Return to Article: Panelists suggest focus on job performance first, pay later
-
21722
The problem isn't the pay system or the performance measurement system. The problem is the lack of decent management. Government managers are not managers! Without managers the problem is not going to be solved regardless of the pay and performance system. The problem with the new NSPS system is that it provides employees with no protection again incompetent managers. At least the GS system provided something. That is the real problem with NSPS. NSDPS requires everyone to follow the boss's orders blindly if they expect any pay advancement at all. The controls are now out of the system and the incompetents at the higher levels can do anything they want with no resistance from employees subject totally to them under NSPS. Anyone near retirement is highly likely to go out of government within a few years of implementation of NSPS - many may give it a round or two to see how it works but then they will go. The wise ones will retire immediately.
-
21709
When I read "Malcolm's" response "The Peter Principle" came immediately to mind, and I think I understood his point. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the problem is determining what is necessary for success as a supervisor in a particular job. Many think hands-on knowledge of the mission is essential for success, and yet companies' hire celebrity CEOs who've never worked on a line; some are winners and some are losers. How do you pick the winners without incurring such outrageous separation pay? I'm not sure, but I prefer working for someone who knows the score and will roll up their sleeves occasionally.
Then I read the response by - I'll call them "frame of mind" for lack of a better ID, and agree that the old GS pay system is adequate but recognize that a new broom calls all it sweeps before it dirt. I'm convinced the "flaw" they saw is what this "new" system is about. I did a quick, down and dirty estimate of the cost of the step increases on an annual basis for a previous article and response, and wonder just how close I was for it was a huge amount.
The trouble I see with eliminating the steps is that they are "granted" on the basis of a job satisfactorily performed, and allow someone without ambition to have a successful career without getting caught in the "Peter Principle" trap. Some folks do have a good work ethic but no desire to be a supervisor. Even if they did there is not room for everyone to end their career as such. Additionally, if you take the funds for those step increases and put it in the hands of Congress as bonuses from the discretionary budget, it will perennially be on the chopping block.
Performance starts with goals and analysis. Many supervisors are worker bees with supervisory missions on the side. That relegates the vital task of supervision to a secondary status. In this humble opinion, secondary tasks will always suffer.
Tip off
-
21704
In order to build anything that is useful, efficient, and lasts a long time, you need a plan, materials, and the necessary expertise to put the first two together. The problem as I see it with pay for performance is that you don't have enough qualified supervisors to implement it. As a matter of fact, most federal employees know of supervisors who don't have the sufficient leadership ability and supervisory skills to come close to implementing such a system. The number one complaint of "productive" (versus those who are just looking for a pay check) is that marginal (or worse) performers are paid the same as we are, while getting the less challenging and less difficult assignments. Why? Because so many federal supervisors lack the leadership ability, training and mentoring skills to deal with that issue. It's not the pay system that's broken. It the way the federal government identifies, promotes, and supports its so-called leaders: first and second level supervisors. No matter how great a system is created, it still boils down to implementation.
-
21689
I have read how the old general schedule pay system is outdated.
I don't feel it is outdated at all. It does perhaps need some adjustments. It goes by longevity of government service for the employee, which is fair to everyone. The only flaw I see is in the automatic step increases afforded all Federal employees. Some don't deserve a raise while on the other hand others do. I, for one, believe in doing the best job I can. It's too bad that everyone doesn't have this same frame of mind. There are those who think the government owes them a living. I am a firm believer in earning your keep.
Also, I hardly see how a new pay system relates to our national security. Paying someone to do a job has nothing to do with security.
Do you go buy a new car just because you old one breaks down? No, of course not unless your very well off financially.
I say make people earn their keep and weed the deadbeats out and then you can get the job done. There are too many people who want a handout. Personally, I don't want anyone giving me anything. I want to work for what I get.
If everyone had this same frame of mind just think of how much you could get done.
-
21687
The contract specialist hit the nail on the head exactly. High profile "assignments" are given to the boss's pets. Then the rest of the folks get the menial assignments to justify their lower ratings. If you are politically correct or in the bosses' "wing" then you'll get a raise.
Otherwise, forget it. I am glad someone else saw the light too. This practice is rampant in my organization.
Don't put all the blame on the civil servants when it's the bosses that assign the work and decides who gets what. I know folks that do nothing all day because management is mad at them for speaking up and filing complaints about their corrupt activities. Civil service is not private sector and never will be. We cannot affect a "profit" nor "results" with our hands tied behind our backs.
-
21684
The article mentions that Robert Tobias "...suggested that agencies first create a system enabling supervisors to more objectively discern differences among employees' quality of work, adding that many supervisors have their own subjective definition of what constitutes "working hard." Then agencies could focus on pay or other motivational rewards, ...."
If agencies put the time, effort, and funds into teaching supervisors how to function as supervisors, and then holding them accountable for acting as supervisors--we might eliminate most of the 'problems' with the existing personnel system. Rather more often than not, we hire/promote people into supervisory positions based on their technical skills, ability, and performance. This past performance does not automatically equip the individual with the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to successfully supervise people.
-
21683
I like Colleen Kelly's comment. "Rules and systems don't motivate people, Leaders do." You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. All the regs in the world won't work if you don't have leaders with the capability of implementing them.
-
21681
I am admittedly not an expert at this, but I have done a bit of research. I have been unable to find a single instance throughout recorded history where the civil service system of a country did note eventually become incompetent, corrupt and begin taking bribes. Almost always, this phase seems to be signaled by the pay of the officials becoming lower than their non-civil-service compatriots for one reason or another. Usually, this is followed by the complete collapse of the government system in question (in the past, usually a reigning monarch).
It appears that the current administration is intent on setting the United States onto that road. Each year since 2000, the administration has tried, through various means, to reduce the pay of the Civil Service. This has been through annual pay raises that are well below the inflation for the previous year, or through the so-called pay-for-performance of the new pay systems replacing the GS system.
It would seem notable to me that the number of elected (and appointed) officials accused of incompetence, corruption and bribery has apparently increased significantly in recent years.
-
21679
Suggestion: Tap Robert Tobias to be independent chairman of any organization that has planning/advisory responsibility for improving the federal pay/personnel system. His analysis -- that the current approach has "put the cart before the horse" -- is dead-on target.
-
21678
Pay is not based on performance; it is based more on being politically correct. The politically astute person realizes that management can always find "worker bees" and can always structure the highly visible work for the politically correct person. Thus pay is directly related to the ability to make the boss feel good. It generally has little to do with actual performance, quality of work, or ethics.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.