Return to Article: Intelligence agencies to launch common performance appraisal system
-
40085
To CAM and All:
CAM stated "No offense to supervisors-who has time to truly sit down and work with each employee to develop goals, tie them to the annual plan and then follow-up on a regular basis !! "
CAM, there are plenty of managers (especially amongst the federal contractors)that take the time to sit down and work out goals, tie them to the strategic plan, and follow up. In fact, many large Federal contractors (such as Lockhead Martin, BAE Systems, etc) are using the Capability Maturity Models, Project Maturity Models, and Malcom Baldridge initiatives in order to continously improve their processes and tie what people do to the organizational mission and strategic plan. Now, if they can do - the Federal government should, too. There is really no excuse.
I say this...if Federal employees don't wake up to achieving real RESULTS - then expect not only to lose out on automatic raises but to lose one's job to outsourcing.
-
40007
My agency has been on pay for performance for a few years now and its wonderful. The previous comments denouncing it are probably because those agencies/orgs are failing to carry it out properly. You can make a great system all day, but if you don't hold your managers accountable to actually implement it, then you will fail. My agency is implementing it pretty well. Could we do better - yes. But I know of a few well-known slackers (those who blatantly refuse to work and sometimes just sleep at their desk - yes, they exist in all government agencies) who did not get a raise at all. Glorious!! Under the old system they would have gotten an automatic step increase for just showing up, while the guy next to them who works hard would have gotten the same step increase. Talk about bad for morale!! To me, as a previous poster stated, that's immoral.
Pay for performance is the only way to go. To me, those who don't want to get paid commensurate with their performance would seem to be the ones who know they don't perform well. They can make out better by slacking and getting the same step increase as the folks who work hard. How sad....
-
39881
All I can say about this system is that it has a negative effect on morale. I was part of one of the very first DoD agencies to undergo spiral 1.1 of the NSPS, we have just recently completed our first annual appraisal with our payout due January 2008. The catch is that there is going to be a 60/40 payout, 60 percent bonus and a 40 percent annual increase. I can't see how this would benefit anyone but the government. The bonus gets taxed to the point that you might get a full tank of gas out of the deal and the remainder only worth about four hundred dollars. Our midterm payout was broken down by shares like stock making each persons share worth just over a thousand dollars. The poor performers made just as much money as the rest of the division, they were rounded up on there appraisal and the better performers were rounded down so everyone got a three for there score so it did not address the pay for performance issue.
-
39855
The problem with "pay for performance" is that human nature has not changed-the same supervisors that would not/could not disapprove a within grade step increase for a poor performer will also not rate their people objectively on performance. What about "quotas" for women and minorities? Does anyone really believe that these bonuses will be completely objective, applied without regard to EEO? What would happen if only white men received bonuses? (wether deserved or not!!) I think the powers that be in ODNI should be truthful-this NSPS is an attempt to limit the growth of the federal payroll-face if-the builte-in step increase system puts upward pressure on salaries. I think it would be better to be truthful, instead of saying that people want this! Also, remember that all these bonuses do not increase base pay-that is important because benefits like life insurance and retirement are calculated on base pay-not considering bonuses!! The deadwood in the current system is there because the supervisor is intimidated or does not care to document poor performance. It is human nature to want to avoid conflict!! How will this change with NSPS? The supervisors will still try to take the easy way out-give everyone "average". No offense to supervisors-who has time to truly sit down and work with each employee to develop goals, tie them to the annual plan and then follow-up on a regular basis !! They have gutted the basic fairness of the system in hopes of saving money overall and richly rewarding the agency "pets"!! Start blowing your own horn-the noisy, visible worker will be rewarded while those that toil "behind the scenes" and are the true backbone, will not be rewarded-we will continue to be taken for granted!!
-
39825
People who disagree with the notion that you should be paid and given raises based on how well you perform your job, are, quite frankly, from another planet. They must be stopped. I honestly can't believe these people exist. They must be remnants from some long dead quasi-communist society that thinks everyone should get the same pay and same raise regardless of how well they do their job. People who think this way are evil. Giving the same 'step increase' to two folks, when one of those people clearly outperforms the other, is immoral. And its being done with our tax money!!
-
39800
I can't wait to see what rolls out for the pay for performance. This can only save the Govt. money, and will probably only worsen the ability to retain the high tech work force that is needed.
-
39782
It's about time that intelligence agencies started the pay for performance system. When I worked at one of the intelligence agencies about a decade ago, a manager there harped on the concept of pay for performance. However, she had no real idea what pay-for-performance meant. This plan developed by ODNI is saying that performance is tied directly to agency's mission and stated objectives in the strategic plan and that is evaluated agains the President's Management Agenda as well as other pieces of legislation like the Government Performance and Results Act. Pay for performance means that agencies are held accountable for getting the results that matter and that is supposed to be evaluated with real metrics (and not just personal opinions). And EVERYONE is required to get results (including the senior executives in the departments, middle and first line managers, as well as the workers. It also means giving people the tools to do their jobs (the right technology) and the career development essential to get the "RESULTS" the President demands.
Federal managers need to understand that pay for performance means them, too. Because 2/3 of the responsibility for getting results is with the manager (they control the processes and resources) and 1/3 of the responsibility belongs with the workers that do the work. If managers recommend someone to get fired, not promoted, or demoted - they should also include themselves in the mix.
-
39773
Blond1 - My agency is already using a merit based system. It is working out very well - at least for those who are working hard. My guess is concerns about a merit based system may be due to fear of how much value one is providing. The only draw back so far is that it is still next to impossible to get rid of underperformers in the government. A number of these folks would not fair well in private industry.
-
39644
Oh Yeah...pay for performance, we see just how well that is working at TSA where Screening officers get huge raises while the rest of the staff get next to nothing and as far as eliminating dead wood...don't plan on Pay for Performance to work that way
And hope before your agency unveils the plan all staff are included not just a select group
-
39633
Well this just opens up another part of the government to political sway. The intel guys will now need to say what the Dems (or Rep's depending on whose in power) want them to say.....or else they don't get paid. Anyone who thinks this is a smart idea doesn't understand the real world..... "You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."
-
39572
Pay for Performance is the way to go. There is way too much dead wood in the federal ranks. Raises based years of service provides little to no incentive for the high performing employee.
-
39554
"Just Wondering", you are correct. Ronald Sanders was a Human Resources bigwig at OPM when NSPS initially reared its ugly head.
-
39551
Similar to how OMB/FAI/OFPP have a "system" to manage the acquisition workforce, isn't it incongruent to DEcentralize this activity outside of the Federal Agency in which the individual works? I agree with forming a common direction - that genuinely strengthens our Nation's security - but a common platform housed at a coordinating body is akin, I believe, to treading on State's rights to operate independently. ODNI certainly needs to coordinate. That's crucial. But a common platform is a bit Saddamish.
-
39543
And the large sucking sound you here is.....Any Fed with half a brain will not choose to endure a system such as is being foisted upon us.
The Law of unintended consequences is alive and well. And all of this for the MONEY!!! Nothing MORE, NOTHING LESS.
-
39526
On the bright side, and it's not that bright, this system seems to grasp the idea that there will be a learning curve in preparing the appraisals, that there may need to be room to negotiate ratings, and that MANAGEMENT will need to get some things right. All this is happening before full implementation as opposed to the after the fact method of NSPS with those pushing for the new system insisting that they are right from the start and not being open to possible needs for change. This is a minor step in the right direction, but could have been done just as well with the current pay system.
-
39521
Ron Sanders--Isn't he the same individual that developed NSPS for DOD?
-
39520
Just how many NEW Personnel Plans will there be? I cannot see any improvement over the original General Schedule, because everything is on a slide rule whether your supervisor likea/liked you or not.
-
39517
Oh Joy! First it was DHS, and then DOD. Now it is all the Intelligence Agencies. Don't these folks realize that they are destroying Federal Employee morale, or don't they care?
-
39511
I have experience with this type of system and it is doomed to failure. How does one measure integrity? The employee must politely disagree with the determination? What is asked is impossible to quantify. How do you measure critical thinking; the New York Time crytoquote? Seriously, any system that does not measure quantifiable issues cannot work.
-
39510
another silly performance system. How stupid. Our spying is reduced to nonsense. Osama's guys do not waste time with this stuff.
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.