GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Pay-for-performance warrior exits the battlefield

• 18718
  

  As stated before, "Words are important." While my 7,300-plus days of experience in the active duty tells me you are correct that this man did not qualify as a "warrior," rest assured that if you are concerned about truly accomplishing something in your civilian career, you'd best try to emulate one.

  The words "mission," "strategy," "allies," "alternatives" and "goals" are just a few of the concepts you will need to incorporate in your vocabulary, particularly in one of the largest bureaucracies in the world today.

  Now, the unfortunate flipside of that coin is those words are often used as catch phrases for sound bites. They become the tarnished penny instead of the gleaming gold they should be.

  Respect, whether singular, plural, or mutual, is yet another concept that seems to be losing its meaning, even possibly among this readership.

  There is a world of difference between a true soldier and a DoD employee and yet we do many of the same functions and jobs. Been there, done that, got the shirt and moved on. Like many of my fellow soldiers, now co-workers, I changed occupations. But ever a product of my youth, I carried my values with me.

  Still we both have our place and we can, perhaps, accomplish more by learning; one from the other. We might even survive the fiasco that is NSPS if the workers and managers can just talk.

  Always the dreamer,

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted September 14, 2006 3:58 PM
• 18684
  

  Maybe he didn't leave on his own accord. Maybe he was the first victim of pay for performance? Maybe he didn't hold up his end to the administration in busting the federal employee unions in MAXHR and NSPS?

  Maybe?

  Or maybe he's just one of those folks who can't stick around until the job is done?

  Mark Gibson Posted September 12, 2006 10:21 PM
• 18654
  

  Here at DFAS, we have been BRAC'd nearly out of existence. More than 80 percent of our sites must close. While those proceedings go forward, we are also waiting for the results of the so-called "Lean6 initiative" which simply translates into more people losing their jobs. Management has been working on this for quite a while now but as usual no one seems to want to get off their butts and make a decision so those of us affected can make informed decisions about our futures. With the expectation of cutting the agency's positions in half, how could we possibly do the simplest A-76 procurement? What is left to outsource? What kind of idiots are running this circus?

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 11, 2006 1:52 PM
• 18574
  

  Wise Old Owl took the words right out of my mouth: Good riddance. The Defense pay-for-performance plan is a carefully and deceitfully crafted disaster for employees, and a cost saving mechanism for management. It comes complete with a gigantic propaganda machine trying to convince everyone how good things will be. Hogwash.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 5, 2006 10:36 PM
• 18568
  

  The rats are starting to leave the sinking ship.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 5, 2006 5:32 PM
• 18564
  

  Seriously, I was going to say the same thing Wise Old Owl said, but he beat me to it.

  Dis-gruntled

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 5, 2006 1:20 PM
• 18562
  

  Words are important. And it is highly inappropriate to refer to this fellow and obvious closed-minded ideologue as a so-called "warrior" and/or his air conditioned office space as a perceived "battlefield" when, on a daily basis, real, genuine American warriors are engaged in a real battlefield, not a make believe one, risking their lives and many times suffering grievous injuries and even death on a daily basis for all of us. Let's stop diluting and insulting genuine sacrifice and honor from our nation's real warriors, and especially during a time when real, not make believe, battlefields exist. This fellow was not and is not a warrior. And there was not and is not a "battlefield" in the nation's capital. Neither this fellow nor any of the other ideologues and sycophantic shills behind this obviously ideologically-driven dogma -- dogma that is nearly universally reviled among those not beholden to the current administration, dogma that has been recently and repeatedly eviscerated by the judiciary -- deserve to be referred to as "warriors." Stop it.

  Michael J. Smith Posted September 5, 2006 1:08 PM
• 18558
  

  Ah. Thank you for this article. "Now I see the light!" said the blind man.

  Perhaps his origin lends a clue to Nesterczuk's lack of understanding the pitfalls of implementing pay-for-performance in our government. While we natives are all too aware of the downfalls of a representative government, newcomers often look at our system with pie-in-the-sky ideals and ask, "Why do there exist such problems in such a glorious system?"

  Now I will gladly back our government against all comers, but any system based on human frailties and profit will, inevitably, show the weaknesses of the "spoils system" and nepotism. These are particularly evident in a non-profit organization that is constantly compared to major industry. It always amazes me when folks point to companies like GM and GE as shining lights, noting their bottom line of productivity, but forget the abuses of their management in over-compensation and the sacrifice of the workers.

  If this administration were ever honest in its presentation of the facts, such as the need to have managers who can actually supervise personnel instead of working like project managers or the need to gain control of a budget while trying to please everyone from the average taxpayer to the heavy-metals and oil industries, they might win some credibility.

  Research in the application of scientific managerial principles to personnel administration might actually win some consideration from the average government employee. We all know that we could probably be a little more productive. The question is how.

  When a scientific proof is proposed, the first thing to do is ask, "Where is it not valid?" I ask what is not right about replacing a valid and current performance-based system with an unproven system that allows personal popularity (the manager du jour) and political infighting (pay panels) to determine my livelihood?

  Coming from a system which is the epitome of top-down micromanagement, it is understandable that Nesterczuk looked around and asked why.

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted September 5, 2006 11:19 AM
• 18555
  

  Good riddance.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 5, 2006 10:41 AM
• 18548
  

  While I disagreed almost 100% with George I found his openness and honesty regarding his belief system quite refreshing. Compared to some of his cohorts- George never hid his agenda. George, best of luck in working in the Ukraine against their socialist system.

  I wish you well in your Don Quixote fight against unions.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 5, 2006 8:27 AM
• 18545
  

  "He's been at this a long time," Sanders says. "He's sort of a Russian Don Quixote.

  This goes a long way in explaining why NSPS is so bad for civil service. The guy obviously had no background in US government and never should have been allowed to foster this bad system on a political structure. This new system simply makes legal all the illegal things government and political parties want to do with civil service employees. Good riddance and now stop the NSPS and remember why there is a federal government. Sure it's too large, but that is the fault of the Congress and President, not the civil service system. They will buy votes anywhere to get elected. For example, what has the Dept. of Energy done for anyone since it was started to solve the oil shortages in the 1970's? Now they are going to look for alternative sources of fuel - that was the line in the 1970's and they still have not done it! Get rid of the Dept. and save the money they waste!

  taxpayer Posted September 5, 2006 6:55 AM