GovernmentExecutive.com

Agencies should focus on developing sound systems for evaluating and improving employees' job performance before they factor pay into the equation, witnesses told members of a House panel at a hearing Thursday.

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, called the hearing to "come up with a better idea on how to move forward" on personnel reforms. The Bush administration would eventually like to see agencies across government shed the decades-old General Schedule pay scale in favor of a system based on pay for performance.

"It seems to me that it's premature to be implementing pay for performance when we don't have a performance management system in place," said Robert Tobias, director of public sector executive programs at American University.

Tobias argued there is no agency that has a system in place that could be the basis for fair and credible pay for performance. He pointed to the Homeland Security Department's recent decision to proceed more cautiously with the pay segment of its personnel reforms.

"They recognized that they have not gotten the performance management system right, so they're not going forward with pay for performance," Tobias said.

He suggested that agencies first create a system enabling supervisors to more objectively discern differences among employees' quality of work, adding that many supervisors have their own subjective definition of what constitutes "working hard." Then agencies could focus on pay or other motivational rewards, he said.

Hannah Sistare, vice president of academy affairs for the National Academy of Public Administration, said that for new personnel systems to succeed, they require a commitment from the organization, time for rehearsal and review, and a consensus among policymakers and executive branch officials as to the overall design, implementation and cost.

Sistare said, however, that she does not think pay needs to be taken out of the picture for the new systems to work. She attributed difficulties at the Homeland Security and Defense departments in part to the size and complexity of those organizations.

Several witnesses, and some lawmakers, argued that pay is not necessarily even the most significant factor influencing job performance. It is also critical that employees are aware of how their work is linked to their agency's mission, they said.

"There's a lot more self-satisfaction and self-fulfillment that goes into these jobs," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass. "I think this [pay for performance] model misses a lot of that."

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said she is not opposed to change, but would like agencies to ensure that any personnel reforms incorporate a fair and credible compensation system that promotes teamwork and focuses on leadership.

"Rules and systems don't motivate people," she said. "Leaders do."

NTEU and other federal employee unions mounted a successful legal challenge against the labor relations aspect of DHS' personnel overhaul. A case against the Defense Department's similar system is still under appeal, with a decision expected this month.

Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, said Congress should codify the upcoming appeals court decision. He said lawmakers should de-authorize any personnel changes that undermine collective bargaining and employee rights. But he did agree there should be a broader focus on performance management across government.

COMMENTS

• The problem isn’t the pay system or the performance measurement system. The problem is the lack of decent management. Government managers are not managers! Without managers the problem is not going to be solved regardless of the pay and performance system. The problem with the new NSPS system is that it provides employees with no protection again incompetent managers. At least the GS system provided something. That is the real problem with NSPS. NSDPS requires everyone to follow the boss’s orders blindly if they expect any pay advancement at all. The controls are now out of the system and the incompetents at the higher levels can do anything they want with no resistance from employees subject totally to them under NSPS. Anyone near retirement is highly likely to go out of government within a few years of implementation of NSPS - many may give it a round or two to see how it works but then they will go. The wise ones will retire immediately. taxpayer Posted March 14, 2007 7:23 AM
• In order to build anything that is useful, efficient, and lasts a long time, you need a plan, materials, and the necessary expertise to put the first two together. The problem as I see it with pay for performance is that you don't have enough qualified supervisors to implement it. As a matter of fact, most federal employees know of supervisors who don't have the sufficient leadership ability and supervisory skills to come close to implementing such a system. The number one complaint of "productive" (versus those who are just looking for a pay check) is that marginal (or worse) performers are paid the same as we are, while getting the less challenging and less difficult assignments. Why? Because so many federal supervisors lack the leadership ability, training and mentoring skills to deal with that issue. It’s not the pay system that's broken. It the way the federal government identifies, promotes, and supports its so-called leaders: first and second level supervisors. No matter how great a system is created, it still boils down to implementation. GovExec.com reader Posted March 13, 2007 10:29 AM
• When I read “Malcolm’s” response “The Peter Principle” came immediately to mind, and I think I understood his point. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the problem is determining what is necessary for success as a supervisor in a particular job. Many think hands-on knowledge of the mission is essential for success, and yet companies’ hire celebrity CEOs who’ve never worked on a line; some are winners and some are losers. How do you pick the winners without incurring such outrageous separation pay? I’m not sure, but I prefer working for someone who knows the score and will roll up their sleeves occasionally. Then I read the response by - I’ll call them “frame of mind” for lack of a better ID, and agree that the old GS pay system is adequate but recognize that a new broom calls all it sweeps before it dirt. I’m convinced the “flaw” they saw is what this “new” system is about. I did a quick, down and dirty estimate of the cost of the step increases on an annual basis for a previous article and response, and wonder just how close I was for it was a huge amount. The trouble I see with eliminating the steps is that they are “granted” on the basis of a job satisfactorily performed, and allow someone without ambition to have a successful career without getting caught in the “Peter Principle” trap. Some folks do have a good work ethic but no desire to be a supervisor. Even if they did there is not room for everyone to end their career as such. Additionally, if you take the funds for those step increases and put it in the hands of Congress as bonuses from the discretionary budget, it will perennially be on the chopping block. Performance starts with goals and analysis. Many supervisors are worker bees with supervisory missions on the side. That relegates the vital task of supervision to a secondary status. In this humble opinion, secondary tasks will always suffer. Tip off GovExec.com reader Posted March 13, 2007 12:05 PM