GovernmentExecutive.com

Despite pushback from some employees, labor unions and lawmakers, many federal agencies still are intent on scrapping the General Schedule system and replacing it with one that ties pay more closely to performance.

It's been well over two years since the Bush administration started floating the Working for America Act, which would extend personnel reforms being implemented at the Homeland Security and Defense departments to the rest of government. While the bill has yet to attract much interest on Capitol Hill, some federal agencies are jumping ahead to test the apparent flexibilities offered by alternative personnel systems.

According to Office of Personnel Management spokesman Mike Orenstein, federal agencies have the authority to place up to 5,000 employees in pay-for-performance demonstration projects. OPM must approve the projects and can manage only up to 10 pilots at any one time.

Currently, pay-for-performance pilots are active in three federal agencies -- the acquisition component at the Defense Department and the Commerce and Energy departments. But a fourth agency may soon be added to the mix -- the Veterans Health Administration.

Joleen Clark, deputy chief of the management support office at VHA, said last week that the department is waiting on OPM approval for its proposed demonstration project, and expects to launch it in early 2008.

News of a pay-for-performance pilot at VHA may sound familiar. The Veterans Affairs Department announced late last year that it planned to test the system with 1,000 VHA employees. But Clark said the department scrapped the idea of implementing it so late in the year, largely because officials felt it was unfair to debut a new approach so close to the end of a rating period.

The agency already has implemented a five-tiered performance management system instead of the pass-fail systems many agencies use, said Lawrence Bifareti, director of workforce planning and organization development at VHA. What's next is simply tying pay to ratings to give them meaning.

Still, the department has scaled back its plans for the trial, with plans to implement it for only 175 nonbargaining unit employees, Clark said. If successful, the plan eventually will include all VHA employees.

VHA's system will guarantee employees with a rating of fully successful or above a pay raise that is equal to the annual governmentwide increase. Ratings below fully successful will not receive any pay increase, and eligibility for within-grade increases and quality-step increases will be discontinued. VHA notes that additional funding of about $500,000 per year will be required to adequately recognize high performers.

Clark said VHA officials are looking to the pay-for-performance system at the Federal Aviation Administration as a model. But VHA has urged caution, she said, largely because FAA's implementation of the system has not been free of challenges.

In fact, Clark admits she is wary of implementing the new system. While she believes something must be done to replace the General Schedule, she said she was concerned about subjectivity, especially if performance standards are not given the attention needed upfront.

"I could see something like this having a very negative effect on employee satisfaction," she said, "if the perception is [that] supervisors are not being fair to employees, or the opposite -- overrating those who are barely performing to avoid complaints."

She added VHA has submitted to OPM a set of regulations on the pilot project for the Federal Register, which must be opened to comment before the project is launched. "Unfortunately, OPM has a few concerns with some of the language, so there has been a lot of back and forth," she said. "We're still hopeful that it will keep moving forward."

COMMENTS

• REMEMBER PERFORMANCE while reading the DHS Appripriations Bill, 2008 (June 18, 2007, printed) Senate Report 110-84 (Calendar No. 204) addressed to Senator Byrd. Page 4. Enhanced Security for Americans. It appears the Department has been far too reliant on what could be called “paper security,” instead of enhanced security. Page 6. The majority of the 800,000 airport employees nationwide aren't screened before entering secure areas of the airport. Page 11. Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary: The Committee continues to be concerned that DHS is neither nimble nor coordinated. Page 11. Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement: The Committee notes this Office has provide no information, as directed in FY-07 statement of managers, on its annual productivity & performance. Page 14. Reorganization Authority: Since the creation of the Department in March 03, the Secretary has exercised Section 872 NINE times. The Committee believes continuous reorganizations impede the ability of the Department to operate effectively and contributes to low morale. Page 14. Contractors Filling Federal Positions: Unfortunately, the Department chose to stonewall GAO on this issue by refusing to provide the necessary information to adequately assess compliance with the law. The Committee expects all information requested by GAO to be provided expeditiously. KEEP READING! Civilian Worker Posted January 24, 2008 11:37 AM
• I remember when I was over seas and I saw service men throwing a can of C rations to a bunch of kids and watching them scramble for it. This is what I see happening with the new system. Watch everyone maim each other for a pitiful treat and sometimes the can was empty, and those that fought the hardest or dirtiest were the ones that got the treat. It didn't mean that the ones that deserved it got it. My old management pitted employees against each other and we had all kinds of back stabbing going on. Of course once you found out about it and tried to correct the misconceptions it was too late because management was already against you because of the lies of the favored. I see this happening already. People positioning themselves to have the ear of the one that counts. But again I see managers getting away with being late with projects because they work away from their supervisors across the country while the employee gets raked over the coals for small offenses even ones that have to be contrived to make it look like the manager is doing something. Just bump my pay a couple of pay bands and leave me alone for the rest of my career and I’ll be happy. I’ve caught my manager in distortions and contradictions several times but who am I going to complain to. He looks good to the higher levels of management because he volunteers for assignments but his work at home suffers. HJ Posted January 18, 2008 1:56 PM
• If you look closely at the articles written on most of these "pay-for-performance" systems you will see where the agency implementing them always needs additional funds (in this case, $500,000 per year for the VHA) to get the system "sold" to the employees. Does anyone really think the additional funding will exist once the system is fully implemented? The GS system works fine if you have a manager willing to do what is necessary and fair to work within the system. What makes anyone think managers will be able to work within these new systems any better? The new systems actually require management skills and fair judgement. If you think things are bad now, just wait until NSPS gets fully implemented. Joshua David Posted January 17, 2008 7:47 AM