GovernmentExecutive.com

If the Defense Department's pending personnel system hits bumps in its implementation, that may spell disaster for the Bush administration's plans to reform the civil service, according to a new Government Accountability Report.

In 2003, Congress allowed the Pentagon to reshape its civilian personnel system. Earlier this year, Defense personnel officials proposed replacing the General Schedule system, implementing a performance pay framework, streamlining the employee appeals process and scaling back collective bargaining. The new system would affect more than 700,000 employees.

Pentagon officials, however, did not include employee representatives in the working groups that developed the proposals, auditors found (GAO-05-730). This decision could hinder the department in encouraging employees to embrace the system once it is implemented, according to GAO.

"A successful transformation must provide for meaningful involvement by employees and their representatives to gain their input into and understanding of the changes that will occur," the report stated.

With the Bush administration pushing for a complete overhaul of the civil service, the system under way at Defense could "serve as a model for governmentwide transformation in human capital management," according to GAO. "However, if not properly designed and effectively implemented, it could severely impede progress toward a more performance- and results-based system for the federal government as a whole."

Employee organizations and some lawmakers are keen to see results from NSPS and the Homeland Security Department's personnel system, known as MAX HR, before expanding personnel reforms governmentwide.

GAO recommended that Pentagon officials identify all the stakeholders and their concerns, and then "tailor and customize key messages to be delivered to groups of employees to meet their divergent interests and information needs." The department also should "develop procedures for evaluating NSPS that contain results-oriented performance measures and reporting requirements," the report stated.

In a written response, Defense officials charged that they "took great care to ensure that the materials and messages addressed" the concerns of employees, labor unions, managers and senior officials. However, they also acknowledged that "you can never communicate enough when attempting to implement a major transformation initiative" and agreed to step up their efforts.

COMMENTS

• Someone must have voted for President Rumsfeld. I hope everyone is happy now. They tried to do away with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Completely. If you make more than $450.00 per week, you can be exempt. The tried to take away FERS high three and make it a high five and raise taxes on the FERS and bankrupt Social Security. People said why do I need a union? Working for the contractors will be like the good ole days (1800's) going from job to job no benefits or security. Kind of like a third world country. Welcome to the new "world order" (The other Bush) Thank God we still have a little freedom of speech, but not for long. I for one will be too tired after working 14 hours a day, seven days a week. (That wasn't too far back in American history) GovExec.com reader Posted January 14, 2006 9:57 AM
• NSPS (pay for performance) is designed to increase political power and not to better the fate of government employees. Pay raises ultimately will be decided by political appointees and military supervisors. Our military supervisors already think we should work under military rules - what a crock! They get overpaid and we get underpaid for the same jobs but they volunteered for the military (as long as they do not have to go to a fighting zone!). The measure of performance is arrive early and leave late. You do not have to do anything in between but you have to be here. That is because they have no idea what the output should be! We are paid to be here for a certain number of hours and supervisors that decide on pay increases measure performance by the number of hours you appear on the job - not by output either in terms of quality or quantity. However, if they do look at output it is in terms of quantity. Quality output is defined as that output that agrees with the position of the department regardless of how ridiculous that position may be. In the financial areas of DoD operations in all services and agencies the positions are often flat out wrong but the financial people will not change because that is what they think they need to get money from Congress. The majority of DoD and service actions is to get more funds from Congress and not to use those funds effectively for the defense of the country, but rather to increase the life style of the people in DoD and increase teir power. Look at the power of the base commander at Fort AP Hill following the electrocution of Boy Scout leaders setting up a tent. He closed the base and would not allow Boy Scouts that had traveled thousands of miles to be there to enter so they could spend the night. He should be punished for this bad decision but will be applauded as taking a very good anti-terrorist step to keep those Boy Scouts out of the base for a day. Who is going to question the base commander - he is a good! He also influences the pay for performance rating for everyone at AP Hill, if he wants to! They had pay for performance with the old GM system that they couldn't work either and we all went back to being GS employees. The problem is not the systemn for pay increases! The problem is management! taxpayer Posted July 28, 2005 9:07 AM
• Pay for performance just like industry. Sounds great. However, I have been involved in pay raise decisions in industry, and the real question was not how well they performed, but how valuable they were to the company and how likely were they to leave if the raise wasn't big enough. Performance, even with significant demonstrated improvement over time, was a minor consideration at best. I have confidence in my supervisor, however, he can only allocate what the organization provides, and this organization has proven certain departments are more favored than others. I have very little faith the organization will allocate fairly. GovExec.com reader Posted July 21, 2005 7:45 AM