Featured February 9, 2026 New year, new era of government reform Back to Blog From AM to PM: Envisioning a new day for federal performance management Date April 20, 2026 Authors Kelly Shih Tags Workforce I am an optimist who assumes most people wake up in the morning wanting to do a good job at work—and usually succeed in doing so. But I also know we can’t take that for granted, especially in an organization as important as the federal government. Leaders across government must be able to measure how well employees do their jobs. But the government’s employee performance management system—the process by which agencies align employees to the organization’s mission, assess their level of performance and take action accordingly—is outdated. Today’s systems stem from the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act’s mandate for performance appraisals and the rules and guidance that have governed implementation since then. As the work of government has become more complex, many talent management tools—from hiring and classification to employee development and performance management—have not kept up. Performance management, in particular, is trying to do too many things at once and doing none of them well. Processes meant to support a large workforce have instead become burdensome and often hinder, rather than help, public servants. It’s time for a change. Below, the first in a series of blogs on federal performance management, we offer an overview of the problem and a path toward reform. What is federal performance management? According to the Office of Personnel Management, performance management encompasses five phases: planning, monitoring, developing, rating and rewarding. In practice, the process follows an annual cycle. It begins with goal-setting between employees and supervisors. Those goals should cascade from agency priorities down through teams to individual contributors. Throughout the year, supervisors and employees are expected to check in regularly to share feedback, track progress and support development. Goals may be adjusted during a formal midyear review. At the end of the year, supervisors assess employees, typically through ratings. Those ratings then get used to distribute performance rewards as available. For employees falling short of expectations, the process can involve performance improvement plans or adverse actions such as removal. It is important to distinguish between adverse actions related to poor performance and separate adverse actions related to misconduct, since each can trigger different review and appeals processes. While this section describes the general framework for performance management, implementation varies considerably across agencies and employee classifications. To further illustrate a typical experience, we will publish journey maps from the manager, employee and human resources perspectives later this spring. Why federal performance management needs reform The Partnership’s Government for a New Era initiative prioritizes federal performance management as a critical pillar of a high-functioning, effective government. There are many familiar critiques: Ratings are inflated, poor performers aren’t dealt with, and the whole exercise feels like a bureaucratic checkbox rather than a genuine management tool. These are real problems. But focusing only on these symptoms narrows the opportunity to make government more effective, responsive and accountable. We need to look deeper at the purpose of performance management. Federal performance management is currently expected to: Align employee goals to organizational priorities and improve overall performance Ensure employees meet baseline job expectations Develop employee skills to fulfill organizational needs Rate employees’ level of performance Reward, recognize and motivate good work Inform decisions about advancement and promotion Support workforce planning decisions, including reductions in force, where performance may soon become more consequential due to OPM’s proposed rule to increase its relevance in RIF decisions These seven distinct purposes—spanning everything from day-to-day accountability to long-term talent development—are built into a single annual cycle, making the current performance management system a mile wide and an inch deep. To make a system that works, we need to get clear on its purpose. A path toward reform Over the coming months, we will work with practitioners and experts to map the current state of federal performance management, challenge assumptions, research best practices from other sectors, identify underlying root causes and clarify the purpose of the system. With those insights, we will then propose reforms that span statutory, regulatory, practice-based and cultural changes. Regardless of our conclusions on the system’s purpose, our proposals will focus on holistic reform that addresses root causes rather than creating more work-arounds. We aim to simplify the system, reduce administrative burden and identify the necessary investments in people and technology, while also retaining employees’ vital due process protections. Learn more about the Government for a New Era initiative, our effort to develop reforms for a more effective, responsive and accountable government. If you are a current or former federal employee interested in sharing your experiences and contributing to our reform proposals, please complete our Federal Community Intake Form and indicate your expertise or interest in performance management. Kelly Shih leads stakeholder engagement and performance management reform on the Public Policy & Stakeholder Engagement team. She previously led strategy development and implementation for the Public Service Leadership Institute.
