GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Poor performers will not fare well under GAO personnel reform plan

• 5458
  

  As a federal manager I look forward to the day when I can reward my better performers with something other than a plaque, while my poor performers are rewarded with the same raises as everyone else. I agree everyone should get a COLA each year but pay for performance on top of that will encourage everyone to start pulling their weight.

  As a manager I would expect to be judged by the same criteria.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 15, 2004 6:13 PM
• 2068
  

  In the 19 years I've worked for the Government, I've worked at various Agencies. And, always, it's the same scene. There's the "in crowd" --- the ones who are in the boss' office all day (filling him/her in on the latest gossip) and hangs out with the boss on the weekend. Then, there are those who actually perform the work - the ones the boss rarely sees (and, in some cases, don't even know their names). Guess who gets the promotions, outstanding performance awards, praises?

  I don't think anyone in the government will be shocked at the revelation that individual rankings on the majority of performance measurements are subjective and based upon how well the manager likes the employee. My manager told me "we don't have strategic goals for this section". Then, how can I EVEN tell whether I'm helping the organization achieve it's goals...never mind how WELL I'm doing?

  GovExec.com reader Posted November 7, 2003 3:17 PM
• 1517
  

  As a 30-year employee of GAO, now retired, it's almost unbelievable what Dave Walker has accomplished with a once proud agency. Unfortunately, much of it for the worse. The plan to further gut what was once a proud career civil service, provide enhanced, almost royal, benefits for "upper level off-the-street" hires, and the ultimate slap in the face to the thousands who in the past almost 90 years made GAO so great - changing the name of this once great agency - can only make one reflective on their career, and think sadly of what might, in fact, happen under Walker's "stewardship." I can only imagine what the deceased Joe Campbell (C.G. in the 50s and 60s) would think, along with Elmer Staats and Chuck Bowsher (later C.G.s of the real General Accounting Office.)

  A proud GAO retiree

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 4, 2003 3:30 AM
• 1127
  

  Well, here we go again. So you listened to your employees did you now David? How? Via designer questions with your choice of answers in a phony survey? Do you honestly believe people are stupid enough to believe that?! Don't insult the reader's intelligence David. Neither you nor any other offical at your level and beyond have the real courage to truly listen to the employees. No manager should have anything to say about any employee receiving cost of living and locality pay. Your early retirement and buyout incentives are nothing more than legal age discrimination and a refusal to properly train current personnel. Oops! Did I let the secret out?! And as for the exchange program with private industry, oh please! How soon do you think that'll be abused? After 35 years of actually working in the government (as opposed to those of you in La La land) this whole pay-for-performance crap is nothing more than ANOTHER attempt to cover up poor top level management. So I'll make it real simple for you and the rest of your brethren David. The single biggest problem in the federal government boils down to this: authority is a poor substitute for leadship. Get it? I didn't think so.

  Art Doss
  Naval Sea Systems Command
  US Naval Academy

  Art Doss Posted July 21, 2003 10:02 AM
• 1105
  

  I agree as well that our appointed leaders should too fall under the same proposed pay-for-performance plan. They, first and foremost among all others federal personnel, should be held to this very same scrutiny.

  Let the constituents, that each congressman and senator serves, decide the future of their pay increases with dependence on the fact if they represented the true voice of the citizen or acted on their own behalf for political, or personal/private interest.

  With a pay-for-performance system in place for our leaders they have no choice but to abide by and enact legislation of the "people's say" as it is intended to be.

  Do you think our chosen representatives would ever enact such a proposal...hmmm? Maybe the good citizens of this country should insist!

  Dave Posted July 18, 2003 11:45 AM
• 1085
  

  Why is the government pushing pay-for-performance when most industries are moving away from that practice? Most companies have found that rating employees is detrimental to the morale and welfare of the workforce. It promotes political favoritism allowing the, excuse the pun, brown noser to push their way to the top. Performance cannot be measured unless and until you can remove subjectivity. I have worked for approximately 16 companies in my career field, the last being the government. Of those the companies, the ones that had the most dedicated and hardest workers did not rate individual employees. They instead rated individual small groups as a whole promoting team work and spirit.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 17, 2003 8:31 AM
• 1083
  

  Wouldn't it be nice if also the voters get a say if our politicians should get their colas every year based on them doing their jobs? It would change their way of thinking. We have elections every year weather it is for local, state or federal positions, a question could be put on the ballot whether your congressman or senator should get his or her pay increase based on the way they have done their job. What is good for the average federal worker, should be good for all federal workers including those elected in Washington.

  Ronald Selvenis Posted July 17, 2003 7:34 AM
• 1082
  

  "Our system isn't perfect, no system is perfect and none will be; but it's the best in government," Walker said, praising the proposal.

  Where has this guy been? There are many better systems in the government: 1. The Federal Reserve 2. The FDIC 3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 4. The SEC 5. and on and on

  And this guy is supposed to be the expert on these things - I bet he thinks he should get a merit raise. I think he needs to get some education.

  GovExec.com reader Posted July 17, 2003 7:13 AM