Return to Article: Pay Potential
-
49709
Money aside, how can the majority of NSPS employees be motivated to achieve and excell by convincing them that getting a "3" rating and being average is good?
-
49667
I am tickled to death the "pay for performance" plan is finally getting a strong hold on the Federal Service. Some say the system has supervisors maintaining 75% mediocore employees to keep the % high. 75% is a number we blue collars workers would appreciate seeing. It is the time wasting "watch dog" union of the federal employees that forces the supervisors to maintain "less" then attiquate employees whose techinical competance levels are below an accepted standard. However becasue of the the time in service they are granted a "special" pass. So to speak! We have privatized and the new owners take over in August and this privatization is the best thing that has happened in this plant in over 30 years. This will weed out the employees that have become overly comfortable in the old "federal employee rut." The old story of federal workers staying in one job long enough and they WILL be promoted although they are not deserving technically. Those employees will weed themselves out without any help.
-
49605
Because of the way NSPS works, about 75% of your employees have to be rated as mediocre. I would think that this would encourage supervisors to keep lots of low performers employed, so that they can prop up the ratings of the top 25%.
-
49601
Wow-NSPS discussions sure bring out the slackers. Those who are afraid of merit pay are motivated by being able to sleep on the job and still scoop up their union-bought seniority increases. I grant the commenters that government is not the private sector, but neither is it supposed to be a welfare plantation. Why should the taxpayers get less value for government services than for the other services they buy? Life holds no guarantees, union bosses notwithstanding. Now, you complainters just go back to sleep. A new day is dawning.
-
49594
If the average DC area Fed got 7.6%, they did better than most folks I work with at Army. Somebody got that much (or more), but I suspect it wasn't the average. I received a very good rating (not top, but next level) and got a hair under 4.5% total, including the 1.5% across-the-board cost of living that everyone received, and my cash bonus. It's one of the worst pay raises I've seen, but I'm not complaining about that. My complaint is that this is just another hyped-up, inflation prone system that will reward the bosses pets, and has the potential to be really unfair to the average worker. The NSPS system is extemely cumbersome and difficult to work with. A one page fill-in-the-blanks with room for a paragraph to expound on accomplishments and a plan for improvement/goals would suffice. The other drawback to NSPS is that anyone can be reassigned anytime without recourse (management loves that one), allowing the bosses to really put their 'pets' in the positions of advantage and promote without competition. NSPS plainly removes the term competitive from the equation. I don't think NSPS is a step forward, rather a step backward when it comes to fairness, equity and opportunity.
-
49420
If you are a "retired air traffic controller" why are you still whining?
-
49361
We just had a visit by the "NSPS Evaluation Team". They interviewed a large number of people about the system. Everyone without exception, even the ones that got 5s, were extremely negative in their comments. Worker bees and management all had much to say about how bad NSPS is. The biggest single complaint was that the system is open to abuse and there is no meaningful oversight. Add to that the lack of measurable objectives and no transparency in the system and you have just what others have said, a good ol boy system.
-
49359
NSPS is a money saving proposition, and that's all
-
49352
Pay for performance is the good old boys at its worst. This idea comes from private industry where the trend in the last 3 decades has been to overcompensate the people at the top while paying minimal salaries to the low level workers. Do we really want this outcome in the federal government? Hasn't the U.S. already become too much of a "banana republic"? Or do we now need to make sure that government is at the beckon call of the political appointees who will make sure that those who get the greatest compensation are those who suck up to whatever the administration wants to do (i.e., continue to deny the existence of global warming in spite of undeniable scientific evidence)?
-
49308
It is very simple math. If you have a limited amount of money to put into the pool some will win and some will lose.
The problem with a merit based pay system in the government system is two fold.
First, a manager has limited resources so can't pay his employees what the market may demand. And, if he has been a good leader and has developed a good team, he can't reward all of them by scoring them all high.
This is a fallacy within the system. It demands that there be mediocre and good performers for the system to work.
Secondly, there are few controls that will work to ensure fairness within the system. In the private sector the profit motive operates as the unlitimate control. Those managers who don't recognize and reward top performers will find themselves without such persons. The market moves people and capital to where it's required. No such mechanism exists in government so artificial ones have to be put into place. NSPS removes many of these controls and risks abuses within the system.
Bottom line, the GS system developed over decades for a reason. It might have needed to be tweaked, but it didn't need to be thrown out with the bath water.
-
49307
Pay for performance has another drawback.As you move up in pay, for doing more than your job, management views this as you are over paid. So you will now get pushed out of your job so a lesser paid employee can be hired that will save the company money.Yes I've been there!
-
49304
When are you people going to realize that this "new pay system" is NOT about rewarding hard work, recruitment or retention ? It is about downsizing, cutting your retirement and breaking unions. take a good look at what it is doing over at the FAA and then decide. That agency is about to collapse. This is just one of the many disasters the Bush administration has left the US taxpayer to clean up. What a waste.
-
49299
The author mentions the potential to earn more, but we are finding out now that this is not true. A year ago, we were told to look at the top of the pay band to see our new earning potential. Today, we are being told that this isn't our earning potential at all, due to something called 'compensation lanes'. Sure enough, if you were converted from a GS12 to a YA2 you can't make the top of the band. That's reserved for those who converted from GS13 slots. And since 12s and 13s are now in the same band, gone is the opportunity for promotion to those slots. Someone is going to consistently get 5 rated for saving money by screwing us.
-
49293
Don't believe the 7.6% payout claim. Note they said "Payout", not pay raise. Forty percent of the across the board increase in NSPS was performance-based. But instead of getting the full pay raise, they paid us in bonus. They said, "Oh, but it bigger than the pay raise". But it doesn't compound in future years nor does it help us with our retirement computation. In the end, everyone got a 2.88% raise while our cost of living went up over 4% here. With PFP, they will have NO sympathies that medical costs are going up double digit, gas prices are shooting through the roof, or anything else that advesely effects the workers. They are NOT going to be generous until they cannot hire new people. With several people applying for each federal job, they don't have to and they know it!
-
49290
So called pay for performance is first and foremost a cost-saving program spun by the usual false language preferred by the current administration into SOUNDING like some kind of meaningful reform (like "Healthy Forests"). Its second purpose was to provide the first step in a return of the civil service to the spoils system of the late 1800s . . . because, after all we are in the second age of the Robber Barons. The well established GS system, while certainly not perfect, actually IS as fair and free of political influence as any pay system has ever been. That venerable system also actually IS a pay for performance system with a pay floor built into it to assure that no employee performing satisfactory work is allowed to sink into abject poverty. Lets cut the phony rhetoric and scrap the misnamed "pay for performance" system ASAP.
-
49286
A government pay for performance system will always pay less to employees in the lower ratings than in the private sector because of the set amount of monies. The 7.6% DoD brags about is simply made up of the old Step increase monies, the remaining portion of the GPI not used in the rate range adjustments and bonus monies. Therefore, it can't be "more" than what the GS employees receive. In fact if most personnel are rated at "3" then most personnel have to recieve less than the GS employees. It's simple math.
I think what most people have missed is what the "flexibility" that DoD built into NSPS has really done. When someone moves from position to position it is now, in most cases, a reassignment. Where in the past it would have been a promotion. DoD has effectively eliminated the requirement to comply with OPM Merit Promotion requirements. It isn't just a lower increase for the increased responsibility. Management can now put whomever they want in the position and Merit Promotion rules are put aside.
-
49282
I was part of that 57% that received an average rating and thus found my first year under NSPS to be very demotivating. Any system that only motivates less than half of the employees will never be effective. Pay banding is also a negative for me as I am at the very top of my band.
-
49277
I don't like the idea of performance-based payouts influenced by a rating received from management. Many organizations have good old boy or buddy clubs. Non-members can receive average ratings despite high performance. This will not encourage high performing employees to remain in Federal service. No one wants to see high performing employees receive lower payouts than employees with average or even low/poor performance.
-
49264
I give DOD credit for taking the bull by the horns with NSPS. With this structure maybe the CS will get the message and turn around their work ethic or leave, unfortunately not many will leave, they would never find a job paying them what they make in the private for what they do. Attendance raises, step and annual, need to be eliminated and placed in the pay pool to reward performers. I keep seeing the term "good old boys network" sounds a lot like sour grapes, can't you compete?? Cola last year for retiree's was 2% so if you got 2% or more you received a full share of the federal money
-
49243
Now people are starting to understand what NSPS is really all about. NSPS was never meant to increase wages....it was meant to reduce wages. Though DoD has tried, you can't separate Pay for Performance from the rest of what NSPS was suppose to be. In order to reduce wages, DoD had to take all of the employee's rights away....that is what NSPS is all about. Of the 460 plus pages that NSPS encompasses, 95% involved taking employee rights away.
-
49238
Brittany... You are misrepresenting the truth! The average raise in the GS system was much more than 2.5 % when you include the step increases that were earned! The 7.6 % increase is nominal in comparison. I accepted a GS - 11 ,upon arrival the job had converted and I received over 3,000 less than the lowest amount advertised. Based upon the GS system and the time in grade I am now making 6500 less that what I would have been. I received a rating of 3.2. The only person to receive a 4 rating was our chief (interesting how the chief can be a 4 when all his subordinates are 3's)! This system is crooked, those in power get higher ratings and the worker bee's are 3's. IT will never change If you look at bonuses historically the higher amount and the higher tendencies are heavily favored towards management. Why would they stop padding their pockets now. Get real if you think this system is good, you may get one or two good raises but overall you will fall by the way side of your GS counterparts in terms of salary. The GS system had the ability to award performers by providing increased steps and punishing those that don't by withholding steps. The government will loose good young workers just when they need them the most (look at the average age of the civil servant).
-
49237
Release of Information. Right! You've never served or worked for the DOD have you. There is no "Need to Know" for you. It's secret information only to the "Decision Makers". The rest of you are just cannon fodder. The NSPS is a money saving proposition, and that's all.
-
49236
What's interesting in this article is mention of what's important to motivating people. Money or Advancement/Promotion? Of course everyone wants more money. Duh! But they want a lot more money. They want the winning lottery ticket and not an adjustment to pay that's less than or equal to the inflation every year. So let's forget the pay discussion because it's never going to be enough for anyone that's working for Uncle Sam. You want more pay, then hit the streets and enjoy that working world where everyone is in it for themselves. I've worked both worlds and I'll take my sense of military team/family found in civil service over corporate America's more money and cut-throat game any day. What we need to focus on is the advancement. Two promotions in a career/lifetime and you better hope it is to a position/job that contributes to the mission because that is where the responsibility lies. We want to advance because it makes us an important asset to the company. We become necessary and that's always a good feeling. It motivates us "A-types." If I'm not important or an integral part of the mission, then I tend to move on until I find a place where I am. One of those two promotions will most likely come with supervisory baggage and should. Again, we want to lead and manage folks in accomplishing the mission or we don't feel important. So, how often will people who finally find those positions be willing to move out of those positions? Ummm, think really hard now. How about, when they are ready to retire? Will I have the opportunity to openly (and at any time)compete for their position? Will I be able to knock them from the mountain top whenever my game is better? When is the last time you walked into your boss' office and said, "I can do Bob's/Sally's job better if you just bump them and put me in there today!" How easy will that be? NSPS is about overpaying people for being lucky enough to score a position that contributes more to the mission than others may. NSPS is about someone trying to get their name in a history book. There is plenty of opportunity in the GS pay system, you just have to be willing to find those next positions no matter where they are ("mobility" is the term for those of you with roots growing). I bet that raised an eyebrow or two. :o)
-
49235
Pay for performance is being sabotaged by career bureaucrats who do not want to be accountable for work done. To rate every one the same as we were ordered to last year, (Yes we were told to not rate anyone above fully successful) leads to mediocrity throughout the agency. It also leads to unfair division of awards. The federal budget for awards was $77500 and the budget for county employees was over $200000. Because most of the CED's obeyed the illegal order the money to be divided amongst county employees was much higher. The managers who have more than 2-3 subordinates doing the same job don't want to do the documentation necessary to differentiate between poor performers and outstanding employees. We have a situation in our office where a CED rates every PT out of 7 the same. From my observations he has 1 outstanding, 3 superior, 2 fully successful and 1 needs imnprovement. This is creating hard feelings in the office because everyone knows who needs improvement.
-
49234
The 7.6% result is due to manipulation of the numbers. Several responses to Gov Exec newsletter pointed that out. DoD is foolish to publish information that paints an incorrect picture. This worthwhile plan will not gain good traction until we put together an honest picture.
-
49229
Finally someone has pointed out one of the greatest flaws of pay-for-performance for the federal government. Unlike private business that can use profits to reward employees for their performance, the federal funds for pay are usually fixed. The question is who gets the smaller slices of the pie? Successful workers who contribute to the daily success of the agency are rewarded with smaller and smaller pay increases, effectively reducing their standard of living, below COLA. Morale is heading for the toilet.
-
49226
For once, a pretty good article! I'd quickly add in the argument on Pay vs. Promotion incentives, be aware that often a 5% raise is all you get when you're promoted; not the next GS at a level somewhere above 2 or 3 Steps beyond one's precedent GS Grade/Step. It's a rip-off, pure and simple: a lot more responsibility for which a meager compensation increase is clearly NOT commensurate.
If they're aiming for most all to be "3's" on a scale of 5, and at that juncture, attain only 60% of the Cost of Living [Congress, are you listening? You endorse "Pay Parity" for FEDS but the very ones "closest" to the Military (DoD Civilians) are the very ones LEAST LIKELY TO GET IT under NSPS), in my humble opinion they shouldn't equate that to "Valued Employee." Just another oxymoron from "foxy" morons who really don't value their employees.
Yep, those closest to retirement can "Stay for Less Pay" (that 60% baseline for most) or "Stray (retire) for More [100%] Pay." Indeed, many are finding this new "UnCOLA" simply too hard to swallow and, as Coca Cola says, they're seeking "The Real Thing."
I would encourage maximum transparency: Let the chips fall where they may, but just don't "chip away" at our financial futures. Until this whole matter is fully disclosed and rightfully resolved, I can not, in good conscience, recommend Federal Employment for the long term.
-
49224
NSPS has only served to heighten and reinforce the good 'ol boy system prevalent within my agency. Raises and bonuses were doled out based not on actual performance achievements but by the employees' perceived interpersonal skills. In other words an employee's "likeability" is more important than the product being produced. The "yes men" faired very well. The silent majority of faithful, hard working employees received only average pay increases or less.
-
49221
It appears that our legislative solons have tin ears, i.e., they don't appear to understand what pay-for-performance (PFP) is all about. When the article mentions, with an apparently straight face, that there is a concern that under the NSPS PFP approach "employees receiving average ratings must be receiving less to fund higher increases for those receiving top ratings." Well, DUHH!!! That's the core of the PFP concept, guys and gals! Yes, PFP is overtly designed to use pay more effectively as a motivator and reward mechanism. It's difficult to believe that this has not been understood to be the key aspect of the PFP approach from the get-go. However, Federal union leaders and their evidently clueless (or deceptive) congressional minions are the equivalent of dinosaurs who don't - or don't want to - "get it." The old, cozy system of virtually automatic across-the-board pay increases is just so, well comfortable. (Heaven forfend that we would actually try to recognize the better performing through the pay system; that would be [gasp] UNEQUAL TREATMENT - the modern day mortal sin.) If government is ever to reach the goals of accountability and performance expected by the American public, we must change the pay/reward system paradigm to ensure that it effectively assists in achieving those goals. At present, that isn't the case. PFP is no panacea, but it is a tool that, if used effectively, can help to reach those objectives.
-
49216
One aberration in NSPS is the fact that when you competitively "promote" someone from a GS position into NSPS (say a GS 12 goes to what used to be a supervisory GS13, now a YC-02), it is a re-assignment, not a promotion. Thus the raise is limited to a maximum of 5%, which has to be justified. Under the GS system, they would have gotten closer to 8%. And her peers who are selected for non-supervisory 13s will remain in the GS system and get the full 8% increase. Resulting in the employees making more than the supervisor. How are we going to attract the best people to supervisory jobs in that case?
-
49215
The argument that DOD is not providing extra funding for NSPS, and therefore that average employees are being undercompensated, is probably not accurate. For example, DOD provides more funding for performance bonuses than the typical Federal Government agency. I previously worked for an agency in which average bonuses were less than 0.7 of 1%, and the Federal Government average was only about 1%. Because of the generous bonus contributions in NSPS, average DOD employees (most of us) are coming out ahead.
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.