TOPICS
TOPICS
OPM pushes for lower executive performance ratings
Too many federal executives are receiving top performance ratings and rewards, Office of Personnel Management Director Kay Coles James suggested in a recent letter to agency chiefs.
James urged the political brass at agencies to rigorously hold executives accountable for measurable results. According to fiscal 2001 data, 83.7 percent of federal executives received the highest ratings available in their agencies' performance evaluation systems, down only slightly from 85.5 percent in fiscal 2000.
"I believe that most senior executives provide quality service to our citizens, but such a disproportionate share who were rated and rewarded in the very top ranks suggests that agencies weren't making meaningful distinctions between those with a record of truly outstanding performance and those who did what was expected," James said in the Sept. 20 letter.
James' letter reiterated points she made in a Nov. 1, 2001 memo, a month after the end of fiscal 2001. OPM is now collecting data on executive evaluations for fiscal 2002.
According to OPM data for fiscal 2001, 5,927 members of the Senior Executive Service received performance ratings. About 84 percent of those executives, or 4,961, received the highest rating in the three-, four- or five-level rating system at their agencies. At agencies with three-level rating systems, 99.5 percent of executives were awarded the top rating.
Governmentwide, only 12 executives received ratings below fully successful, the top rating in three-level systems and the mid-point level in five-level systems.
A little more than half of federal executives earned performance awards in fiscal 2001. Executive bonuses averaged $12,324 and totaled $37.9 million.
Senior executives' salaries in 2001 ranged from $117,479 to $133,700. Executive salaries are capped by a scale that includes congressional salaries. The cap has resulted in pay compression in the executive ranks.
The Senior Executive Service has a six-level pay scale. Because of pay compression, executives across the country at the top three of the six levels are all paid the same salary. In some locations, executives at the top four or top five levels all are paid the same. That means promotions in the executive ranks often come with no salary increase.
Carol Bonosaro, president of the Senior Executives Association, said pay compression forces political appointees to rely more heavily on bonuses to compensate executives. In addition, she noted that compensation packages for executives outside of government often rely heavily on bonuses.
"It is not at all unusual in private industry that the majority of executives receive bonuses, so that the ones who don't get a message," Bonosaro said.
Bonosaro also said that executives rise to the top of government because they are superior performers, and the high ratings are a reflection of that. She also said the suggestion that executives are being rated more highly than they deserve could be bad for morale.
"I'd like to hear that they found something good to say about senior executives," Bonosaro said. "My dear departed mother used to have a saying: 'You don't catch flies with vinegar. You catch them with honey.' To be continually subjected to negative messages is not too good for morale."
COMMENTS
- I agree with OPM Director Kay Coles James. I have never seen a GS-15, GS-14, GS-13 and GS-12 who did not get exceptional ratings and their $2,000-and up-money awards each year. Does anyone care? If they do, they know where their bread is buttered and they don't tell. In the government, people catch onto the game that is played and if they want to get the big money and awards, they learn what to say and who to say it to. If they were at one time honest or hard working, they become crooked and deceitful after seeing how promotions, performance appraisals, and awards come about. If one of them turns on his fellow high-graded employee and tries to expose them, they wind up on the "black list"—forced to quit or retire or live in misery all his government years. You might have guessed it by now, yes, I am one of these poor, misfortunate employees. I have been threatened, moved around from job to job, phone and computer bugged (usually computer not working), and told to quit or retire or regret it. Anonymous Posted February 24, 2003 4:56 PM
- How can folks at the higher levels in the government possibly rate such high ratings? Could it be because GS-15 and SES level really do work very hard? Could it be we have downsized to the point that the higher level and lower level civil service employees really do hold their own and more...and do this every day? OPM should be getting to know the SES and GS-15s, finding out what their duties are, their duty hours, their products, and then make knowledgeable input. Have they done this? Anonymous Posted February 24, 2003 4:55 PM
- I disagree with the insinuation by the General Accounting Office and the Office of Personnel Management that there must be something wrong in that 82 percent of federal executives received the highest possible ratings on their performance evaluations, and 52 percent received bonuses in 2001. Agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration have responded to this alleged challenge by issuing fewer top performance ratings and bonuses in 2001. Rather than criticize the federal executives for their performance, I think that they should be praised. To begin with, SES candidates must undergo a rigorous selection process that includes certification by the Office of Personnel Management. Only the best of the best are certified to the SES ranks. Thus, because they are the cream of the crop, it makes sense that they would receive the top performance ratings and bonuses. Moreover, America owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to federal executives. Unlike civil service employees, SES salaries have a statutory cap because their compensation is linked to that made by congressional and Cabinet-level salaries. According to law, senior executives can't make more than Level III of the Executive Schedule, which was $133,700 in 2001, and is $138,200 in 2002. The average cost-of-living adjustment for retirees during the past eight years has been 2.5 percent, which is more than twice the average SES pay increase over the same period. It seems to me that the high performance ratings and bonuses given to federal executives are a small token of appreciation for the iniquitous salaries increases that they have received in the past. It is a miracle that so many have stayed in public service for so long. After considering that 70 percent of federal executives are eligible to retire in the next five years, someone better talk some sense to the General Accounting Office and to the Office of Personnel Management. Jorge E. Ponce Posted February 24, 2003 4:55 PM
