GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Intelligent Design

• 52083
  

  I agree with the guy whosaid management does not like confrontation or to say no. I feel too many goverment employees do nothing and expect more. Yes I would love to get paid for an outstanding job but I would hate it more if those (and there are many) who do nothing get a bonus just because their supervisors don't do their jobs and document poor performance for fear that these long time employees will run to the union.

  Mary Posted June 11, 2008 7:07 AM
• 51633
  

  It's too bad that Ron Sanders has failed to do his homework on the pathetic NSPS system. No one wants it: not the civilians and not the supervisors. NSPS is an absolute and utter flop. Hopefully, when new leadership gets into the Whitehouse, they will be able to see through the very thick line of mis-information that the personnel offices hve been dishing out and back up the civilian workers. I can promise you this my good friends: Mr Sanders will step on anyone he has to and do the bidding of his supervisor to reach his own personal goals. I would never work for this guy. I encourage supervisors to tell the truth about NSPS and outline why we must go back to the GS system.

  Robert Dangredo Posted June 2, 2008 2:12 PM
• 51619
  

  If money isn't a motivator then why all the posts from our illustrious CS about pay benefits?? Money has always been the prime motivator. When ever we get into the psychobabble from socialists. Ethereal suggestions are given more weight than money but when all is said and done why do people come and go = $$$

  Dan ketter Posted June 2, 2008 11:46 AM
• 51604
  

  Pay for performance? Are you kidding me? The group I work with absolutely does NOTHING and they still think they deserve money. They are all "topped" out at step 10 and complain everyday because over their past lifetime here their supervisor's have just handed them their "satisfactory or fully successful" so they wouldn't have to deal with them running to the union complaining about not being fair. One thing I have observed while working for the government is that the management does not like confrontation or saying NO.

  Disturbed Posted June 2, 2008 10:00 AM
• 51603
  

  The problem with this whole system is the premise that managers/leaders from the title 5 system will manage the new "NSPS" effectively and efficiently. And that is just the first mistake. They messed up title 5 and will do the same to NSPS!

  Gone and Forgotten Posted June 2, 2008 9:56 AM
• 51592
  

  I've seen many mediocre employees promoted far above their competencies, agitating when they don't get undeserved high performance ratings and generally dragging down the performance of the whole unit. The union lackeys and slackers who want to throw away pay for performance are exactly the poor performers who resent being held accountable. The good performers are too busy doing their jobs well to make lists of what they believe they deserve.

  Ron Posted June 2, 2008 8:42 AM
• 51576
  

  You sure have a lot of patronizers and apologists -- for an obvious cheap shot at the Federal government's highest level of executives.

  My last email was to dirty for inclusion in this fine platonic discussion, so it won't be printed.

  Yet I bet you some of the government executives at the $200,000 cap have some dirty ideas too.

  Peace

  Mark St. Denis Posted June 1, 2008 1:32 PM
• 51573
  

  Work them like slaves. If they do not like it, let them go to the so called private sector.

  1/2 of them are overpayed. 1/2 of them are underpayed. Not so much as 1 of them is correctly payed.

  Give them the bad news first. Give them the good news second.

  Government + Executive is a controdiction in terms.

  What they call Executives in the government are no more than supervisory labor in the private sector.

  Maybe the so called Government Executives should unionize, to raise their pay.

  The federal ex cap is under $200,000 per year. Union labor 777 pilots make $400,000 per year.

  Talk about lying to yourself as a pretend executive.

  Mark St. Denis Posted May 31, 2008 5:46 PM
• 51571
  

  Most people completely misunderstand NSPS. While the marketing of the pay system uses the buzz words, "Pay for performance" which falsely implies that hard work will get higher pay. But if you take the time to read the enabling NSPS legislation you will see that the program is all about reducing payroll/retirement costs. Examples: Abolish the concept of longevity, reduce total annual pay raises by substituting one time cash payouts, introduce flexibilities to cut locality pay based upon an arcane contractor review of local commercial pay for allegedly similar work, selectively stealing the pay of employees rated a fully successful 3 to give to other employees that have the same rating (with a net reduction to overall payroll costs). Abolishing most promotion opportunities, and then limiting what few promotions remain to an arbitrary 5%. Curiously other than the automatic eligibility for officer promotions (that CS never had) the military pay system retains the old GS structure ... More pay based upon longevity. No one has ever explained why is this acceptable for military, who almost gets universal praise for performance, but is judged to be unacceptable for CS? How can the military pay system which promotes team work be coupled to a civilian NSPS system which promotes an everybody for themselves mentality be grafted into a total DoD comprehensive pay system? But I guess under the current administration justice and fairness are outmoded "quaint" concepts.

  Joe Spicer Posted May 31, 2008 3:39 PM
• 51481
  

  NSPS is supposed to reward the "good" and punish the "bad". NSPS is based on the assumption that more pay equates to more productivity and that it is easier to get rid of bad performaners. Unfortunately it failed in both counts. Experts would tell you that pay is an enhancer not a good motivator and that people would do a good job if given the right tools and opportunity. Job satisfaction, working environment and working condition are better incentives that pay. All NSPS did was taking away more time for productive work hence demoralized the innocent and create discontent amongst the workers so we can "supposedly" punished the guilty. The benefit of NSPS would not even come close to the cost of implementing and executing NSPS in the future. And that does not even include the intangible damage its costing the Gov't. If any of the politicians would make a statement that if elected, he/she would get rid of NSPS, that person would get a huge majority of civil servants votes.

  Henry P. Sim Posted May 29, 2008 2:25 PM
• 51462
  

  Mr. Sanders is absolutely right, greed is not the motivator of civil servants. All the attempts at rating reforms over the decades have missed this point. 30 years ago we had a system that gave an automatic "acceptable" rating to every employee, unless the supervisor felt the need to focus on a low or high extreme. Seniority was just that, years of service. The paperwork was minimal. The real effort went into assessing and improving the employee's potential. An annual session to discuss skills and proficiencies is where time was spent. The time was not wasted on a documentation pyramid of ratings built on fictitiously measurable objectives or results. Neither energy nor emotions were wasted on pitting employees against each other for payout amounts considered laughable in the private sector.

  G Pap Posted May 29, 2008 9:33 AM
• 51459
  

  Most people are motivated not by pay, but if they feel their work is meaningful and that they are contibuting to the organization. Pay is the least form of motivation and sometimes it creates an environment that you have to walk on water in order to be needed.

  Rosemary Spears Posted May 29, 2008 9:11 AM
• 51456
  

  In my experience, the biggest problem implementing pay-for-performance systems in the public sector is the simple fact that they are universally sold as "budget neutral." This invariably results in robbing a very few Peters (employees rated below average--historically 2-3%)to pay a very large number of Pauls (employees rated superior). The resulting small upside in salary/bonus is most often overshadowed by the laborious process required to manage the system.

  B.A. Baker Posted May 29, 2008 8:42 AM
• 51455
  

  Did Eli Manning win the Super Bowl by himself? No, so why do all the players receive the same amount for winning the Super Bowl. These programs foster individual efforts and will lead to an overall decrease in agency performance. How does one maintain a motivated workforce when one rewards only the "most motivated"? In a for-profit organization rewards are possible, but the government, as the article points out, does not always fund it award system. I see challenges ahead for agency who adopt this appoach. In 5 years they will be reviewing and revising it considerably.

  Richard Black Posted May 29, 2008 8:41 AM
• 51454
  

  Good Gracious! Will people ever stop throwing that "7.6" number around now that it was leaked in erroneous fashion to portray an untrue and inflated picture of the pay adjustments for those folks under the "Not Singing Praises System." Mr. Kovac, please go back and do your homework before spouting that number freely and expecting it means what you think it means. It means someone else had their fixed retirement benefit decreased at the expense of poor pay pool management. It means someone took home some extra cash today, but not increased base pay for next year and the years to come. Mr. Sanders, you may be a "maverick" because you're basically stating that NSPS doesn't make your pocketbook any fatter, but you're gonna love it because you'll think it's going to and you'll think your performance is tied to your pay. Sounds to me like someone has drank the "Kool-Aid." Hip-hip-hooray for pay for performance! And I quote: "We know for a fact that our employees are motivated by sheer patriotism," he said. "They like their work; they know it's important. Sanders pointed out that the agency's system is designed to reward average and outstanding employees accordingly. "We've told people, no one is going to get rich on this." Mr. Sanders, our "maverick," take yourself from the soapbox and listen to yourself. Why in the world would you change the pay system if people are not going to get rich and people are not motivated by anything other than sheer patriotism? If they like their work, then the pay doesn't matter. Oh, but the pay does matter, especially when calculating the retirement benefit! People under this junk pay-for-performance system will realize how bad the "kool-aid" really was when they sit down with the civilian personnel office representative and say, "I would like to retire, how much will I be getting every month?" Immediate reaction will probably go something like this, "that's not what I was led to believe" or "guess I should have performed better" or "what in the h@@@!" Think again, Mr. Sanders and maybe you should speak on the topic again after you've thought about it.

  Maverick - an independently minded person who refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a particular group

  jrb Posted May 29, 2008 8:34 AM
• 51446
  

  Frederich Herzberg's motivation theory states that pay is not a "satisfier" but a "dissatisfier". A pay raise doesn't satisfy an employee but the absence of one dissatisfies the employee. Pay then, is not a motivator. It can only demotivate. Achievement is the real motivator.

  Frank Curnow Posted May 29, 2008 7:30 AM
• 51441
  

  Maverick is certainly not a word I would use to describe Ron Sanders. But given the family nature of this publication-- my noun is not printable. The guy must still think he is Top Gun!

  I have yet to see pay for performance programs that restore "employees' faith in the integrity of their agencies." You have got to be kidding. I have seen pay for performance programs that do the exact opposite and increase Union strength. However, the ODNI doesn't have to worry about Unions-- lucky him.

  HR Specialist Posted May 29, 2008 6:47 AM