GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Risk Takers

• 18513
  

  Tip,

  You're not "off" at all. You're spot-on!

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 31, 2006 2:19 PM
• 18403
  

  I don't think NSPS is about performance. I think it's the money.

  Even the military recognizes our current system is a performance based system. See "Panel backs military pay-for-performance", 6 Mar 06. The system they wish to adopt includes using step-increases for pay based on seniority. So if we have a performance system, the why is the government pushing this? I did some math using some broad assumptions and data from the "Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics - The Fact Book 2004 Edition."

  1. 30 percent of the workforce is due a step on any given year. Based on increases early in your career or a new job (step 1, any grade) come annually (100%); later biannually (50%), and later triennially (when the BIG bucks start coming).

  2. The average percentile of the step increase is 2.3 percent. I got that figure from massaging the 15 Grade/10 step system (2005 rates, no local) on an Excel spreadsheet.

  3. The statistical worker is a 47 year old, GS-9(.7) making $59,238 with As of FY 03, there were 1,875,696 of us out there.

  So, 30% of 1,875,696 people authorized a step increase = 562,708 people getting a raise. Now the average of that raise is $59,238 X .023 or $1,368.25 That's 562,708 people earning $1,368.25 more annually, equaling $769,926,315.60

  That's $770 million the budget increases each year, without COLA or any options. I think that is a low-balled figure. Changing the percents to 40% eligibility and a 3% step increase wields $1.3 Billion. And that's a figure not in the discretionary budget. The administration does not have the option to stop these increases. I think that is what they are trying to eliminate. And if that goes, where's the money for ANY raises coming from?

  Do you still think it's about performance?

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted August 23, 2006 12:12 PM
• 18344
  

  Karen,

  Try interviewing some federal employees who know what they are talking about. These people are slanted to the position the grant they received directed them to.

  There is no credibility in this article.

  rds Posted August 19, 2006 9:41 PM
• 18316
  

  It is beyond comprehension that Government Executive, a widely respected organization and voice of reason and occasional wisdom in the public sector, would disseminate such ludicrous and misapplied pabulum! This article and the fallacies within it are preposterously misapplied to federal governmental operations. How can anyone place any credence or relevance on such nonsense? Well, of course, anyone besides the handful of one agency careerist organizational toadies and sycophants who are purportedly "leading" the implementation of the wrongheaded and highly criticized NSPS, a system that was not developed at all, but rather was a near literal cut and paste plagiaristic drill lifted from its ugly twin sister in the DHS, a system that is essentially universally held in near visceral disrepute and disgust from and among rank and file federal employees, within the Halls of Congress, and most recently by the Federal Bench. Shame on you, for attempting to spread such disinformation and insulting the intelligence of your readers! Your audience deserves far better.

  Michael J. Smith Posted August 17, 2006 6:02 PM
• 18312
  

  Yes Robert M,

  And what happens to those risk takers at the Defense Logistic Agency -- a key agency of Defense Department. Are they rewarded with thank you's and here is your award for raising that issue, or are they hammered over the head - issued a PIP, given discipline for misconduct-- shoved into a basement office without work.

  And DLS is pushing for pay for performance in the Defense Department for NSPS.

  It scares me to think of all the risk takers that are going to be tricked by NSPS and than shoved out the door for being super competent but a danger to the DoD hierarchy!!!

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 17, 2006 2:22 PM
• 18304
  

  There is an old adage that goes something like this: Nothing motivates a worker more than to see their boss put in an honest day's work.

  That is federal employment's big problem. Pay for performance won't work if the performers are only paid when the boss feels like it. The federal bosses often have little to lose because their jobs are so loosely tied to real productivity. They have their little empires of their favorite workers. Guess who will be rewarded for productivity? I worked for the government for many years and have seen entire branches that were grossly underproductive. But, their management twists productivity numbers around and that actually pleases the higher management.

  The current federal program would work just fine. But, it is incredibly contaminated with cronyism and bureaucracy. Rules and laws don't mean a darn thing when they are not enforced. I worked for Defense Logistics Agency. It's a mess. No accountability. No enforcement of rules. No concern for the consequences that our people in uniform may suffer. Risk takers are the ones who dare stand up and say, "This is wrong! Someone could get hurt."

  Robert M. Posted August 17, 2006 11:23 AM
• 18297
  

  While I support conducting studies and experiments. I think the Australian "parlor game" actually does not relate at all to the proposed changes to the federal pay scale. The article states, "The results showed that pay-for-performance had two advantages." I must strongly and respectfully disagree with this assumption. The experiment shows only short-term preferences, and playing word-creation games has nothing to do with government work (which spans law enforcement, economics, regulatory work, medical research, etc.).

  The current system, like the United States it serves, is not perfect -- but like the country it has served well, it is strong and it has endured. There is stability. There is a bonus system for motivation. There are procedures to conduct disciplinary action (including for non-performance). Our federal government system has controls against cronyism, patronage, and many other ills that are rules and not exceptions for other governments, albeit our rules are not enforced perfectly and contractors (fast replacing feds) are not governed by the same rules.

  I believe the current federal pay system has been a strong contributing factor to the quality of life in America (our government is among the most stable in history). The controls that are present in the current system should be exercised by strong management -- not replaced by a coordinated feeding frenzy or a game of "survivor."

  Thank you.

  Joe Posted August 17, 2006 8:46 AM
• 18296
  

  Great! If the National Anagram Program (NAP) of the Department of Puzzles and Entertainment (DOPE) is hiring, I might put in an application, and then opt for the pay-for-performance plan.

  Has anyone noticed that the nature of government work has shifted over the years from repetitive clerical-type work to analysis-driven policy formulation, and other forms of non-repetitive labor? The article is essentially talking about incentive pay, and although there still exists highly repetitive jobs in government where keystroke volume and accuracy are monitored and incentive pay disbursed, much of this work is being contracted out or disappearing as a result of automation. A lot of the work remaining cannot easily be lumped, sliced and diced for comparison and evaluation.

  What this article fails to address is the major complaint about pay-for-performance -- the opportunity for favoritism and subjectivity to play larger roles in assessing performance and determining pay. Using the anagram example and a pay-per-word arrangement, how might things be gamed? Well, anagrams are not created equal, and assigning a larger percentage of easier ones to one person or group would influence the process. And anagrams with a larger number of smaller words would be more valuable from a pay-per-word perspective. Gee! That would never happen, would it?

  EJC in ATL

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 17, 2006 8:28 AM
• 18295
  

  What a great article-- thank you.

  What I find most interesting is that the most risk adverse, command and control departments like Defense and Homeland Security are the ones pushing hardest for pay for performance. I'm an expressive work-style, Myers Briggs ENFP and am a risk lover. I could not work in the cultures set up by these departments because cutting red tape is my hobby and for some that is called insubordination.

  These departments will be recruiting but not retaining the federal government's high rollers. They should be the very last departments putting in place pay-for-performance and hiring risk takers.

  It really baffles me that the Defense Department with its very heavy hierarchy thinks it can make this work without a serious paradigm shift and new culture. This succeeds in the weird private culture companies that attract the free thinkers and risk takers. Neither category of employee will be comfortable working in the Pentagon.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 17, 2006 8:11 AM
• 18293
  

  The present system is a pay-for-performance system. The proposed system is a kiss-the-boss system.

  No one will ever buck the boss under the new system. Stop trying to put lipstick on a pig with silly games.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 17, 2006 7:57 AM
• 18292
  

  If only the productivity of federal workers could be measured in such black and white terms - X anagrams per hour. On the continuum between this extreme example and most federal jobs lie most private sector jobs, where productivity can likely be measured in at least grey terms: X boxes shipped, Y flowers watered. Many federal jobs (especially here in Washington), however, have fewer clear bottom lines. Reports written, questions responded to, meetings attended. And there is the complication of having supervisors capable of measuring and evaluating fairly and consistently. Perhaps half of all federal supervisors could do an adequate job. The other half would likely reward rear-end kissers, non-boat rockers, pretty boys and pretty girls. Our current system of step increases and annual performance evaluations provides some reasonable degree of oversight and motivation.

  The federal workforce could benefit from continued experimentation in how to engage and motivate our capable staffs, such as through team awards, which might help balance our cultural bias toward rewarding the individual. We need something to help gain what many cultures excel in -- teamwork. Pay for performance? Not everywhere and not now, please.

  Jon Streufert Posted August 17, 2006 7:34 AM
• 18290
  

  Pay for performance is only as good as the agency's ability to pay for the increased performance level. Do the agencies have the funds to pay for the increased performance?

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 17, 2006 6:48 AM
• 18289
  

  Pay for performance is nothing but a thinly disguised personality contest, whereby a manager can reward his or her friends, and the people who actually perform the work get the shaft!

  Bob Hall Posted August 17, 2006 1:52 AM