GovernmentExecutive.com

In almost 50 years of working for and being associated with the federal government, I've read perhaps 100 articles that say government is finally going to get tough and demand rigorous performance evaluations that fit the statistical "normal distribution curve." Yet little has changed.

Why? Because humans have not changed.

Normal distributions apply to inanimate objects, not to people. There is nothing normal about humans. About 75 percent of workers feel they are in the top 25 percent in terms of ability and performance. But government continually tries to design personnel systems that place a significant percentage in the bottom half. Consequently, people are unhappy.

The attempt to objectify what is a subjective by using numbers and scales has been a universal quest. It is how managers try to absolve themselves of the responsibility of judging another's performance. And work that involves the invisible process of intellectual activity cannot be easily quantified or accurately measured.

Because a scale has five levels, as opposed to the two in the vilified "pass/fail" setup, does not mean it provides a more accurate evaluation. Actually, it results in a less satisfied workforce. When I came into the system in 1958, the ratings were "outstanding," "satisfactory" and "unsatisfactory."

In those years, about 5 percent were rated "outstanding," about 1 percent "unsatisfactory," and the remaining 94 percent "satisfactory." I did not sense much dissatisfaction with the process -- which de facto was pass/fail with 99 percent passing.

Management specialists began to say some employees are more than satisfactory but not outstanding and some are below satisfactory but not unsatisfactory, so the system should recognize those differences by having a five-part scale. The assumption was that supervisors could accurately determine those differences.

But they can't. The results were disastrous. People rated "satisfactory" in a system in which only 5 percent were "outstanding," considered themselves close to the top group. In the five-part system, they found themselves in the middle, the 50 percent range, and thus were unhappy because they thought they should be in the top 25 percent.

Performance evaluations based on such schemes are accepted in the private sector because supervisors can rationalize the objectivity of their decisions by referring to the bottom line of profit and loss. There is no such parameter in the public sector. Performance evaluation for pay purposes never works, yet the country values an association between the two. What can be done?

The civil service should consider the military model. Officers are evaluated every year, but development and performance is linked to future promotions. This combines career counseling and performance evaluation.

Pay among officers of the same rank and the same time in rank is equal and advances through longevity and congressionally approved raises. Officers jump to a higher pay range when they are promoted, and must serve some minimum time in each rank. The promotion decision is made by a board of the officer's superiors, which moderates the friction that occurs when one individual evaluates another individual. The process still has the desired effect of promoting the best qualified, based on performance.

In the National Security Personnel System, for example, suppose an employee at the entry level band were given annual pay increases as voted by Congress and annual performance evaluations. At the end of some period -- say, three to five years -- the worker could be considered by a promotion board of his superiors who would look at his cumulative evaluations.

If found qualified, the employee could move to the next level and enter a higher pay range. This process could be repeated through the next bands, with minimum time required before promotion increased for the higher bands. Longevity increases could be added to each band.

Under such a scheme, the assessment would take on the character of career counseling, mentoring and performance evaluation. It would allow managers to communicate expectations and provide feedback to employees. And since the promotion decision would be made by an impartial board, friction would be reduced. Pay for performance would come through promotions to higher bands, not annual raises.

To motivate the workforce and give managers discretion, the first five years on the job would be deemed employment-at-will, in which a person could be dismissed. This is not unlike the tenure process for college professors. At the other end of the career path, an employee would become eligible for optional retirement, much like the military's time limits on careers.

Managers might exert effort to retain retirement-eligible employees who are contributing effectively. But they could retire those whose performance has dropped off or whose expertise is no longer important to the organization. Age discrimination is not a factor because optional retirement is not mandatory. It might even give senior employees the incentive to remain current and productive if they want to stay, thus avoiding the "retired on the job" syndrome.

Employment-at-will and optional retirement would allow managers to tailor the workforce without reductions in force, which tend to get rid of the youngest employees. Such a system would retain the most productive employees through the career cycle and avoid ill-fated systems that attempt to treat humans as "normal."

COMMENTS

• Ignore the pass/fail or five point systems. They are meaningless in and of themselves. Employee performance is a totally subjective measure based on the manager’s evaluation. The system is designed to attempt to force the manager to articulate his or her evaluation to the employee. Any evaluation of performance is the opinion of the person empowered to make the decision. No amount of numbering or refining of the words can change the basic system -- the same is true for school grades. Most people do not like being evaluated and resist any attempt to provide a "grade." Even students in schools sue teachers for grades and the courts have forced themselves into this process. The courts should stay out of the process unless it is totally inappropriate for the situation involved. The problem with all evaluations is that the evaluation has to be based on the objectives to be achieved, the measures of that achievement and the outcome of the results. Nice try does not cut it -- you have to perform. Additionally, you have to perform in a proper manner and the proper manner should be clearly defined in measurable and observable terms that can and are documented on a frequent basis. For example, you will wear a coat and tie to work, you will be present in the workplace eight hours a day unless specifically excused by the manager doing the evaluation, you will not attack others physically or mentally while at work, etc. There should be not unwritten rules that "pop up" at the evaluation! The clear problem in the Defense Department and DHS is that they cannot or will not define the outcomes and the means of measuring performance so employees know how to compete. We do not know if we are in a baseball game, a soccer game, or playing chess! Management needs to define the game and provide the rules. Managers are the zebras but they make us play without a rule book and they change the rules at will without telling us in advance! This article is crap and never will solve the problems addressed until management defines the game and its rules. Taxpayer Posted September 28, 2006 7:39 AM
• I have worked my entire career in a "pay for performance" system (the China Lake demonstration project). My experience with the system is that the local management understands the quality of the workforce (within reasonable limits) and works to try to get reasonable ratings for everyone. This is a human environment, so things happen. Sometimes people get into a situation and fail for reasons out of their control. What I have directly experienced is that sometimes the ratings are a bit high, sometimes a bit low, but usually pretty fair and evens out in the long run. Obviously I can only speak to my own situation, and I am sure there will be horror stories out there when pay-for-performance hits the streets. But I suspect that by-and-large the majority of raters will be similar to those here, and by-and-large, people will do as well, with the inadequate monies provided. I do agree with the earlier comment, about having senior journey level people on the workforce. I have been lucky enough to be able to stay in applications work, but at the cost of capping my salary. In theory we have a two-tier system and a very few of the extremely high-performing engineers are able to break through the salary ceiling (DP-4). But in practice, not enough money is not provided to support two tiers so traditional, great engineers are converted to poor managers if they want to advance in pay. I’m not as cynical as some, but I’m also not convinced. GovExec.com reader Posted September 26, 2006 12:01 PM
• Nice article, but, come on. Does anybody believe that the military promotion boards are impartial, or that they don't use the bell curve so that only a few are rated at the top by superiors? In my experience, quotas are established and raters are told by senior raters how many subordinates can be rated at the top and those that actually get those ratings are no more likely to be the best and brightest than in any other system. Have we forgotten the 80s when captains and majors were dropped from the military in an effort to "downsize?" Those decisions were not made using intelligent thought -- it was a salami slice and dice. We already have a period during which an employee can be let go without hassle; it's called a probationary period. The problem is that managers rarely use it. The bottom line is the tools are already available to the manager; managers by and large do a really poor job of managing. Every system gets bastardized by those who implement it. Military members kiss butt and so do civilians, and raters rate based on who does it the best, ignoring actual job performance. Skeptical Posted September 25, 2006 1:42 PM