GovernmentExecutive.com

Pay system reform and recruiting and retaining an effective workforce are among the most critical challenges human resources leaders across the government face, according to a study released Thursday.

The report from the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service and the global consulting firm Grant Thornton is based on interviews with 55 federal human resources officials from 28 major agencies and more than a dozen small agencies.

"The Partnership's first policy proposal was the creation of the chief human capital officer [position]," said Max Stier, president of the Partnership, at an event Thursday. "It's fabulous to see in this report the real collective wisdom of that group."

The majority of participants identified a move to a more performance-sensitive and market-based pay system as critical to meeting recruitment and retention needs. Most cautioned, however, that the process of designing and implementing new pay systems should be slow and deliberate, with credible performance management systems and appraisals coming first.

They argued that keeping a strong focus on results and outcomes rather than process is vital, but cautioned against implementing a "one-size-fits-all" approach to human capital that would force the same administrative and reporting requirements on agencies that are vastly different.

The interviewees said the Office of Personnel Management and Congress should lay out guidelines for the outcomes of human resources programs, while giving agencies as much latitude as possible to achieve those results.

Demographic changes such as the impending retirement wave and gaps in the middle ranks also came up as a cause of concern. Nearly all human resources leaders interviewed agreed that workforce planning -- basing decisions on a desired set of skills rather than number of employees -- is the key to meeting these challenges.

They also said many of the government's 20,000 human resources professionals lack updated skills. More than half of interviewees said their operations lack sufficient funding, preventing them from reengineering business processes and investing in new technologies.

Despite these challenges, human capital chiefs reported that performance management at their agencies is improving, specifically in linking individual performance plans more closely to strategic agency goals and mission requirements.

Some of the leaders said they have made substantial progress in reducing the amount of time it takes to hire employees. They said, however, that they would appreciate having greater direct-hire authority, as well as the ability to offset retirees' annuities to keep needed talent in the workforce.

Retirees now have little incentive to return because current law cuts their salaries by the amount of their pensions. "We've had to bring back priceless human capital through contractors," said Ron Sanders, CHCO for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, at Thursday's event. "Frankly, I'd like to see them come back as reemployed annuitants."

COMMENTS

• If management is so set on pushing for the NSPS, have all new hires go under this systme or have a choice between the GS or NSPSsystme. Those of us theat are so near retirement, should not have to be forced to go the NSPS system. There is a whole lot of training and bugs that need to worked out. With theis new system, also, is the fact when employees will move onto a new position so as to not miss out on their share of the performance award. I have not seen an improvement in the time it takes to get an employee on board. Barbara F. Caldwell Posted February 21, 2008 9:09 AM
• The possibility of grandfathering the GS system versus the implementation of NSPS appears on the surface to be a possibility until one looks further at the primary tenets of the NSPS. While I’m personally convinced that the prospect of saving money and removing (relatively) automatic pay raises (in the form of step increases) is a major factor in the push for NSPS; I’m equally sure that the personnel controls, deployability, and resizing portions of the new program, including the lessened strength of the union are causing upper management to salivate like Cujo. And it’s hard to imagine less strength when there are no strike capabilities. All these parts of the puzzle give upper management a feeling of dominance over what is currently a non-political entity. If implemented, I foresee the number of firing incidents such as the current DOJ to increase and wherein the SES and political appointee positions in government and civil service have been under the current party controls for decades, the new non-pay portions of NSPS would grant that same party of power even more control. Whereas they served at the convenience and behest of the president, we serve to support and uphold the Constitution. We must not forget that this is about reigning in a non-partisan, public service that must some times points out the illegalities of a particular party’s platform. Those that feel they have a mandate or mission often hold that the end justifies the means. Well, those same means are the doctrines by which we live and do business. Tip off Posted July 30, 2007 9:10 AM
• I agree with the assessment that exisitng employees (>5 years of service) be kept on their existing personnel systems. Perhaps only new hires should go on NSPS. It is ridiculous to force employees with >25 years of faithful service to embrace a system that was designed for a temp workforce. I think NSPS should be isolated to the new hires if at all. Brad Flott Posted July 27, 2007 11:06 AM