GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Pay Reform Pitfalls

• 81517
  

  I concur wholeheartedly with Robert D. The NSPS is a farse with no checks and balance system. Regardless of how well a person performs, when those who participate in pay pools get together they bargain with each other for support of the buddies to give the higher awards to. As far as any system goes, it will only be a success if managers sideline their personal feeling and replace them with the integrity and honor that we all signed up to when we took the "Oath of Office". Supervisors need to look a guy in the eyeballs and explain to them why they are getting a poor rating rather than to give them a successful rating because they don't want to be viewed in a negative light by their subordinates... Any system that is developed will be corrupted by human nature.

  Jae Pierce Posted June 29, 2009 6:20 AM
• 81515
  

  While I agree with most of the negative comments about NSPS, I feel that all of you have overlooked a MAJOR element that none of you have addressed or commented on. That pitfall is your retirement! Just think about it for a minute. When you are only getting 60% of a cost of living increase, that means your retirement accumulation is being shorted by the 40% you dont get credit for. Over a period of several years your retirement will not be worth as much as you would get under the GS system. Think about it! The only positive thing I have experienced in NSPS is the "actual" overtime rate I get instead of that "capped" junk we used to get. So lets keep that aspect in whatever system the brains choose to foster onto us.

  CLB Posted June 29, 2009 6:14 AM
• 81389
  

  I take exception to Mr. Weiner's generalization of all civil service being slackers. I also completely disagree with Dan's blanket statement that civil service making twice what the general public makes. I am nearing retirement after 38 years with the DOD. During most of my career I have had to deal with manning levels filled well below the authorizations required to do the assigned duties. The people I have been associated with have always made up for the shortfalls in manning by doing their assigned duties and more. In the Bush years many positions were contracted out but there was always a residual set of duties that could not be included so they ended up being dumped into an unrelated civil service position because they still needed to be done. The people I work with accepted the additional duties and get the job done. And they do this with no additional pay or little recognition as ofter the incentive awards programs are not properly utilized by management to award such actions. Lastly civil service employees also put themselves at risk by working for the DOD. I challenge anyone to say that the plane that struck the Pentagon on 9/11 only affected the military assigned there and had no impact on civil service personnel working there. If any military post is a domestic target for an attack we are at equal risk as the military member working at the next desk. NSPS is nothing more than a devaluing of the civil service that does not deserve to be treated unfairly. We give our fair share and more.

  Dave Bethea Posted June 26, 2009 10:27 AM
• 81373
  

  NSPS has no credibility. It is a lie. It is dishonest. It does not help with national security. It does not help with governmetn employees performance. It is not even whole system because many part of it were declare illegal in courts. Let's be honest and go back to what really worked. Lets go back to the GS system that was meaningful and worked.

  Robert Dangredo Posted June 26, 2009 9:01 AM
• 81344
  

  How odd, now that your beloved Obama is reluctant to dump nsps, I don't see anymore comments from RATC, heavy D, ect. did you finally realize you voted for the wrong guy? lol

  Rick Posted June 26, 2009 7:26 AM
• 81321
  

  we need some radical reform "jobs for life" isn't a personnel policy that requires that people even come to work. When you have CS making twice what the private does something is radically wrong and rather than using a razor a meat cleaver is needed

  dan m ketter Posted June 25, 2009 7:53 PM
• 81305
  

  The fundamental problem with all of this is the sad fact that federal employees are mostly, for lack of a better term, slackers. Most are considered white-collar-welfare for good reason. Overpaid, underworked, and complain about everything. In my experience, most would not make it in the corporate world where performance is everything. Before everyone barks, look around your federal office and ask yourself if you'd hire these folks if you were a business owner. I doubt it. They'd be fired in a heartbeat. So stop complaining about this system or that system -- you have a job that practically takes an act of Congress to fire you from, which is one heck of a benefit.

  Richard Weiner Posted June 25, 2009 4:40 PM
• 81301
  

  I don't know who participated in the internal evaluation that provided "mixed results," but from my experience with NSPS, the negative responses from those subjected to it outnumber the positive by a wide margin---probably around 25-to-one. The only positive comments I've heard came from the upper echelon personnel & those in their "inner circle." I think a big problem with NSPS is that it does not allow the individual supervisors to actually rate their employees. Those of us under NSPS receive ratings determined by a pay panel at another location, and we are clearly not among the panel's "chosen." We have a few personnel in our shop who are under NSPS, while the rest remain under the Army TAPES, which makes it easy to see the fatal faults in NSPS. TAPES is a good system for evaluating and rewarding high performers, as well as identifying and assisting those who aren't performing at their potential. It gives supervisors several tools for rewarding outstanding performance and for helping those who aren't top performers improve their results. With many years experience under private industry, military and civil service, I've seen a number of different evaluation/pay systems, and NSPS is by far the worst of the lot. I could go on and on, but it doesn't matter. The upper-level managers aren't going to let their baby go, and any so-called studies are going to be biased toward their way of thinking. NSPS should be, when all costs (time, money, manpower) and other factors are considered, abolished immediately.

  LJG Posted June 25, 2009 3:52 PM
• 81298
  

  What I dislike about pay for performance is that this system creates plenty of opportunity for discrimination. Trying to differentate between outstanding and average performers by a percentage of the pay pool is as complicated as trying to decide whether or not to change health insurance during open season! There are inconsistencies in percentages of pay pools awarded for the same level of performance.

  Maria Krug Posted June 25, 2009 3:19 PM
• 81296
  

  I completely agree with all of the comments posted so far in regards to the NSPS system. Discussion with supervisors has been less than helpful, essentially non-existent and there is no mentoring. Military raters of NSPS generally have little knowledge of civilian counterparts and there is little effort on their part to understand the system and put effort into their writing. When I have done performance appraisals for my employees, it was important to me to take the time to write a meaningful evaluation at year's end. Employees are your biggest asset and as a leader I wanted to convey that message. I know there are supervisor's out there that do hold with that same opinion but with NSPS recognizing the contributions you have made is only mentioned if you bring it to the table. I find that payouts are biased and support scraping the NSPS deal and returning to GS. This would eliminate bias. If you have a poor performer there are ways to deal. For excellent performance there are cash awards that can be provided or other means of recognizing and employee. I have been in Civil Service over 25 years and I have always been so upbeat about working for the government and I was a contributing factor but now I find this very demoralizing.

  Linda Speights Posted June 25, 2009 2:15 PM
• 81284
  

  The problem is within the federal sector the are no billions of dollars for performance awards. Within agencies when the funding is tight performance awards are reduced or eliminated to cover increasing cost of the primary mission or unexpect rising cost (eg construction, failing equipment, inflationary cost, damages by mother nature etc.) People must feel they have an opportunity to get the award before they are motivated to shoot for the award. A key factor is that what it takes to get the award is clearly identified and measurable. Everyone who meets the standard for the award get an award. Too many employees feel it is a carrot held out but will never be within their reach. When they feel it is within their reach and they see people with in their workgroup getting awards, I have seen it work.

  afge1203 Posted June 25, 2009 12:36 PM
• 81248
  

  Ultimately, the problem with any so called pay-for-performance system is defining "performance." Give the workforce some real measures "if you do A, you're rating will be B" and the workforce will support PFP. But currently it's a "do stuff and we'll figure out at the end of the year if it matters or not in order to make the numbers balance out." That's the big problem with NSPS -- it's a long way from theory to reality.

  BMJ Posted June 25, 2009 10:10 AM
• 81230
  

  I don't know of any one in my organization that would say that the discussions with the supervisor was useful and was satisfied with the recognition received. The pay pool panel is bias because they only review the supervior's evaluation and never look at the employee's self assessment to mirror the results. Many of us are working twice as hard to live up to pay for performance, but it goes unrecognized. What good is the system, if you are under the 3 rating quota that the majority of us seem to fall regardless. We recieve less than 60% of the annual raise and the remaining 40% is cut among us for bonuses. Most of the bonus money go to the 4 raters, which are few...resulting in bigger bonuses for them. The supervisor tells you to think out the box...and we do, well, what difference does it make. The GS pay system is better than NSPS. The GS pay system could use some revision but not changed entirely!

  Nellie Anderson Posted June 25, 2009 8:43 AM
• 81227
  

  One of the disadvantages of NSPS is that I am supervised by Military personnel. I have 25 + yrs of federal service. My supervisors have 10 to 12 yrs of Military Service. The problem with NSPS in the DOD realm is that why would my supervisor want to give me a raise when I already make more money than they do? The Military personnel see no need for civilians working under them to get a pay raise when the civilians are already above them monetary wise. This compounded with the fact the Supervisor usually only stays in place for about 6 months due to the nature of their job in the Military. I have also realized that honestly the military personnel do not have the skills to navigate through the complex NSPS system due to the fact that they have very little time working with the system, thus no pay raise and minimal bonuses. NSPS doesn't get any worst then this. How about a raise, I have not seen one in 4 yrs!

  Glenn Mitchell Posted June 25, 2009 8:30 AM
• 81207
  

  Alyssa:

  I worked for the Department of Defense for exactly 24 consecutive years tomorrow. I worked under a General Schedule Pay System, then to pay for performance system, and back to the General System (GS). Prior to working for DoD I worked for the same Private Sector Company for 11 years.

  Both Systems have Pay Per Performance built into them providing the Supervisors and Managers do the their job of both supervising and managing. The problem with NSPS is that it allows for discrimination thereby allowing one to become fired much easier. It also allows them to give most of the average employees less than a standard cost of living raise.

  The main difference I seen between managements working at three different government agencies I worked for versus the one private sector is that government management do not know how to supervise people and/or their people skills are terrible. They do poor documentation when it comes to their employees and more so their poor performers.

  The NSPS System only allows for a more descrimination against anyone, whites, blacks, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Males, Females, or just because a supervisor and specific employee does not click.

  I have been fortunate to be rated as a high performer most of my carrer in the military, private sector, and government. I have also worked in both supervisory and non-supervisory roles. My vote would be to stay with one system, the GS System and spend all that training money on learning how to hire good supervisors to do a good job and know how to use the GS System. Believe me it is possible I work for several.

  The above is not rocket science.

  Wilbert Morell Posted June 25, 2009 7:39 AM
• 81187
  

  NSPS needs to be scrapped but other systems are faulty as well. With limited space let me say this: My supervisor has told me that there is abosolutly nothing that I can do to earn a level 4 in NSPS. I am a senior level employee and two new persons were hired for a like position. Since their salary is less than mine, since they are new, I am told that I am paid too much and that they will receive increases to bring them up to where I am. Equal work for equal pay. So bottom line is that I am being denied anything above a 3 regardless of my performance.

  Ronald Nolte Posted June 24, 2009 11:31 PM