GovernmentExecutive.com

In the recently passed legislation to overhaul the Defense department personnel system, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld won a key victory: House and Senate negotiators removed a provision that would have required him to phase in a new system. The legislation allows Rumsfeld to move forward immediately with a new system for 300,000 workers, and to extend it to all employees when he certifies that a new performance appraisal system is in place.

But that's the tricky part. Creating an effective performance evaluation system is a task that has eluded virtually every other federal agency.

"If anyone can solve the performance evaluation problem, he should be entitled to the Nobel, the Pulitzer and the Heisman in the same year," said Diane Disney, who previously oversaw civilian employees at Defense and is now dean of Commonwealth College at Pennsylvania State University.

The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act provided for bonuses and merit salary increases for high-performing civil servants. But as a public service commission headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker noted in a January report, Congress rarely has provided sufficient appropriations to fund the bonuses. And managers tended to spread what bonus money there was among all of their employees to supplement annual raises.

The evaluation problem goes beyond Defense. A 2001 study by the Brookings Institution found that of 700,000 employees across government rated in 2001 using a pass/fail system, less than a tenth of 1 percent failed. Meanwhile, of 800,000 federal employees who were rated using a five-point grading system, 43 percent were rated as "outstanding," 28 percent as "exceeds fully successful," 18 percent as "fully successful," and less than 1 percent as either "minimally successful" or "unacceptable."

Nevertheless, many employees believe that the process of rewarding top workers and punishing or firing poor performers is based less on merit than on favoritism, political pressure or supervisory incompetence. Employees often believe that the managers evaluating them have little real understanding of the work they do.

Conversely, many federal managers believe that the performance management system assumes they have bad intentions. Federal supervisors have come to feel that their bosses won't back them up, so they avoid using the system as it was intended. "The amount of effort and paperwork and the stress that I would have inflicted upon myself was more costly than I was willing to spend in order to fire a poor performer," a Defense Department manager told Government Executive earlier this year.

The success or failure of Defense personnel reform depends on creating a performance evaluation system that manages to bridge the huge chasm of mistrust between managers and employees.

Brian Friel contributed to this column.

COMMENTS

• Quite a number of government employees are not held accountable (i.e. for coming in late, taking long lunches, etc.). In regards to accountability, my experience(s) with the incompetence of management almost ruined my career. The performance appraisal system is not well liked by some management; one particular manager seized the opportunity to reflect the magnitude of displeasure with the process and while revealing this, incompetent actions were brought to light. For example, management marked my appraisal as acceptable, however, commented in the remarks section how unacceptable my performance had been. During this same appraisal period, however, I was rewarded with a monetary bonus. In a sincere effort to be as productive and to understand the concepts of my job, I repeatedly asked for training assistance and was not accomodated. I am a Reservist and in conjunction with my Federal job, I have been on active duty and mobilized. My point, I elaborated my concerns for more training, however, management was reluctant to assist. I was not one of the "chosen". Thus politics and favoritism prevailed. I regard service to my country in high regards. Where my supervisor was made aware of my needs, because of reasons I can only speculate about chose to belittle my skills and character. Upper management backed this individuals actions because he/she "was management" and not because he/she was correct. LaJuna Elson Posted December 31, 2003 2:53 PM
• After the first (if not the first) rating, there will be guidance suggesting quotas (not everyone can be excellent). So many will have to be rated poorly and only so many can be maxed out. There is management and the "managed". Wonder how the percentages will shake out! GovExec.com reader Posted November 21, 2003 8:50 AM
• Management must clearly align performance standards directly with office mission. Hmmm. If there aint no mission, abolish the office. That's a novel idea. Management must lead by example. We live in glass houses. Fair and equitable treatment of all employees is a must. Standards must be clearly articulated, and measurable. Many supervisors are too worried about allegations of wrong doing. Who knows how many nonperformers get away with falsification of timecards, refusing work, etc. because of this fear. I see that as the root of our problems in performance management. Until management is strictly accountable for productivity of subordinates, nothing will change. Exceptional leaders are not born that way. They learn those skills. Perhaps mandatory supervisory training on an annual basis by human resource management teams would serve us well. Is a small price to pay, and worthy of consideration. As long as the dead weight is allowed to collect a pay gift every two weeks, no system will work. Tim Ellmore Posted November 20, 2003 8:08 AM