GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Senior execs pan performance pay system

• 18959
  

  The article states the reason for the negative feedback may be a result of "disgruntled employees may have been more inclined to fill it out." I find this statement interesting since I've never read a positive government survey where they comment they are skeptical due to satisfied employees being more inclined to fill it out.

  Presently at the VA, bonuses are provided but it is usually only upper management and "smoothers" who ever see any. The bonus program is a big secret and I have been told it comes out of overtime pay. This may be the reason they don't want to authorize any overtime.

  To resolve performance issues the government needs to accomplish the following:

  1. Eliminate quotas.

  2. Hire independent hiring agencies/contractors to advertise and select positions. Strict ethical guidelines prohibiting contact between the government agency and the hiring firm would be required. Severe penalties for violations would also be required. This system would assure only the most qualified personnel were hired.

  3. A Position Evaluation Board would be established which would consist of an equal number of management and labor employees. These board members could only serve two years. The board would evaluate job descriptions before they were sent to the hiring agency to assure accuracy and proper grade/salary. They would also investigate and evaluate recommendations for performance pay, assuring the monies were divided fairly.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 28, 2006 7:51 AM
• 18880
  

  If 14 percent of SES members are disgruntled enough to respond negatively to their pay for performance system, you can bet that there are at least that many more who are just as disgruntled but have come to realize that it just doesn't make any difference, anymore. Pay for performance is not about "performance." It's about reducing the cost of government by holding down pay; and, it's about reducing the size of government by dumbing down the civil service and driving the best and brightest from its ranks. Those in government leadership positions, elected and appointees, don't want a civil service that is effective and efficient. They want one that is compliant and complacent. In the end, they will wind up with one that is totally dysfunctional. Uh oh, did I just break the code, or what? That is "the plan."

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 25, 2006 1:58 AM
• 18862
  

  You don't understand. Linda Springer is an accountant and has a deep analytical work style. The program should work because the equation says it should work.

  What is always missing in all these analyses and reports prepared by the accountants who call themselves CHCO is an understanding of that great big variable called human beings.

  Good HR personnel programs understand and are flexible enough to deal with the human side of the equation which is really, really messy. Poor human capital programs created by accountants just can't deal with this variable.

  My current boss, who is also deeply analytical, and not an HR professional, doesn't understand why people in my agency are so unhappy. I've spent years counseling employees and managers. There is a blind spot and weakness and discomfort for that messy side of the human equation that these deep analytical people work under. It can't be helped.

  I feel most bad for these people because they would be happier in other, less messy jobs. And their employees would be happier if they were in such jobs. But people take promotions in the federal sector for the wrong reasons.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 22, 2006 8:08 AM
• 18823
  

  Linda Springer doesn't see any problem with the system, only with the way some agencies have implemented the system. Duh! Linda -- hello! Implementation is always the problem, but at least with the GS system, the implementers weren't able to give it all to a few and screw the rest of the workforce. Everyone got something and the really good performers got a bit more, unless of course one of the implementers actually did their jobs properly and withheld within grade increases when warranted. Just what part of this do you not understand?

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 20, 2006 6:41 PM
• 18786
  

  When I mentioned to a friend that we were going under the pay for performance plan he told me nothing would really change. He was already on the plan and saw no real difference. It was the same old politics and favoritism. In my own reading and understanding of the ratings plan it may start out fair but can be easily manipulated to meet quotas. I've been around too long to be convinced otherwise.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 19, 2006 9:31 AM
• 18783
  

  The people who took this survey are not firebrands -- they are the senior managers who are deeply entrenched in the hierarchy. If 86 percent of them are honest enough to say pay for performance has had no impact on job performance and 5 percent say it is negative, I would hazard a guess that they all feel that way.

  In my experience of more than a dozen years doing performance management for Uncle Sam, this quote is dead on accurate:

  "This year, my supervisors directed me to lower the rating of an SES subordinate for whom I had proposed an outstanding rating, and to lower the rating on any element I chose for him because it just wasn't his 'turn' to get an outstanding," one executive from the Agriculture Department said in completing the survey. "Needless to say, I am very cynical about it all."

  Now instead of just 6,000 senior executives, multiply this failed system to the 1.8 million federal employees in the government. How many "not my turn" grievances are going to be filed?

  I have my hands full with change of working condition grievances -- I don't need 10,000 performance/pay grievances on top of that.

  And exactly what is broken that we don't currently have the tools to fix? Just use the current PIP system to weed out non-performers and we will have accomplished much. You are not going to motivate good performers by telling them it is not your turn.

  HR Specialist

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 19, 2006 8:56 AM
• 18782
  

  Well, it looks like someone else may understand our trepidation of pay-for-performance.

  "This year, my supervisors directed me to lower the rating of an SES subordinate for whom I had proposed an outstanding rating, and to lower the rating on any element I chose for him because it just wasn't his 'turn' to get an outstanding,"

  Let's consider an alternative view of the statement above. It may reflect an attempt by upper management to be equitable in the distribution of award funds. Perhaps there is someone else doing a great job and funds are limited; or perhaps the supervisor and the rated individual are golf buddies. We just don't know.

  Still this type of directive, whether from a supervisor or from a pay-panel, is not acceptable to the recipient due to the long term impact of lowered, possibly inaccurate, evaluations. If the level of performance is documented without regard to the availability of funds, such considerations may be more palatable.

  The unfortunate problem is when a system wherein "acceptable" performance is sufficient for a living wage with pay progression and the possibility of exceptional performance awards, is exchanged for a system where in only the exceptional will be compensated. Then the "reward" becomes a determent.

  In effect, only the exceptional who win the battle of funds will see rewards, creating contention throughout the ranks and the organization as everyone fights for money and each supervisor fights for their department. And many folks feel, "If you can't win, why try?" Such an atmosphere causes resentment and feelings of inequity and inadequacy when we are trying to foster a feeling of empowerment and achievement. By inference, "the exceptional" comes to mean "the few" or 'the select."

  We all know that if the step-increase funds are made into discretionary funds for congressional approval, regardless of the name, they will be sacrificed on the altar of fiscal conservatism. Additionally this system has stated from the beginning that the final evaluations may not be a true reflection of the immediate supervisor's assessment.

  So remember, even if you are the boss's pet, from now on you'll need to "schmooze" the pay-panel too.

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted September 19, 2006 8:39 AM
• 18777
  

  "This year, my supervisors directed me to lower the rating of an SES subordinate for whom I had proposed an outstanding rating, and to lower the rating on any element I chose for him because it just wasn't his 'turn' to get an outstanding,"

  This kind of crap goes on all the time with bonuses as well as pay raises. That is why NSPS is not going to work and probably will be worse than the existing system. The top people decide who gets bonuses and not the supervisors! People who have no idea of what I do or how I do it make the decision of whether I get a raise or bonus. They do not follow the supervisor's recommendation unless it is terrible, which rarely is the case for anyone - except the guys who sleep at their desks.

  Our top managers, at least three levels above me, already have told us that there will be no bonuses this year unless one worked far beyond his or her job standard. Mark you that this decision is being made now after most of the year has passed! This crappy management is the group making pay decisions -- not immediate supervisors or even the second level up.

  NSPS is a joke before it even gets started. Managers are making pay decisions today as if the NSPS system is in effect even when it is not!

  Taxpayer Posted September 19, 2006 6:56 AM
• 18776
  

  And these are the same senior execs pushing the same pay-for-performance systems for the rest of the employees? If it doesn't work for the members of the old-boys club, what makes them believe it will work for the rest of the government employees?

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 19, 2006 5:47 AM
• 18774
  

  Sounds like the SES are suffering the same problems as those in Core Comp. And to think they tried to make us peons believe Core Comp was a good thing (quotas and all).

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 19, 2006 1:54 AM
• 18772
  

  Someone had better show this to Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Chertoff and President Bush. Obviously, SES aren't very happy with pay for performance either. So why mess up the rest of the government? It's too bad President Bush isn't up for re-election this year. As Donald Trump says, "You're fired."

  Somewhere in the Pacific Posted September 19, 2006 1:45 AM
• 18769
  

  Well there we have it. The "best and brightest" have said the pay for performance system is a flop. Senior executives, not the rank and file, have come out against it. The General Schedule was instituted to prevent nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism. Why replace it with a system that brings back the good ole boy/girl network? DHS tried to ram it down our throats, and they've been slapped twice. They don't have the temerity to appeal to the Supreme Court. Quotas and favoritism have no place in our jobs.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 18, 2006 11:38 PM