GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Reform Fantasy

• 18556
  

  Funny that no one is talking about the discrimination that currently occurs and how the proposed reforms will not be able to stop this discrimination. How many times have you seen the non-productive smooth talkers rise to the top of the hierarchy because they make everyone feel good? In some agencies, the numbers tell the tale -- it's almost all white men at the top, and women, minorities, and employees with disabilities get the crumbs.

  Let's face it, the federal government is rife with cronyism and has not a clue how to measure results. They still confuse activity for progress. Take a look at your agency's "Getting to Green" score card, for example. It lists all the recruitment activity, but does not say whether any Hispanics, people with targeted disabilities, or individuals from other under-represented groups were hired as a result of the recruitment activity. Now that would show progress!

  If an agency does not hire across the board, does not promote evenly, and disciplines some groups more frequently than others, why should we expect "pay for performance" to work?

  Seen too much!

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 5, 2006 11:04 AM
• 18522
  

  Great discussion points. We are not business, we are government! Cannot be said enough.

  In the AF the managers often are military that do not care about doing what is correct - they only want to get money. They should be required to implement internal control systems and document decisions completely in almost every case. It ain't happening now and probably won't.

  Military managers reward those that do what they are told to do not what they should do for the good of the country. The military guys sit around and count the months until they can retire and then get a job as a civilian or contractor working for the military they fostered. Government needs to stop the military from getting civilian jobs or contractor jobs that work with military after retirement or quiting work for the military for at least five years.

  Only after these conditions are met can anyone even hope that NSPS will result in anything different in terms of performance. Everyone seems to be most interested in getting rid of poor performers. That is easy - fire them! Trouble is the managers do not want to manag,e so they think and say they cannot get rid of the poor performers. What they really mean is they cannot or will not document poor performance! It will be no different under NSPS!

  I am AF Posted September 1, 2006 6:57 AM
• 18520
  

  NSPS is not a sitcom, it is going to ruin management-employee relations in the DoD for years to come. The only ones laughing are Bush and Rummy.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 1, 2006 6:02 AM
• 18500
  

  I keep seeing these pushes for HR reform, and usually they come in the name of making our work and processes more efficient and responsive. No argument there, and I'm sure that can be done to some extent. I think my agency, AF, has sent the pendulum a bit too far in cutting down their HR staff, but they have to try their experiment. By my job title I know I instantly qualify as a dinosaur, but we classifiers see very clearly the problems in our old systems and will embrace any class system they hand us. AF seems to be aiming to delegate class authority to managers under the new system, and AF classifiers are now an endangered species. At least the NSPS class system has some good features, and is better than the Acquisition Demo system we've been using here since 1999.

  My argument in this is whether the government SHOULD try to change itself into a "businesslike" structure. We're not business, we're government, fundamentally different. We're an entity that must be transparent to the taxpayers in how we spend their money on our salaries - don't forget the reasons that civil service was created 120 years ago, we may be inviting the same kinds of abuses with the open-ended authorities that some want to give now. I'd hate to read future columns that report that Feds are now getting "even higher" pay, and to read that it's primarily because the managers cannot/will not make the tough call on a salary offer, will not negotiate salary effectively, and usually cave in to a higher salary demand because they're terrified of losing their people.

  However, even with the growth I see our managers here at my base in learning how to do this better than they did a few years back, the learning is incremental, not large, and it doesn't seem to have hit most of them, only some.

  I wish someone would introduce the question of how we can make our work more effective and efficient (this can be done) and still be the Government instead of trying to become something like a commercial enterprise. We're not.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 30, 2006 2:43 PM
• 18496
  

  This story kind of shocked me. Is the new federal HR system going to be scrapped? Of all the criticisms I have ever heard about working for the government, the problems with HR are the most frequent and intense. From reading this, I have a better sense of just how far we are from this ever changing in any meaningful way. So what to do? People are still trying (and not always succeeding) to come in from contracting, (which at this point in my career is the only possible alternative to staying in gov't). The only change that might help on a micro (personal) level is employee access to employee satisfaction surveys in different agencies, even different parts of different agencies. This might have the affect of creating "magnet" agencies or departments. Classified information leaks all the time, but this sort of information is closely held. Government managers know how to guard this kind of sensitive information.

  Gordon Clay Posted August 30, 2006 1:08 PM
• 18492
  

  The invitation to this party has been sent year after year with few RSVP's. Those responding do so with a half-hearted, non-commital, "let's go just to see who else shows up" attitude. Until management, and not HR, throws this party real reform is not likely to take place. HR continues this party puffery as evidence of its stature and importance to the organization until it all falls apart because managers just sniff at such tactics and decline to participate. So, if true reform is to occur, Execs/Managers--let's get this party started.

  Dorothy M. Van Steinburg Posted August 30, 2006 10:16 AM
• 18491
  

  Mr. Mannering hit the nail on the head. As part of "Spiral 1.2," my base faces conversion on 15 October, yet this implementation has little resemblance to what the NSPS presented to us so long ago. Additionally, the Air Force elected to retain (who knows for how long?) the hiring/placement system that has so frustrated managers and (potential) internal and external employees. The AF system is a model for why NSPS was and is necessary to reform hiring practices.

  So, come this October, I and the people I supervise will set performance goals. We will work toward those goals over the next year, and--come September, 2007--we will assess our success. And then I'll turn those assessments over to a pay pool committee that has the power to "correct" or "normalize" those assessments. How much weight does my supervisory assessment carry? As of today, I don't honestly know. This uncertainty is demoralizing for me as a manager and discomforting for all employees.

  In the end, the three sources of annually-reviewed pay (base pay, local market supplement, and performance pay) still protects nominal performers. I only hope the execution of the performance pay and payband/pay pool process helps us truly recognize our star players.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 30, 2006 10:16 AM
• 18489
  

  Having been a first line manager in industry you were absolutely correct that the first line manager should have the most influence over pay for performance. Who else can better judge. However, many managers not wanting to create animosity between themselves and employees will not give underperformers what they deserve. HR should only look at the raises from a macro level to insure no laws or regulations are violated.

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 30, 2006 9:03 AM
• 18488
  

  Ward Mannering hit the nail on the head; dead center. There are too, TOO many people high on the food chain that want the status quo, who are afraid of taking risks and making changes. The system needs reform if the Federal government is to remain competitive for the best and the brightest. Until some of the unimaginative minds who are in control retire we will be stuck in this quagmire. My hat is off to Ward for his article!

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 30, 2006 8:39 AM
• 18485
  

  Thank you for this article-- finally some cold common sense injected into the nonsense of HR reform.

  The government is all about heirarchy, command and control, building silly empires and power plays. In this environment can anybody with a straight face say we will delegate the decisions on pay and performance to line management? And the further up you go away from first line supervision the less a manager knows anything about employee performance. Office Directors will be overriding decisions made on pay by their subordinates- it is the government way and a recipe for disaster. And making these decisions by committee is even worse.

  Give it up-- like the Honeymooners just be glad there is no party. Being in HR, I don't relish the thought of cleaning up after the partygoers.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted August 30, 2006 8:07 AM