GovernmentExecutive.com

Agency officials need to put considerable time and deliberation into planning their implementation strategies for personnel reforms, according to Linda Springer, the director of the Office of Personnel Management.

"If an agency came to OPM and said, 'we're ready to do this 100 percent' on day one, I would be very skeptical that they haven't" taken the necessary preparatory steps, Springer told a crowd Tuesday during the Excellence in Government conference, co-sponsored by Government Executive.

OPM, along with the Office of Management and Budget, is floating a draft of legislation, titled the Working for America Act, which proposes to reform the personnel system for all federal workers. Personnel reforms are pending at the Defense and Homeland Security departments.

Part of that legislation would give OPM the power to determine if individual agencies are ready to proceed with personnel reforms. Each agency will have some flexibility within the framework of the legislation to form their own personnel regulations.

One of the major components of implementation strategy will be measuring employee performance.

"A lot of it comes back to training and getting good at it and practice," Springer said. She told the audience that while the government is "not very good" at measuring performance, it is "not doing anything that's new, that hasn't been done by millions and millions of people for decades," and that measuring performance competently is possible.

While Springer stressed the importance of agency preparation, she rejected the notion that domestic agencies should wait until Defense and DHS implement their new systems to begin comparable systems of their own, despite pressure from some members of Congress to do so.

"It's important to not have a split type of playing field," Springer said. "It's fair to say that many [members of Congress] think it makes all the sense in the world" to monitor the progress new personnel systems have made at DHS and the Pentagon before extending parts of those systems governmentwide.

However, Springer said she disagrees, and that the draft bill will be examined in congressional hearings in the near future.

Springer also told the audience that managers are "going to have more of a burden of responsibility" after personnel reforms kick in. She said when it comes to appraising subordinates, managers will be "asked in the new system to do the right thing" and not inflate performance evaluations.

The director also said she understands those who are skeptica of reform efforts.

"You're talking about our money," Springer said. "This is cause for great interest. I recognize there's some anxiety about this."

COMMENTS

• Refresh my mind. What great and wonderful things did the prior administration (Clinton) do for those of us in Civil Service. Maybe the unions were invited to more political parties! Meanwhile, almost half of the civilians in DOD lost their jobs or were forced to move thousands of miles away to continue a career in the Civil Service. At least the newer folks under FERS could move to a private sector job if one was available. Having alrady put 25 years into the government, it was not a choice for me. Clinton really came to our assistance. We are now doing twice or three times the work with less money and certainly no overtime. Managers are currently giving awards and promotions to their friends and to those who agree with everything they do. I don't see a change under NSPS as the worse they can do is continue what they have been doing. One possible break is that they can get a high graded position without going into management. Most would never have taken the management, supervisory position if it wasn't the only way to get a higher grade. I have had good and bad supervisors in 29 years and I do not give that distinction because of monetary awards but because of how I was treated and the assignments I was given. GovExec.com reader Posted August 1, 2005 2:17 PM
• "It's important to not have a split type of playing field," Springer said." ---- Of course you should not have a split system, if you did you could actually compare the two systems side by side and see that pay for performance is actually a master plan to reduce pay and benefits for government employees. Who says you can't relive history? The civil service system was created to change the "good ole boy" network of hiring, and promoting friends. This system is taking us back in time. Ted Posted July 28, 2005 7:53 AM
• You can talk a bad idea to death and it won't get any better. These new programs are a disaster waiting to happen. Anyone with a brain knows the supervisors and managers will get the money and the workers will get screwed again. At least Rummy and his band of bums are not listening to anyone who is not in favor of their bad plan. Get used to it folks it will not get better. Think long - think wrong. GovExec.com reader Posted July 27, 2005 7:15 AM