GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Intelligence community to launch pay for performance system

• 52882
  

  I've studied performance management systems in the civilian world and their success is predicated upon the fact that workers receiving the highest ratings will so increase customer satisfaction and corporate profit that the company will be able to afford to reward them appropriately. The problem is that government service is a "closed system." There is no profit from which to reward employees. We will all compete for the same dollars. And since our performance ratings will be forced into a "normal distribution curve" of 3 to 5, the only way to get ahead will be to schmooze the boss, get cutthroat with your colleagues, and always grieve your ratings. Is this what the government intends?

  Ronald Posted June 23, 2008 12:47 AM
• 51472
  

  The issues highlighted in other comments are indeed true. However, the issue of greatest concern to the common civil servant is really about how much control first-line supervisors actually have. For example, will managers have carte blanche to award and reward those whom they like? What controls will exist to ensure that personnel at least receive some minimum pay raise and anything less will require justification by a manager. All of this is really more the direct result of mismanagement in the development of paybanding and a lack of meaningful communication to the working population. I have witnessed on many occasions the perception that management can do whatever they like and appear to believe that they are above the proverbial law. Yet at the same time managers do not necessarily know precisely where the laws that govern what you can and cannot do to employees begin and end. For example, I would posit that most members of management could not cite even one of the three rights guaranteed a person under the Privacy Act of 1974. The civil service system, as many may have experienced, is much akin to the not-for-profit industry but without the necessity for fundraising. As a result, the bureaucracy is best likened to an infinitely straight road that does not necessarily lead anywhere. Yet there is a definitive yellow line separating workers from managers and everyone as a whole from effective checks and balances. Know that my intent is not to cast the entire system in an utterly negative light. But these concerns are certainly on the minds of everyone whom paybanding will effect. Civil service, although necessary, could certainly gain from some of what paybanding has to offer. But the full weighing of its cost (other than money) does not yet appear to have been addressed.

  Johnny Posted May 29, 2008 11:13 AM
• 51178
  

  The one writer comments in glowing magnificence on the corporate world and how they are paid under a performance system which by implication has produced "the most successful economy in the world. And a lot of efficient, globally competitive companies."

  That our economy is the envy of the world in not attributable to one factor only let alone to a perceived pay for performance in the corporate world. If there were truly pay for performance in the corporate world, CEO salaries and benefits would reflect some realm of reality to their propositional contributions and there would be no "golden parachutes" for CEO failures.

  So, Since we have an economy that makes the world envious. How much of a role does Government with it's billions of spending play in creating and maintaining that successful economy along with industry? What percentage of these "highly successful corporate performance salaries, benefits and perks" were put in place by these "whinny," government wage earning, civil servants, "who could not make it in the corporate world?" Apparently enough in government are performing to keep those in corporate industry well paid from the government's multi-billion annually spent.

  Brings us to the point which the writer apparently can not or does not want to comprehend. The issue is not about performance, which is a loosely put upon term. Because federal workers already win the majority of competitions for their jobs and the re-competitions. Nor is the issue about paying one person more for doing more than another. The system currently in place has means for satisfying those whose work is above their peers.

  The issue, appears to this write, to be about control. Workers seeding their rights and benefits and in return being pitted against one another. Finally, another writer prays for "a performance based merit scale" to envelop the Government. The writer can place a metric on any job. The writer has created his own challenge, create a metric for the creators of the current "performance" based system based upon the satisfaction scale of the GE commentators. Instead of firing the team, let have a new coach.....

  Will Posted May 22, 2008 10:32 PM
• 51054
  

  One can only hope that the entire government will have converted to a performance based merit scale before Bush leaves office. Those who don't believe that GS doesn't lend itself to having measured outcomes are naive. Tell me a job and I can develop a metric with the employees help. The real issue is CS have been on the gravy train for so long that they don't want accountability, right now the inmates are running the asylum. I loved the 1 quote that they have to understand that they will get what they pay for, well right now the taxpayer is paying and getting little for their donations.

  Dan ketter Posted May 21, 2008 11:12 AM
• 50933
  

  This is pretty much the same philosophy as that of NSPS. With the mismanagement of Federal funds and the growing expense of worldwide activities, it is the only mechanism available to retain the necesaary workforce and to pay government workers. The individual government employee will no longer know how much, or if, he/she will get a pay raise as the estalished standard will no longer exist; and the bonuses, being a one-time shot, will not apply towards their retirement. Thus the average and high performer can expect their salary to be determined by the "pea under the shell" game, since the pay pool amounts for pay raises and bonuses are predicated on many factors. The government employee will then be at the mercy of management. It is because of bad management that unions were formed. And it is true that the employee will be paid their worth; as long as management understands they will get what they pay for.

  Pat Posted May 19, 2008 8:55 PM
• 50902
  

  I can understand that personnel coming to government service from the private sector intuitively see "pay-for-performance" as a positive and necessary change. Unfortunately, I think they need a clearer understanding of the economics of the public sector. A government department's or agency's revenue is unconnected to any measure of productivity. It is an exclusively political matter. By extension, the management tier that makes the decisions on distributing discretionary compensation has absolutely no fiduciary stake in the organization. Further, as others have stated here, those same decision makers are the most transient component of the workforce, and have little incentive to reward anything other than those who make their brief stays cozy.

  Jon Posted May 19, 2008 11:23 AM
• 50895
  

  "Pay for performance" in the government is a misnomer-we do not create easily measurable outputs (sales, etc) as the corporate world. Also, the government is supposed to be committed to fairness! If supervisors did not utilize the provisions in the old system to get rid of underachievers (documentation requried, of course) why does the new system anitcipate that supervisors will change now and document not meeting expectations and fire someone?? EEO protections will keep some of those preceived as "dead wood" in the system. Human nature is not changed-no one likes to give or receive negative feedback. Where is the training for supervisors to learn techniques for setting expectations and holding employees accountable? In a few years some new "bright bulb" will suggest paying people equally and will get promoted to SES for bringing back the values of the civil servant system-fairness!!

  cam Posted May 19, 2008 10:49 AM
• 50892
  

  All rhetoric aside, once you realize what "pay for performance" is in terms of the government's implementation: cost containment and a recruiting tool, most of what is happening makes sense. With no additional funding (unlike what was promised when conceived), the average fully successful employees MUST bear the burden of funding the outstanding and superior employees. It is a zero-sum-game. Future retirement outlays will also be reduced for the government since bonuses will not be included in determining a high-three. I have not found the information yet, but I suspect the TSP agency matching funds will also not include the bonus component of the pay. I'll have six years until my MRA after the first payouts in 2010, so I don't have a lot of choice in whether I stay in or not. Will I recommend government service to my children or anyone else? Good question. Let me just say that I would not recommend an employer that can change the rules in the middle of the game.

  Alan Posted May 19, 2008 10:14 AM
• 50890
  

  Out of 19 comments only ONE is in favor of NSPS! Are you listening out there? There is none so blind than those who have eyes yet cannot see and none so deaf than those who have ears but will not hear! The NSPS is doomed for failure and therefore the government is doomed failure! Who will support the failures? Everyone will be pointing fingers at someone else and nobody will take the blame. We are on the road to failure, no incentive, no reward, no teamwork, only favoritism, discontent, and hostile environments. When a strong link is wakened the strong will fall. Here we come Bin Laden!

  Civilian Worker Posted May 19, 2008 8:58 AM
• 50877
  

  God help the folks around here if they ever try to make it in the private sector, where (aside from firms that are unionized) employees are actually paid based on performance, not just showing up. Reading the comments on GovExec whenever pay for performance is floated, one would think that the concept of paying people who do a better job more and people who do a poor job less (or even - GASP! - firing them!) would necessarily result in the failure of an organization. Yet the overwhelming majority of employees at every top firm in the US are paid under exactly this principle. What's more, we have the most successful economy in the world. And a lot of efficient, globally competitive companies. Pay for performance might not satisfy those who think that everyone is entitled to good reviews and raises, but it does satisfy those of us willing to be paid based on merit. Unfortunately, based on the comments here, it seems that performance is an idea that is doomed by whiners who think that since these are government jobs, strict egalitarianism must be enforced: everyone is equally good at doing their jobs and deserves equal pay based solely on the numbers of years they've occupied a seat (= a recipe for failure).

  Shins Posted May 18, 2008 10:55 PM
• 50876
  

  As one of the post-9/11 new hires in the IC, I've reviewed the proposed new pay system, and it has all the same basic design features of the last 2-3 performance pay systems I've worked under in the private sector. All of those systems were generally successful, both for the employees and for the organization. So for that reason, I say bring on the new system, and a big No Thanks to a union. My current manager seems pretty savvy about managing people, and not at all inclined toward this "old boy network" mindset everybody keeps talking (and worrying) about. I am wondering when the market pay part of the system will kick-in, since that's the only piece that will ensure competitiveness for the IC for the future.

  Jason Posted May 18, 2008 10:28 PM
• 50867
  

  While the proposed NSPS system may not be perfect, and in reality - no pay/performance system is perfect ... I think we can all agree that the current system is broke. The system we live under today rewards lethargic longevity - "stick around and stay around and get more money". Nearly all of the corporate world uses a 'pay for performance meritocracy' method to reward/rate employees, which gives high-performers the the chance to earn significant salary increases and bonuses. It incentivizes performance, not longevity. Why wouldn't we want that?

  Fatcat Posted May 18, 2008 10:38 AM
• 50851
  

  As with anything, the fairness & integrity of the application will vary with the degree to which those applying the system possess & exercise these chacteristics. However, to unilaterally shove NSPS or any other new system down the throats of existing employees (particularly those duped into having already thrown decades away on federal service under what are incresingly appearing to be false pretenses) is neither fair nor honest. When the top leadership trumpets "integrity first" as an "Air Force Core Value" and then abandons integrity by unilaterally imposing NSPS on existing employees, why would one expect NSPS (or anything else) to operate fairly or honestly?

  Taze Posted May 16, 2008 4:53 PM
• 50846
  

  The bureaucratic imposition of a demonstrably dysfunctional system. This move is devoid of the independent and analytically based judgment that should mark all intelligence activities. I have a better performance incentive: you perform as a professional practicioner of the intelligence art or you're out of here.

  Former Army Security Agency Posted May 16, 2008 3:57 PM
• 50844
  

  This just proves that union's protect the rights of employee's. Sanders gives you the true intent of this system " To overcome some of the anxiety, we said that at the outset that successful employees will get the GS and Locality," So next year, what happens to these successful employee's raise.

  Dave Posted May 16, 2008 2:06 PM
• 50838
  

  Wow. You guys in intelligence are not very intelligent. The loss of expertise this will cause is extreme. Also those that are already overloaded due to either a shortage of staff, inaccurate manning allocations, or change in scope of their current job are going to be screwed. Good luck and glad I am a contractor

  Rudy Posted May 16, 2008 12:18 PM
• 50837
  

  Very frequently now I am reading about this or that agency implementing a new pay for performance system. I had thought the goal was to place everyone under a single system eventually to ensure fairness and continuity. Ie, Apply NSPS to all of these agencies who have GS personnel. That seems not to be the case. I am however hopeful, that some of the leaders in these different organizations have seen the absolute disaster NSPS is and the increasing negative impact is has had on DoD operations and employees and are trying to comply with the inevitable but with a better and fairer system than NSPS. Those of us under NSPS wish you the best of luck,,,,,,,,,,We had none.........

  ORF Posted May 16, 2008 12:14 PM
• 50831
  

  NSPS is not a system of which anyone should be proud. It is a system that results in a forced distribution of ratings and shares (read that "pay-outs"). In this organization, the way NSPS appeared to work was that Management decided whom Management wanted to reward. In rare cases, those individuals were given 5's--someone had to receive a top rating, otherwise, the organization has no "role models". In most cases, the favored were given 4's. Because 3 is the "target rating" for NSPS, those not favored by Management helped provide the ballast to "balance" out the pay pool. Interestingly enough, no one received a rating lower than 3, so, just as under the old system, there apparently there are underperformers in the entire organization. There are just those whom Management wants to reward and those whom Management needs to balance out the pool to provide cover for a spoils system. Ratings have little to do with performance. Again, NSPS is not a system to be embraced by thinking entities. Perhaps therein lies the rub: we may not be dealing with "thinking entities".

  jeremy Posted May 16, 2008 10:56 AM
• 50822
  

  maybe congress and the senate should go under "pay for performance"...

  Bob Posted May 16, 2008 10:26 AM
• 50821
  

  First, we need management that has the knowledge of the employees jobs they are to manage. Too many supervisors have no clue of their employees job duties but they still do our performance appraisals. Years ago, when supervisors knew their jobs, you would get an outstanding or at least a fully successful but now because of the lack of competent supervisors, we get below satisfactory. Where is this fair to the employees. PLEASE GET COMPENTANT MANAGEMENT.

  va employee Posted May 16, 2008 10:17 AM
• 50819
  

  HELLO??? Are the people with the real authority to make the decisions even listening? We continue to see/hear the disdain over these new "employee forsaken" pay for performance systems from the employees themselves, and unbelievably, not one decision maker is willing to step-up and tell the truth--"they made a mistake, the new pay system really isn't working". They continue to allow an astronomical amount of funds to be wasted across agencies, instituting flawed pay for performance systems. Yet, they do not have enough money in the "pay pool" to pay the "top performers" for these systems were supposedly created. Will it end finally when there are thousands upon thousands of grievances to adjudicate across the entire Federal Government from poor execution and favoritism? There are much better ways for the Government to use the funds being spent fixing a pay system that really was not broken... ...

  A DoD'er Posted May 16, 2008 10:16 AM
• 50815
  

  Pay for performance sounds great to the average citizen only because they are not involved in this type of system. As it stands this system is exactly what the intelligence community does not need if it is to be revamped to make communications flow properly. Pay Banding has proven to be a problem to implement as it is the employee that is required to write result based impact statements (tasks that allow result tp be accp,[;osjed do not count) on accomplishments for a pay pool manager who in many cases will not even know the person who they are rating or be familiar with the work the employee is assigned to complete. Pay Banding places employees in competition for the same pool of money therefore it is no longer in the employee's interest to help out their fellow employee which in the intelligence community means that the incentive to share information is decreased, resulting in a dangerous situation.

  peter crumley Posted May 16, 2008 9:46 AM
• 50809
  

  God help us. Intelligence needs people who can tactfully speak their minds. We have too much "slam dunk" now. These performance systems are thinly disguised schemes to allow managers to over reward their favorites.

  Wise Old Owl Posted May 16, 2008 8:56 AM
• 50808
  

  First Ron Sanders sold NSPS to DOD; now he's selling a softer version of it to the intelligence community. But, please note that he points out that everyone will get the GS and locality wage to reduce uncertainty--wonder if the NSPS folks are listening? Also, I wonder just who are the under performers?--could it be they're talking about senior/top level/supervisory personnel and not the people doing the day-to-day intell analysis--somehow, everyone automatically thinks its the mid-level employee who is not performing up to expectations. People performing below expectations is a result of poor leadership and supervision---tybpically, about 2% of an organization's workforce. You don't need to create a mega-expensive pay for performance sys to solve this problem. Someone needs to do a cost-benefit analysis.

  DOD Oserver Posted May 16, 2008 8:30 AM
• 50807
  

  Isn't Sanders one of the original developers of NSPS? Are we hoping he has learned from his mistakes and moving in a new direction now?

  Not likely.

  Revamping the employee pay system to compensate for management shortcomings only hurts employees and provides new cover for managers who can't. Ohhhh, maybe we stumbled onto something here?

  And since this new system is going to go into place in America's Intelligence community, what happens if the new pay system fails and creates disgruntled employees? What if pay raises do not keep up with the cost of living and marginal or average employees start looking for other ways to make ends meet?

  Seems a little more than flawed to me.

  Mark Gibson Posted May 16, 2008 8:14 AM
• 50804
  

  These continued attempts by Bush Administration officials to reward pay for performance is political. In our agency, if you are in the "inner circle", or part of their "team", you will be rewarded. It does not matter if you do your job according to the law and public policy for the American Taxpayer. Believe it or not, whomever developed the old GS system knew what they were doing. In the end, I believe that there will be more justice in that system then any other system developed to reward political cronies.

  Frank Foster Posted May 16, 2008 7:49 AM
• 50803
  

  I fully concur....you get what you pay for and as intelligent beings we will perform much like trained seals to give our supervisors what they want rather than what they need. Just think, had supervisors and management types done their respective jobs in removing deadwood, enhancing customer satisfaction, increasing individual accountability we wouldn't need a pay system change....can we say favortism "Baby".

  rick Posted May 16, 2008 7:41 AM
• 50798
  

  This continues to reward the buddies and is a way to get people that this Administration and others do not like that don't look the same as they do, out. Believe me, it is not a good system and the comments made in meetings, etc. by senior level managers is appalling.

  anonymous Posted May 16, 2008 7:18 AM
• 50788
  

  This guy really needs to get a clue. I can see it now, everyone will be rated as outstanding and then where will they get the money to pay all those inflated ratings. Then everyone will have to work extra hard just to maintain and not have their pay reduced. This has been tried in the past under different names. It all stays the same. There's no real improvement here. The carrot and stick does not work because eventually you start using the stick on everyone when you run out of money. Guess what, we're already running out of money in the federal government, so how long do you think it will be before the stick comes at you.

  get a clue Posted May 16, 2008 1:31 AM
• 50785
  

  Wow! For people who are in the "Intelligence" community this step does not reassure that intelligence played a great part in this decision. Have they not been reading what the vast majority of those who are affected by DOD system and who will comment are saying about their satisfaction with the misnomer "National Security Personnel System?" Now, not only do THEY in national intelligence plan to implement a copy cat but they also plan to throw in a "360er" so that a snitch can hold sway over your career?? Wow! Not to demean anyone there with my lowly opinion but to place this decision on a 28% response rate is a bit of a stretch. Come on... be frank. Was your decision to implement a copy cat of DOD's system because you are led by a Retired General Officer who came over from DOD? Give this decision the straight talk.....

  Will Posted May 16, 2008 1:09 AM
• 50780
  

  I'm a government employee and I believe in pay for performance. However, these types of systems like the NSPS system at Defense merely make it easy for managers to reward their friends.

  Don Posted May 15, 2008 7:39 PM