GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Demonstration projects find success in personnel reform

• 12819
  

  I've worked for both NIST and NOAA under the demonstration projects for more than 10 years. For the past five years I've been in the GS system with the Defense Department. So which system is better?

  I like the pay for performance system and would return to it in a flash. However, it's a big mistake to think this system will magically fix problems at the Defense Department, Homeland Security Department, etc. Personnel systems are just tools and only as good as the managers who use them.

  The Defense Department's biggest problem is that it is moribund by incompetent and unethical management. I know a GS-14 Chief Information Officer who can't even do basic tasks on a computer. He got the job simply because he plays golf with upper management. There are loads of GS-12s and GS-13s with diploma mill degrees that are functionally illiterate ( no joke! ). I would bet 80% of the people in the Defense Department get jobs based on cronyism and fake qualifications.

  And talk about grade inflation! A GS-12 at Defense Department is equal to a GS-9 in most other agencies. It's absolutely shameful when there are so many highly qualified and motivated Americans to fill these positions. Switching to a new personnel system is not going to address these underlying problems. It could even make them worse!

  The real answer is to place highly ethical and talented people at the top to attract, hire, and retain a quality workforce. A major purge is needed. Weed out all these people with fake degrees and qualifications. Enforce merit principles in hiring with an iron fist. Zero tolerance for managers and human resources officers who abuse the system. Start at the top and work on down.

  GovExec.com reader Posted October 6, 2005 8:51 AM
• 12735
  

  RobertM,

  Just to point out the obvious - we DO have pay for performance with our legislators; whether we're talking local, state or national. It's called the election process and term lengths. Many (if not most) states have a method to do a recall an incompetent (i.e. your suggestion to shorten the term) politician. The fact of the matter is that the way most of us define "success" for aq politician is by how much pork they bring back to the state that elected them.

  A few years ago, there was a fairly extensive grass-roots movement to "throw the bums out!" Do you remember the results? I don't remember any of the bums losing their seats. Apparently we want the other guys to throw their bums out but we all want our pork-laden bums to remain in place. But just let one do some serious cost-reduction politics and he/she's out on his/her keester in a heartbeat.

  Skeptical Posted October 3, 2005 8:45 AM
• 12618
  

  Pay-for-performance is a great idea and our congressional representatives should take the lead and make their positions pay-for-performance. The starting wage for congressional representatives should be fifty thousand dollars and the voters will decide every year just how much of a raise and how many bonuses they will receive. We could even go as far as to allow the voters to decide to shorten representatives' terms when they perform poorly.

  Of course Senator Voinovich might not fare too well. He seems more interested in pleasing the party leaders than his constituents. He won't even stand up against the corruption in the government that has hurt so many injured federal workers in his district.

  Robert M. Posted September 28, 2005 7:10 PM
• 12588
  

  To know the whole truth about the demo projects and how DHS/NSPS evolved please copy and paste this website into your search engine. With only 400 words I could give all the info required to reveal what the Government did.

  http://www.afge.org/Index.cfm?Page=UnionBlog&FuseAction=View&BlogID=195&Type=U

  This is all verifiable at the Official Government Demo Project Web Site at http://www.opm.gov/demos/index.asp.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 28, 2005 12:00 PM
• 12585
  

  This report on GAO's opinion regarding the utility of p-for-p systems shares something with most similar reports in a variety of media: it begs the question "what is success?"

  In the NIST example we see success related to "attracting and retaining high performers." I submit that one can only measure the success of these reforms in terms of organizational -- mission -- performance. If mission performance increases, and the value of the increases isn't outweighed by additional costs, then the reforms are a success. If those conditions are not met, one can only grant the term "theoretical impact" or "contributes to ____, which is assumed to affect mission performance." Attracting and retaining high performers is not, in itself, a rational objective for any organization unless a tangible, measurable, connection from that to performance can be demonstrated.

  Policy success may be compared to success at hole digging: the hole may be perfect, but if it's in the wrong place ... is it a success? I guess it depends on how you define success. If we continue to define success as "does what it set out to do" without considering whether that was the right thing, we are selling the public a bill of goods.

  Stephen Wehrenberg Posted September 28, 2005 11:32 AM
• 12560
  

  I work at a Navy activity that has been involved with a so-called demo program for over eight years. It has become a throwback to the 1880s here because of the old boys network that has evolved. There was a reason that the GS system was established - to keep the government from slow death by patronage. Too bad most the hacks appointed by the current administration never studied history.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 28, 2005 6:02 AM