GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: The Human Factor

• 18957
  

  Ignore the pass/fail or five point systems. They are meaningless in and of themselves. Employee performance is a totally subjective measure based on the manager's evaluation. The system is designed to attempt to force the manager to articulate his or her evaluation to the employee. Any evaluation of performance is the opinion of the person empowered to make the decision. No amount of numbering or refining of the words can change the basic system -- the same is true for school grades.

  Most people do not like being evaluated and resist any attempt to provide a "grade." Even students in schools sue teachers for grades and the courts have forced themselves into this process. The courts should stay out of the process unless it is totally inappropriate for the situation involved.

  The problem with all evaluations is that the evaluation has to be based on the objectives to be achieved, the measures of that achievement and the outcome of the results. Nice try does not cut it -- you have to perform. Additionally, you have to perform in a proper manner and the proper manner should be clearly defined in measurable and observable terms that can and are documented on a frequent basis. For example, you will wear a coat and tie to work, you will be present in the workplace eight hours a day unless specifically excused by the manager doing the evaluation, you will not attack others physically or mentally while at work, etc. There should be not unwritten rules that "pop up" at the evaluation!

  The clear problem in the Defense Department and DHS is that they cannot or will not define the outcomes and the means of measuring performance so employees know how to compete. We do not know if we are in a baseball game, a soccer game, or playing chess! Management needs to define the game and provide the rules. Managers are the zebras but they make us play without a rule book and they change the rules at will without telling us in advance!

  This article is crap and never will solve the problems addressed until management defines the game and its rules.

  Taxpayer Posted September 28, 2006 7:39 AM
• 18919
  

  I have worked my entire career in a "pay for performance" system (the China Lake demonstration project). My experience with the system is that the local management understands the quality of the workforce (within reasonable limits) and works to try to get reasonable ratings for everyone. This is a human environment, so things happen. Sometimes people get into a situation and fail for reasons out of their control. What I have directly experienced is that sometimes the ratings are a bit high, sometimes a bit low, but usually pretty fair and evens out in the long run.

  Obviously I can only speak to my own situation, and I am sure there will be horror stories out there when pay-for-performance hits the streets. But I suspect that by-and-large the majority of raters will be similar to those here, and by-and-large, people will do as well, with the inadequate monies provided.

  I do agree with the earlier comment, about having senior journey level people on the workforce. I have been lucky enough to be able to stay in applications work, but at the cost of capping my salary. In theory we have a two-tier system and a very few of the extremely high-performing engineers are able to break through the salary ceiling (DP-4). But in practice, not enough money is not provided to support two tiers so traditional, great engineers are converted to poor managers if they want to advance in pay.

  I'm not as cynical as some, but I'm also not convinced.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 26, 2006 12:01 PM
• 18900
  

  Nice article, but, come on. Does anybody believe that the military promotion boards are impartial, or that they don't use the bell curve so that only a few are rated at the top by superiors? In my experience, quotas are established and raters are told by senior raters how many subordinates can be rated at the top and those that actually get those ratings are no more likely to be the best and brightest than in any other system. Have we forgotten the 80s when captains and majors were dropped from the military in an effort to "downsize?" Those decisions were not made using intelligent thought -- it was a salami slice and dice. We already have a period during which an employee can be let go without hassle; it's called a probationary period. The problem is that managers rarely use it. The bottom line is the tools are already available to the manager; managers by and large do a really poor job of managing. Every system gets bastardized by those who implement it. Military members kiss butt and so do civilians, and raters rate based on who does it the best, ignoring actual job performance.

  Skeptical Posted September 25, 2006 1:42 PM
• 18897
  

  On the face of it, this article sounds good: a system wherein one can have a career doing "acceptable" work; where statistically average workers need not scrabble over their co-workers in order to have a progressive income.

  Other than the pay bands and the five-year conditional portions, it sounds like what we have today.

  Tip off.

  Tip Posted September 25, 2006 12:43 PM
• 18894
  

  Again, this assumes that you enter the job market with your eyes on the prize -- management.

  If you go to school to become an engineer, doctor, lawyer or secretary, that's what you enter the job market as. But you're hit with "what do you want to be doing in five years" almost the minute you walk through the door. What's wrong with staying in the line of work that you studied for? Why does every personnel system insist that you move up to management if you want to get ahead? Why can't you have one that lets you move to "expert" or "specialist" levels of your own expertise?

  There would be a lot more satisfaction among workers if they knew they could concentrate on their jobs to get ahead and not work toward making the manager think they were management material.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 25, 2006 10:58 AM
• 18891
  

  How exactly is the promotion system for officers so effective? Is the column suggesting that a group of officers can evaluate someone based on their service record and the Fitness Reports (FITREPs) contained within? Having seen this system firsthand I think it's far from perfect. I personally watched several good officers asked to leave the service because they somehow did not make the cut. Yet, these were officers that were well respected within the command. So this system is telling me that another officer sorting through hundreds (or thousands) of service records can more effectively assess the aptitude of an officer better than those closer to him? I think the author is living in a dreamland if that is the case.

  Brian L Posted September 25, 2006 8:29 AM