerce.
gov/Practitioners/PerformancemanagementandAwards/dev01_00
19. 6173/) provides
an example of the link between performance appraisals and
personnel decision
making. it stipulates: “Performance appraisal results may be
used as a basis for
making personnel decisions on training, rewarding, reassigning,
promoting, re-
ducing in grade, retaining and removing employees, and
granting within-grade
increases” (chapter 11,
http://hr.commerce.gov/Practitioners/Performanceman-
agementandAwards/dev01_006305/). According to the
Handbook, a quality step
increase can only be awarded to an employee with a level 5
rating. A level 3 or
higher rating is required for a within-grade increase, career
ladder promotion, and
retention in a supervisory position after the probationary period.
most important,
“performance awards, when granted, must be based on an
employee’s performance
rating of record for the appraisal period for which the award is
granted” (chapter
11,
http://hr.commerce.gov/Practitioners/Performancemanagementa
ndAwards/
dev01_006305/). Performance award amounts are also based on
the rating level.
Where such decisions impact individual compensation and
recognition, employees
pay a lot of attention to the rating process and outcome and how
they perceive
they are treated in the process.
Fair and Credible
20. most performance management programs in public agencies
involve some form of
pay-for-performance element, and this element, in turn, depends
on employee perfor-
mance evaluation processes that are perceived as fair and
credible (ingraham, 1993).
For example, the GAo made the connection between
performance and recognition
clear as the dHs and the dod were crafting their pay-for-
performance systems:
Pay for performance works only with adequate safeguards,
including reasonable
transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms in
place, to ensure its
fair, effective, and responsible implementation. modern
performance management
systems are the centerpiece of those safeguards and
accountability. (GAo, 2003,
p. 1)
these systems build from a set of related assumptions about
human behavior
and, especially, human motivation. First, they include a basic
assumption that
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
22. ru
ar
y
20
15
eremin et al. / systemic BiAs in FederAl PerFormAnce
evAluAtions 11
workers are rational and self-interested and that incentives can
be created to take
advantage of this motivational drive. People will be motivated
by incentives if
they are correctly developed. second, workers are able to link
their behavior to
consequences. if they perform at a certain level, they will be
rewarded or penalized
(Perry, 1991). expectancy theory (vroom, 1964) argues that a
worker’s motivation
to perform is enhanced if valued rewards are offered, that the
employees can see
a connection between the rewards and the goals, and that the
rewards are likely
to be given if performance is achieved (Perry, 1991).
equity and fairness concerns constitute particularly crucial
factors for under-
standing how employees react to a particular performance
management system.
the fairness of the both the evaluation and the rewards an
23. employee receives influ-
ences performance of employees (Akerlof & yellen, 1988; Bol,
2008; colquitt,
conlon, Wesson, Porter, & ng, 2001). Adams’s (1965) equity
theory maintains
that employees will compare the evaluations and rewards that
they get with those
doing similar work. this comparison will affect the motivation
and responses of
those who see themselves as not rewarded to the same extent as
others performing
at the same level. in this way, perceived inequitable evaluation
and pay decisions
can have a negative effect on a person’s motivation to perform
in the future (Ad-
ams, 1965). in this sense, fairness refers to the employee’s
perception of the equity
for specific judgments and rewards compared to how those
compare to evalua-
tion and rewards given to others doing the same work. A second
kind of relevant
employee perception involves the fairness of the process used to
determine the
rewards. Here, the processes are thought to be fair when they
are consistent and
accurate and lack any kind of bias that favors one group over
another (Burney,
Henle, & Widener, 2007; leventhal, 1980). Finally, employees’
perceived lack of
fairness has been found to undermine organization commitment
and organization
citizenship behaviors (schminke, cropanzano, & rupp, 2002).
From a merit-based perspective, employees expect the
performance manage-
ment systems to be fair because they are part of the Hrm
24. policies and programs
that are guided by law and regulation. the merit system
Principles, codified at
5 usc 2301, hold that
1. All employees and applicants for employment should receive
fair and equitable
treatment in all aspects of personnel management;
2. equal pay should be provided for work of equal value . . .
and appropriate
incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in
performance;
and
3. employees should be . . . protected against arbitrary action,
personal favoritism,
or coercion for partisan political purposes (emphasis added).
the code of Federal regulations at 5 cFr Part 430 requires that
ratings be
based solely on performance: 5 cFr 430.208 states that “a rating
of record shall
be based only on the evaluation of actual job performance for
the designated ap-
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
26. ru
ar
y
20
15
12 PPmr / september 2010
praisal period” and that “the method for deriving and assigning
a summary level
may not limit or require the use of particular summary levels
(that is, establish a
forced distribution of summary levels).”
if implemented as designed, performance management systems
should enable
employees to be rated and recognized based on the duties and
standards articulated in
the system under which they are performing. Proper system
implementation means,
then, that in a five-level performance appraisal process,
employees expect:
• to be rated on the duties/objectives/elements
specified in their individual perfor-
mance plans using the measures/standards defined and
• to have the opportunity to be rated according to
their performance without such
intervening variables as grade levels.
27. Whether an agency has established a new pay-for-performance
compensation
system or continues to operate under the traditional general
schedule pay system,
it is essential for the validity of the process and employee
satisfaction with that
process that employees perceive they are being rated fairly
within the parameters
of their performance management system. they expect that their
rating will be
based on their performance against stated standards without
regard to their grade
level or other intervening variable (such as race, ethnicity, and
gender).
The Study
the research presented in this article examines whether the
performance systems
in three federal agencies offer the employees a fair opportunity
to be evaluated as
a high performer no matter where the employees find
themselves in the agency
hierarchy. this fair appraisal includes an assumption that if the
distribution of
evaluation ratings is fair with regard to an employee’s place in
the hierarchy,
over time the system would be more likely to be seen as fair and
equitable and,
therefore, meet an important criterion for an effective
performance management
system. of course, it is possible that the system is biased in
favor of a group at
one end of the hierarchy over the other without this information
becoming widely
28. known by employees. However, we would expect that over time,
an unfair system
would become suspect and would undermine the overall
credibility of the process.
the research presented here only explores the first part of the
link, that is, whether
there is a factual basis, one way or the other, for answering the
question of whether
hierarchy skews the possibility of attaining outstanding ratings.
this research examines the relation between hierarchy and
performance ratings
through a statistical analysis of performance data obtained from
the oPm on three
u.s. federal agencies—ed, Hud, and ePA. these three agencies
employ compa-
rable compensation and performance management systems and
apply analogous
standards of employee evaluation, making required cross-
agency comparisons
and generalizations possible. For the purposes of this study,
existing differences
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
C
30. y
20
15
eremin et al. / systemic BiAs in FederAl PerFormAnce
evAluAtions 13
among the agencies associated with specificities of individual
missions, variations
in internal functional structures, composition of the workforce,
and organizational
cultures are acknowledged but assumed to be extraneous. this
analysis is a first-
cut comparative study of a similar characteristic for the three
agencies across the
board. the internal logic of this research relies on the idea that
as a matter of policy
a performance management system should be an unbiased tool
regardless of its
implementation. consequently, in theory, all employees subject
to performance
assessment are assumed to have equal probability to receive
higher or lower assess-
ment ratings based on their performance, regardless of their
place in a hierarchy.
the only factor that should play a role in this process is work
accomplishment
during the assessment cycle.
if this assumption is true, then one should expect the
distributions of assess-
31. ment ratings for employees at each grade level to be random and
reflective of
employees’ performance only. conversely, if the assumption is
not true and hier-
archy does affect the fairness of the assessment system, the
assessment process
will be influenced by the bias associated with the position of an
employee within
hierarchy such as, in particular, her or his grade.1 this bias , in
turn, will affect
the distribution of assessment ratings in such a way that it will
be unlikely at-
tributable to pure chance. specifically, probability to receive
higher/lower annual
performance ratings will be affected by the position within
hierarchy (i.e., grade)
in such a way that abnormally high or low concentrations of
particular ratings
will be associated with individual grades. to investigate whether
such possibility
exists, the main research hypothesis was formulated as:
H1: Employees’ grade level does have an effect on their annual
performance evaluation ratings.
to test this hypothesis, we perform an exploratory Pearson’s
chi-square test
of independence to assess whether paired observations on two
variables are
unrelated to each other. the appropriateness of this test for
initial exploration of
categorical and ordinal level data is supported by a number of
authors (davis,
2007; meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2009; reynolds, 1984). the
test specifically
investigates whether the performance ratings of an employee are
32. independent of
that employee’s position within a hierarchy, that is, his or her
grade level. Finally,
we also evaluate the strength of possible association between
the variables by
calculating crammer’s v and Kruskal’s gamma statistics as a
way to support the
results of Pearson’s chi-square test of independence.
Results
in the first round of testing, we apply the Pearson’s chi -square
test to the data sets
of the three agencies (see table 1 and Figure 1).2 in all three
instances the values
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
C
en
tr
al
M
ic
34. 14 PPmr / september 2010
of χ2 are statistically significant at α = .05 and df = 8. thus, the
null hypothesis is
rejected. similarly, the values of crammer’s v indicate either a
moderate level of
association between the variable Gs grade and the variable
rating in the case of
ed (v = 0.24) or modest levels of association between the
variables in question
in the cases of the ePA and Hud (v = 0.16 and 0.17,
respectively). the values
of Kruskal’s gamma indicate moderate levels of errors reduction
in predicting
Table 1. Combined Data on Performance Ratings
by Employee Grade and Chi-Square Test Results
Rating 3 Rating 4 Rating 5 Total
department of education
Grade 11 88 82 34 204
Grade 12 332 226 74 632
Grade 13 347 432 175 954
Grade 14 168 387 250 805
Grade 15 64 186 207 457
total 999 1,313 740 3,052
χ2 342.91
Prob. < 0.0001
r 0.32
crammer’s v 0.24
Kruskal’s gamma 0.38
environmental Protection Agency
35. Grade 11 388 244 77 709
Grade 12 1,291 763 239 2,293
Grade 13 2,846 2,546 1,119 6,511
Grade 14 992 1,145 681 2,818
Grade 15 624 802 744 2,170
total 6,141 5,500 2,860 14,501
χ2 697.88
Prob. < 0.0001
r 0.21
crammer’s v 0.16
Kruskal’s gamma 0.27
department of Housing and urban development
Grade 11 54 91 148 293
Grade 12 346 851 863 2,060
Grade 13 274 957 1,474 2,075
Grade 14 104 286 932 1,322
Grade 15 125 150 599 874
total 903 2,335 4,016 7,254
χ2 396.31
Prob. < 0.0001
r 0.23
crammer’s v 0.17
Kruskal’s gamma 0.26
Source: office of Personnel management, contingency tables;
see note 2.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
37. F
eb
ru
ar
y
20
15
eremin et al. / systemic BiAs in FederAl PerFormAnce
evAluAtions 15
Figure 1. Distribution of Performance Ratings by Employee
Grade
GS11 GS12 GS13 GS14 GS15
Performance ratings by GS grade
Rating3 Rating4 Rating5
Department of Education
GS11 GS12 GS13 GS14 GS15
Performance ratings by GS grade
Rating3 Rating4 Rating5
Environmental Protection Agency
38. GS11 GS12 GS13 GS14 GS15
Performance ratings by GS grade
Rating3 Rating4 Rating5
Department of Housing and Urban Development
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
C
en
tr
al
M
ic
hi
ga
n
U
40. observed distribu-
tion of assessment ratings by Gs grade is unlikely to be
attributable to chance.
therefore, there may be a factual basis for a claim that the
performance rating of
an employee is affected by her or his grade. Following the same
logic, because
Gs grade represents the position of an employee within
organizational structure
of the agency, we can possibly conclude that hierarchy may, in
fact, have an ef-
fect on the fairness of the assessment system as a whol e,
because the assessment
process is grade biased. these conclusions establish a factual
basis for additional,
more detailed statistical investigation of whether hierarchy
skews the possibility
of attaining outstanding ratings.
Discussion
the results presented thus far provide an empirical basis for the
argument that
federal performance management programs in their current
shape and form may
not meet the test for fairness and credibility entirely, at least
concerning whether
employees at different grade levels have a statistically
significant equal chance
to receive a specific rating. on the contrary, as it follows from
the statistical tests
employed, employees in some Gs grades have higher probability
of getting the
highest rating levels than do employees in other Gs grades. in
addition, the fairness
and credibility of performance management programs may also
41. be undermined
from additional systemic bias, including the possibility that race
and ethnicity also
may play an additional and significant source of bias.3 the
identification by this
study of systemic bias raises a number of important issues
concerning the viability
of current performance management systems and thus their
ability to positively
influence employee performance and provide appropriate
compensation.
one such issue is the representativeness of this study. the
appraisal approach
used by the three agencies in the study follow a similar pattern.
they use a range
of 1 to 5 and essentially the same descriptors for each category.
one plausible
response to the current findings could be that the traditional
General schedule
performance management processes used by these three
agencies do not represent
a fair test of performance rating systems. other agencies may
not encounter simi-
lar bias issues given that the three agencies reviewed in this
study are part of the
traditional General schedule pay system. therefore, a more
detailed study of the
alternative personnel systems, for example, the dod national
security Person-
nel system (based on performance rating data prior to the
system’s elimination)
or oPm-approved demonstration projects (demo) projects would
be necessary
to be confident about the problems identified in this study.
However, some initial
42. reviews of alternative systems and demo projects suggest
continuing problems
with bias and credibility found in the traditional General
schedule approaches.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
[
C
en
tr
al
M
ic
hi
ga
n
U
ni
ve
rs
43. it
y]
a
t
08
:1
6
17
F
eb
ru
ar
y
20
15
eremin et al. / systemic BiAs in FederAl PerFormAnce
evAluAtions 17
For example, a GAo review of the national security Personnel
system found that
the dod still required more work to ensure that the system was
fair (GAo, 2008).
A 2007 review of the dod acquisition personnel demonstration
project found
44. only a very modest increase in perceived fairness in how
supervisors recognized
individual contribution.4
Another issue has to do with the merit argument. Federal
government culture
and conventional wisdom offer some plausible …
Order #172368159 (Status: Writer Assigned)Employee
Performance (1 pages, 0 slides)
Reassign this orderThis order may be reassigned automatically
by Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:14:34 -0600
· Instructions
· Files (1)
· Messages
Type of service:
Writing from scratch
Work type:
Coursework
Deadline:
(31h) Extend deadline
Academic level:
College (3-4 years: Junior, Senior)
Subject or Discipline:
Public Administration
Title:
Employee Performance
Number of sources:
1
Provide digital sources used:
No
Paper format:
APA
# of pages:
1
Spacing:
45. Double spaced
# of words:
275
# of slides:
ppt icon 0
# of charts:
0
Paper details:
as the Human Resources Director of the Public Works Division
manage unsatisfactory Employee Performance in the Street
Maintenance Division and describe ways to produce
improvement in unsatisfactory performance. Use the following
scenario to answer the questions.
Scenario: Slacker Thomas works for your Street Maintenance
Division, and his offenses are many and devious. Last winter,
for example, when assigned to fill potholes, he did his job so
badly that another crew had to redo his work. After that, many
of his co-workers concluded that they could accomplish more
shorthanded than with Thomas around. So they asked him to
remain behind in the garage, which is precisely what Thomas
wanted. He does what is in his job description only and
absolutely nothing more. Moreover, he flaunts his disregard for
his duties, for his division's responsibilities and the dedication
of his co- workers.
Comments:
#
FILES
WHO UPLOADED
1
172368159_PerformMgmtProcess_1.pdf
Article to be used
46. 264 KB
24 Jan, 08:47 AM
· EXAMPLE PROVIDED Below:
Essential Components of Role Delineation
Examples /Supporting Evidence
Role Delineation based on NP Competencies
Narrative format plus evidence is required
1. Management of Patient Health/Illness Status
Reflections on class lectures, discussions, clinical experiences,
readings, assignments
2. NP-Pt Relationship
Reflections on class lectures, discussions, clinical experiences
readings, assignments
3. Teaching-Coaching Function
Sample of outline of teaching rounds, poster, in-service etc
4. Professional Role
May be evident in C-V, ,Proof of attendance at BON meeting
5. Negotiating HC Delivery Systems
Attendance at Lambda Chi Meeting, Pri-Med, CMS seminar
6. Monitoring/ Ensuring Quality of HC
Sample of peer reviews, quality improvement activities, Magnet
offerings
7. Cultural Competence
Article citation, Web References
· Management of Patient health/Illness Status: As a Family
Nurse Practitioner I will use ethical decision making to elicit a
comprehensive health history, perform a comprehensive
physical examination, order diagnostic test when appropriate,
formulate a list of differential diagnoses, verify diagnoses based
47. on findings, determine appropriate pharmacological, behavioral
and other non-pharmacological treatment modalities, analyze
risk/benefit ratios to design and develop personalized plans of
care, and evaluate patient outcomes, modifying the plan as
indicated.
· NP-Pt relationship: As a FNP I will work with my patients to
create a tailored plan of care. I will respect the autonomy of my
patients and I will educate them so they can make informed
decisions regarding their health. I will be their advocate. I will
abide by the ethical principles of beneficence, non-malfeasance,
justice, veracity and autonomy. I will strive to create an
environment where they can feel accepted and are able to
express their concerns openly. I will address my patients
holistically and will be cognizant of the key role that mental
health plays in our overall well-being.
· Teaching Coaching Function: As a FNP I will go above and
beyond to make sure my patients understand the information
regarding their health status, their treatment options and the
expected outcome of each treatment or no treatment. On each
patient encounter, I will look for the opportunity to teach them
about primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, including but
not limited to, screening and educating about disease modifying
risk factors, instructing on actions that can be taken to improve
outcomes of diseases, and available rehabilitation options when
appropriate.
· Professional Role: As a FNP I will keep my practice current
and provide evidence-based interventions to my patients. I will
be an active participant in my professional organizations, read
professional journals and attend local and/or national
conferences.
· Negotiating Health Care Delivery Systems: As a FNP I will
maintain records that reflect diagnostic and therapeutic
48. reasoning, and deliver cost-effective care that demonstrates
knowledge of patient payment systems and provider
reimbursement systems.
· Monitoring/Ensuring Quality of HC: As a FNP I will apply
knowledge of the regulatory processes to deliver safe, effective
patient care and will maintain continuous self-actualization of
current practices by accessing professional journals, evidence
based research and publications of national organizations.
· Cultural Competence: As a FNP I will be cognizant of the
diversity of cultures and beliefs of the society in which I
practice. Furthermore, I will be aware of my own preconceived
cultural beliefs in order to steer clear of interference with my
professional goal of providing culturally sensitive care to all my
patients.
Order #172382205 (Status: Writer Assigned) Delineation role (2
pages, 0 slides)
Reassign this order
· Instructions
· Files (2)
· Messages
Type of service:
Writing from scratch
Work type:
Research paper
Deadline:
(30h) Extend deadline
Academic level:
College (1-2 years: Freshman, Sophomore)
Subject or Discipline:
Nursing
49. Title:
Delineation role
Number of sources:
0
Provide digital sources used:
No
Paper format:
APA
# of pages:
2
Spacing:
Double spaced
# of words:
550
# of slides:
ppt icon 0
# of charts:
0
Paper details:
I have attached a file as an example of the paper and the topics
the professor wants included of what is expected of the role
delineation: below you will find the instructions of the writing
assignment.
The role delineation section allows the reader to identify how
you will actualize each competency outlined by the National
Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculty (NONPF) and the
AACN. It is as unique as each student. You may write a
narrative and include supporting documents to highlight your
activities. Ultimately it shows the progression towards the
program goals.
Comments:
#
Files
