GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Accountability in performance management remains elusive

• 1717
  

  In his article, "Accountability in performance management remains elusive," Friel uses the "whistleblower" cases of Miller and Davis vs. DVA to explore causes for the inability of employee evaluations to accurately distinguish among top, good, mediocre and poor performers.

  A detailed study of the cases actually provides disturbing insights. Upon taking our jobs, we found severe financial disorders and significant deficiencies in the ethics of human research. Our supervisor did not tell us of these problems. Together with the CFO, we established and strived to implement a comprehensive plan to resolve all the disorders we found. We were relentless. We struggled with agency managers who delayed or attempted to delay many of our actions. In fact, many of our plans were implemented after the agency removed us. During our tenure Pandol's supervisor warned Pandol that correcting the problems too rapidly was "not in the political winds."

  As their supervisor, Pandol rated the performance of Miller and Davis highly and recommended them for special awards for the extraordinary effort to rectify problems that had been unattended for many years. Both the performance evaluations and award citations required narrative descriptions (i.e. not pass/fail). The same leaders who later tried to fire us approved the awards including one for Pandol.

  The agency found it necessary to first remove us from our positions and then attempt to fire us when our findings became public. Because it was apparent that the agency wanted to conceal its mismanagement, Pandol sought out and testified to Congress about both the human research and financial disorders.

  Agency leadership blamed and vilified us in the press. The agency pressed groundless charges over four years in an attempt to fire us. This all out effort took a severe toll on us and derailed the Aaency from capitalizing on our findings to implement effective nationwide reforms. Government resources were abused and wasted at the expense of addressing real issues. Our cases indicate that the employee evaluation system doesn't mean anything when it is ignored at the convenience of those who have reason to retaliate in order to hide the truth. This is why we are "whistleblowers."

  Adrian Miller
  Marnell Davis, MPH
  Stephen Pandol, MD
  

  Stephen Pandol, MD Posted September 25, 2003 11:13 AM
• 1378
  

  This is a scary article, especially if you have had to clean up various program messes favored resources have messed up. And especially, if you have no control over the resources who generated the mess. As an employee in the twilight years of his career I know what it feels like to be rolled over by an untrustworthy performance system and management that evades issues and still blames you!

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 20, 2003 10:48 AM
• 1343
  

  Performance management is somewhat of a joke in government because there is no personal accountability. There is a push to run my agency like a business and yet 75% of the people wouldn't make it a day in private industry. They maintain their jobs, although many are inept, by not getting work assigned to them. Those same managers who reward individuals based on the premise of equity yet the work isn't handed out equitably. The personnel rules make it impossible to get rid of those who can't cut it and the EEO rules make it easy to claim prejudice in instances where that's not the case. If managers were held accountable than perhaps the government wouldn't be in such a mess.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 15, 2003 9:09 AM
• 1337
  

  Great article. Talk about ringing true. That article could have been written about my organization rather than VA. What it did do for me is instill a fervent hope that I won't be losing my MSPB appeal rights in the near future. I can't trust my superiors, and I use the term loosely, to protect my interests if theirs is on the line.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 14, 2003 3:32 PM
• 1336
  

  The article does not raise the question that there may be something intrinsic to governmental organizations that limit the ability to define performance in measurable terms. To begin, there is no measurable profit. Some departments within corporations do not produce a product, but the company has to calculate its general overhead in order to measure profits. Governments and non-profits have to live to a budget. It stands to reason that managing them is different.

  How do you calculate the performance of a National Park Service Interpreter? By counting the number of people contacted per day regardless of the information given them, or by the quality of interpretation provided to a smaller number of people. How is that measured? A supervisor can evaluate quality; but not measure it.

  How do you calculate the efficacy of a government Quality Assurance Representative at a contractor's plant? One measure is by the absence of defective material leaving the factory. However, is that attributable to the actions of the QAR or the contractor? A good QAR at a bad contractor will have the same metric as a bad QAR at a good contractor: zero defects leave the plant.

  MS Perez's remark, "Managers are there to lead their employees and if they fail to do that, shame on them," is meaningless within the context of this article. Leading employees to do good things and measuring their output are different things. The two protagonists in Mr. Friel's article were clearly victims of the system. Mr. Friel neglects to mention the system that created the huge cost overruns in the first place. That was top management's responsibility; but they were not punished.

  When the feds went through Total Quality Management movement, we spent many fruitless hours debating how to measure our outputs. We listened to Dr. Deming who noted "measures of productivity do not [automatically] lead to improvement in productivity." He explained that it is management's responsibility to work in the system so that the employees can work in the system and propounded the radical notion of eliminating performance ratings entirely. Maybe we in government should revisit that topic.

  Michael S. Schmotzer Posted August 14, 2003 2:51 PM
• 1334
  

  That was one of the most illuminating treatments of the subject I've ever seen, with excellent use of your case in point. I think your first commenter, Ms. Winchell, is also correct in referring to Deming's view that individual awards cause more trouble than they're worth and emphasis should be on group awards.

  Dave Hornestay Posted August 14, 2003 12:35 PM
• 1332
  

  I agree that the accountability in performance rating of federal employees is elusive. The article discusses the inflated appraisal of poor performers but does not mention the poor appraisals of good performers. In my office there are employees who take credit for the work of others, who don't have the knowledge and skills to do their jobs, and who are hard to find during working hours who get excellant appraisals. The inflated appraisals are at the expense of those who expend the time, effort and money to acquire and maintain the skills necessary to do the job. The high appraisals have to be offset by mediocre appraisals and the actual appraisors are usually two levels above the employee being appraised. Performance-based merit awards will not solve the problem. The favorites are the favorites and the system is the system. Performance means nothing.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 14, 2003 11:32 AM
• 1331
  

  So, who said that life is fair?

  Looks to me like in the rush to get government to conform to best commercial practices we may be overlooking the evidence that demonstrates that we are already there. Are these the same group of managers that are clamoring for more power, the right to hire and fire federal employees at will? Looks like the lobster is in the pot and someone has turned up the heat.

  William Locke Posted August 14, 2003 10:54 AM
• 1330
  

  Performance management issues will always be with us and will always be a most divisive aspect in the workplace, whether government or private. I found this article to be more administration-style drivel. None of the proposals or ideas on the table will, if implemented, do other than create more fodder for anecdotal articles as to why performance management is screwed up and doesn't work.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 14, 2003 8:48 AM
• 1327
  

  In order to have a fair and effective system, management must clearly define the purpose of the position to the encumbent, explain where they fit into the mission of the organization, set standards that are not subjective, and provide performance feedback on a regular basis. Once or twice per year just doesn't do the job. Supervisors need to be mission-oriented. But they should lead by example, and display a sincere desire to set and achieve high standards for themselves and their subordinates. A dose of honesty and integrity could help many.

  Tim Ellmore Posted August 14, 2003 6:46 AM
• 1325
  

  Mr. Friel has definitely pointed out the pitfalls of the pay for performance push and the obstacles faced by both sides of federal pay systems. I believe Dr. Deming had it right--throw out appraisal systems!

  Dorothy Winchell Posted August 13, 2003 9:54 PM