Return to Article: Defense personnel system boasts supporters
-
85549
What most DoD employees do not realise is that NSPS was put in place to break the federal unions. Bush & Rumsfelt marketed NSPS as a "performance pay system" but when they wrote the implementing regulations they took aim at employees rights to bargain, giving the DoD Secretary the right to set aside negotiated contracts and setting up a DoD board to hear all discipline cases. This was a real power grab that hurt many employees and is still doing so. Now this panel has recognized NSPS is a broken system. The question is, if the Obama administration keeps it how do they repair the damage done to employees careers and fix it going forward. I don't think its possible.
-
83690
The lab demo and NSPS system are similar to the "tip jar" shared by management. Imagine managers of a coffee shop distributing tips to themselves and the workers - that's lab demo and NSPS. The tip jar scenario was just voted illegal - the lab demo and NSPS should also be illegal.
-
82173
Who in their right mind can actually believe pay for performance can work in the federal government? Really. Look at the problems that lead to the alleged need for pay for performance.
Too many performance management systems. Pay not linked to performance. Pay raises are considered automatic. Performance evaluations are viewed as being inflated. Well guess what - the same situation exists in the government's performance evaluation of contractor's.
In the June 29 GAO report, examples of the poor accountability of contractor poor performance are costing the government hundreds of millions of dollars. These problems continue to exist even after OMB issued guidelines in December 2007 on how to give award fees to contractors.
Seems to me that the common denominator here is the ability of agency officials to judge, reward, and compensate performance.
We don't need NSPS, we need enforcement and application of the current personnel system rules governing performance. After all, the current GS personnel system allows for rewarding employees, withholding pay increases for low performers, and removal if improvements don't occur. Likewise, the OMB guidelines provide for the similar considerations in paying contractors.
The current system isn't broken, it's ignored, and the fix is simple. Require federal supervisors and managers to follow the rules, apply them uniformly and fairly, stop over inflating ratings, ensure performance criteria is meaningful, obtainable, within the employee's control, objective, and is linked to agency mission objectives.
Use the current recognition and awards system to reward those high performers, and take corrective action against those who don't meet performance requirements
-
82121
Jen,
This has been happening at my activity ever since Bush changed the rules and did away with the waiting period for retiring military before they could be hired as civil service. Since 2001 I know of only one civilian being promoted at my base. All other vacancies have been filled by retiring officers and high graded enlisted who were selected by their buddies on active duty. What this practice has done is eliminate all possible advancements for civilians, including veterans who fought in previous wars. The current administration needs to restore the waiting period to battle preselection of military buddies for vacant jobs. At least give us a chance to advance.
-
82060
NSPS must go. At my workplace the following has taken place: a retired LTC was kept on the payroll for over a year without any duties. Now this LTC is a permanent NSPS employee, assigned a title, without any experience to back it up. No job posting, no competition - they just handed the job to this unqualified person. In addition, to make this LTC's resume look better, two slots for employees have been created so 'supervision' experience can be touted. Denied funding for a grandiose project sold to upper management fell through so now there are three employees without any duties. All due to upper management decisions - which as you might have guessed already are all retired LTCs. Where is the fairness in this? Under NSPS, DOD is getting the workforce they deserve by selling out on their civilian employees.
-
82030
Delphine your question, and Dan's response, cut to the heart of the main issues I have with NSPS.
Objectives developed by the employee and the supervisor are individual and unique to that one individual. Performance should be mneasured on how that individual performed against agreed to measurements of their performance. How other employees perform against their own objectives should not have any impact of the rating of your performance against your objectives. If the individual performs at the 4 level it should not matter how many 4 ratings you have in your department since each employee has individual objectives and are measured individually. If you as a supervisor have done a good job selecting top employees it is entirely possible that several are perfroming at a 4 rating level.
This is where NSPS fails. The pay pool can reduce ratings earned individually in order to maintain a lower overall rating for the pay pool. Under this concept good performers in one area can have their ratings lowered where someone in another area can received a higher rating even if their performance is not at the level of employees who had ratings lowered. Employees have lost their trust in the NSPS system when thay develop objectives, work hard on those objectives, believe that they have performed at a high level, as measured against objectives, and then are told they are a 3 valued performer. This happens even though you achieve 100% on all your objectives. There is no communication as to who achieved 4 or 5 ratings within your pay pool or how their performance against their objectives was different than yours so you can envision how to improve your own rating the next cycle.
-
81927
delphine the answer to your question is NO. If everyone in your activity is a 4 than your supervisor is incapable of being objective and is blaming "NSPS" for his supervisory short comings. That's the problem with the CS system everyone is outstanding and those who are there the longest get promoted
-
81910
In theory pay for performance should work, but the reality is that this pay system has allowed some managers (good and poor) to empty the payroll dollars from a much larger general labor pool in order to redirect/award cash bonuses to themselves and those within the "inner circle". Rubbles to the poor and wealth to the priviledge! What happened to using performance counselings to improve performance, retrain, or weed out (release) non-performers? Counseling, is a management tool and responsibility and when you have poor or non-performers than management is FAILING to perform and management should be rated and paid (docked) as such. The lack of proper management (or professional courage) hurts the individual and other members of the "Team". Management failures support employee failure and management failure contributes to the overall failures within the federal system. Far too often people want the credit, salaries, and "perks" that come with a management title, but they seldom want to acknowledge or fix performance and personnel problems and issues. You can pay a non-performer a basic wage but they aren't going anywhere and pay for performance won't fix that. How about going back to the old GS system and enforcing some basic management principles and responsibilities or docking manager's pay?
-
81842
The comment posted on 1 July gives the reason this NSPS will not work. Did you note that Managers above the Supervisor that made the ratings, made him lower some employee ratings to 3's so the percentages would look better. That one item tells one why it is unfair. It is possible to have a group of employees who all earned - say a 4 rating! Stop and think!
-
81822
I couldn't help but notice that most of you took the time to comment "on the clock". Appearance does matter.
-
81819
For Defense Dept. employees, there must be a way to determine which jobs are critical to national security. Then methods used by the intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and FBI, where people are engaged and enjoy their jobs/organizations, can be emulated. Governmentwide, I recommend a hybrid pay system in that the Fed Govt is looking for ways to improve. The # of with-in grade increases per the GS schedule can be decreased, for example. Providing the majority of good employees with COLA raises is very good, though, in that there are too many abuses and too much favoritism when a pay for performance system is used. There is also the tendency to rate everyone a 3 or in the middle. Recently in the Washington Post, negative favoritism/gross unfairness was discussed. The Fed Govt has public service as a value that people are drawn to, and management must continue to strive for fairness and transparency. This differentiates the fed govt from the private sector. However, there are still many employees, unionized and not, who are also unfair to good managers/leaders, therefore there must be some modification of the GS schedule system. Many employees still operate in a clerical, narrow manner.
-
81814
The current discussion on NSPS misses some very important points. NSPS is not just a "pay-for-performance system" it is a whole new regressive personnel system. It allows on-the-spot hiring, new job classification, new performance rating standards, promotion processes, new discipline rules, waivers on resptiction of hiring back civil servants as contractors and many other personnel policies that have negative effects on DoD employees. It also flies in the face of disregarding a DEMONSTRATION project that has been operating sucessful in government laboratories for years that has a "real" pay for performance system that works. We should keep the focus on the whole program not just the pay for performance element.
-
81801
I think NSPS should be scrapped... A number of my co-workers are still under the GS system, while the other half is under NSPS. How fair is that? Pay-for-performance is a joke. It should be called "who cooked the most hotdogs at the picnic popularity contest". My supervisor recommended me for a rating of 4, but the pay pool panel knocked my rating down to a 3.25. Most of them cannot even spell, let alone understand what we do in Regulatory functions! I'm appalled that they can over-ride my immediate supervisor's recommendation. I am extremely disappointed with my reduction in rating, the pay pool panel and NSPS in general.
-
81786
For those supporters of NSPS: wait until you get the surprise of your life when it turns on you. I know of a situation that occured in the Pentagon - where a career civilian employee, who had always received exceptional performance appraisals and monetary bonuses - was replaced with a friend and mentor of the general officer in charge. This person had no clue this was happening until he was booted out and into a lesser job. This general advertised the position as needed filling, selected someone while this person was still IN the position, hired his retired military buddy and former mentor, and gave the career employee a lesser position - and he got away with it under NSPS. The person who was in that job had no idea their job was being advertised until after this other person was hired. If it can happen to him, believe me, it can happen to anyone (he was a GS-15). Needless to say, that person left the Department, and numerous other personnel followed before he could do that to them as well. PS: the person replaced was a disabled veteran. All I want is my GS grade back - a GS-15 used to mean something. Now as a YC-03, it means maybe I am a GS-14; maybe I'm a GS-15. It stinks!
-
81784
Hey Justin - it worked for you at the MOMENT; just wait until another supervisor comes in and says that people are getting too much money so everybody is a 3, regardless of how much they do.
-
81764
I would support the system if they publish the names of those who got 4 and 5 ratings, how much money they got, if they already received an award, and what they contributed to make them 4 and 5 ratings. Absent transparency, the system is a COMPLETE FAILURE and manager are taking advantage of it to pay favors to their "incondicionals'.
-
81734
NSPS allows employees that out perform their peers to be recognized fairly and not just earn their regular salary. Having had the opportunity to observe some government employees for two years and becoming a government employee in 2006, I observed the transition into NSPS and watched employees that did only minimum of what they needed to do and not necessarily what they could better in their work performance. They then complain when others that out performed them and were rated higher and justly rewarded under NSPS. I like it and I think it is too early to terminate it.
-
81723
I've been in the government for 18 years. I'm currently stuck between managing GS employees and being in NSPS myself. As a manager under GS there were many opportunities to reward good employees and there were many tools to get poor performers to improve or get fired. The new NSPS system is labor intensive and has killed moral completely at this command. We are told from day one not to expect more then a three and some shares. It's not pay for performance when all of your supervisiors above you have no idea what you do. The people who were rewarded the most were people like lawyers and HR folks who either had time on their hands or were well skilled at writing about themselves. Technical/scientist and engineers beware. NSPS is NOT pay for performance. The measly pay increases are NOT the $30-40k bonuses you could get in the private sector. The people who are proponents of the NSPS are the ones who are smug in that they have found a way to make the system work. The one thing about the NSPS that I do like is the mandatory goal setting and alignment with mission goals. The clunky website interface seems to be designed by an ape. It needs to be canned. It's non intuitive and any system that requires special training by the HR folks is filled with FAIL. GS was not the best but it was at least more logical. Take some aspects from both but NSPS in its current form needs to leave. The attendance to the public hearing was made available to us only if we submitted leave. A curious thing to see is of all the people who attended who were proponents of NSPS how many of them actually got charged leave. Hmmmmm.
-
81715
Why do you keep spending taxpayers dollars on a system that has been doomed from the start? Only the supervisors and higher managers have benefited from this. Focus on what is more important to our country and the taxpayers of this nation. Wake up and accept defeat. I am sure that our Congress, OPM and other federal agencies has more important issues to clear.
-
81711
WOW!! Mike Henry, That beats everything I've ever heard. I don't know what agency you work for but I do know since you are under NSPS you are not covered under a collective bargaining contract. My union, The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) as well as others stopped DOD from placing union folks under NSPS. What happened to you IS unfair, too bad you have no appeal rights except back to those same folks that did this to you. I also, now, know why Keeter has not commented on this story yet. He's over talking to his Human Capital Officer checking his Evals.
-
81699
NSPS wastes a lot of supervisors time that they can't afford to waste because of manpower reductions. The website is not user friendly and plays directly into the good old boy system. If you aren't the bosses favorite you get a 3 no matter how hard you work and if you complain, you are a trouble maker, don't understand the system,their hands are tied or any other of a dozen excuses you get from your supervisor. Yes, raies are higher on average, but the rating is not where it should be. With different agencies on one installation, raises vary significantly between them. During conversion you get no credit for the workload you have so someone at a small place gets the same pay band as someone at a large base, even the GS system recognized that difference.
-
81687
"Most people come to work and do the jobs they were hired to do and do them well. That is not a high performer. That is doing what you were paid to do AND IT IS NOT A NEGATIVE. Likewise, extra pay and advancement is not an entitlement. Most folks do their jobs very well but are NOT high performers. " And then "The majority of employees are average performers and you are not entitled to a government job and you are not entitled to pay raises and promotions."
Very well said! But... what about the good clerk who performs his or her job satisfactorily? What promotions does the average career clerk expect? None! They do their job hoping for a smidgeon of praise, expecting only a decent living wage. As for an occasional pay raise, that is a totally different animal and part of that living wage. Remember, to rise to the top of any given GS government position in pay (from step 1) requires GOOD service AND 18 years' time. This system was originally designed with civilian equivalency and is not excessive; merely progressive.
In THIS army of clerks that IS our government; do they not deserve a career? The GS pay system doesn't breed the multimillionaire land crabs Skeeter rails against; and it doesn't protect the useless and ignorant. Outside the beltway and a few other areas, our average is a GS 9, step 9. The GS step system IS a performance system that documents the progressive rise in competency and chastises those who don't make the grade. It allows that good, if non-competitive, clerk to support his or her country, its citizens, and have a semi-decent career. Competency is their watchword. It is not a privilege they've come to expect; for they know all too well that they serve a fickle master that sways with the polls of the public.
There is one truism that the NSPS proponents tout that I too must agree with. The GS system was specifically designed to shelter its workers; even as it forces them to do their job. Every administrative (e.g. King Shrub's) sweeps into power either crucifying or anointing personnel dependent on their political disposition; such was the "Spoils System". Learn of it before we repeat that lesson; for NSPS is an ill-disguised return of that evil beast. There was a reason we eliminated that particular pendulum.
-
81679
Problem with pay-for-performance is the rich get richer syndrome. If you're not working on the agency head's top five priorities, you get a 3, regardless of how good a job you do at the work management assigned to you. In contrast, those on the hot projects get 4s and 5s for showing up. Ratings should be assigned based on performance of the work assigned instead of being a surrogate for how important the work is. This is particularly a problem where the value added (e.g., analysts, advisors, etc.) can't be quantified into widgets-per-hour.
-
81665
I recevied a significant benefit from NSPS. I do believe that too much work had to go into this process whereas a simple QSI or promotion would have accomplished the same thing with less time. The NSPS performance plan is a keen idea, pass/fail ties this process as having little true value. The pay portion lacked across the board (DoD wide) compliance. No rules, No must/shall/will direction, with too much command discretion. It's a shame we cannot take politics out of the every day civil servant desire to work for a decent wage by inventing processes/programs (at least 4 in my career) that affect our every day life. Draft and implement a program that truely rewards work and not the 'members of the club'.
-
81663
Recommend all review Ken Smith's 29 June posting. It is exactly the kind of straight talk that the posters need to read and heed. The majority of employees are average performers and you are not entitled to a government job and you are not entitled to pay raises and promotions. NSPS will likely be abolished and when the return to the GS system comes, it will be entertaining to read all the same posts from all the same people who will continue to be graded average because that's what they are. Those who believe the GS system isn't manipulated are going to be in for a major enlightenment. A much better way to expend your energy would be to work against the opening up of your FEHBP to special interest groups and the general public. The financial impact of you not getting the pay raise you think you deserve will be trivial by comparison to the hike in premiums and copays that will result.
-
81656
This is an apropos title. "Defense Personnel System Boast Supporters"
One would wonder, find it interesting to note: Of those defense personnel who support NSPS, how many hours of overtime do they routinely clock? Overtime under NSPS pays Time and a Half for hours worked beyond persons eight hour work day. One could see this kind of compensation being paid out to Government Employees who are working in hazardous jobs or, In -Theater with our troops, but it's doubtful those extolling the benefits of NSPS are working in these areas.
Even if we don't get rid of NSPS, I think we need a re-classification to EXCLUDE (convert back) those of us who are currently classified as "Non-Critical National Security" personnel. There are those who like the system just because they can rack-up overtime $$$.
-
81652
Articles title is very misleading..."boasts supporters. I only saw 2 names, one of which is/was a GS15. From all posts many of the impression that the senior folks made out very well vice those lower down, so of course this 15 will like the system. I do believe many of the folks that report to this 15 are very upset with how NSPS is going. Rather an obvious statement that anything takes time as with all else, but time given, will that be enough for managers to abuse the system so as to its' self destruction when Special Council, ACLU, EEO, find out the truths?
-
81639
NSPS needs to go. I am considered a top performer at my job and have been rewarded under NSPS. I was rewarded much better than I would have been under the GS System. I was converted to NSPS last year and received a great raise and bonus. Still, I believe it's a waste of time and money. So much time is spent tracking and documenting my performance and then comes the time consuming job of writing it all down so a bunch of pay pool panelist who have no clue what I do can decide if I am doing it well. Additionally, since going through the NSPS process, the higher echelon has decided to tweak the pay pools, putting all the higher up managers in a single pool to maximize their pay outs. The longer NSPS is in effect, the more ways the managers will find to use it to their benefit.
-
81629
NSPS improves managers' ability to manage by allowing more flexibility in hiring, firing, and pay. It is a good system. No system, however, can compensate for poor management. Bottom line: If I were a poor performer, I'd prefer the old system (but I don't).
-
81624
Comment: Someone should do an analysis of pay increases for all equivalent GS grade levels under NSPS--what you will find is that lower pay grades are getting a disportionate smaller share of the $$$, while the higher grades are getting more than their fair share. And, the most important finding will be, all of this is costing more than the GS schedule. NSPS is no more than a souped up version of the old General Manager Appraisal System (GMAS)--which by the way was discontinued because it cost too much $$$-- Signed Seasoned Fed
-
81622
When I go to Human Resources conferences, all I hear about NSPS is the disappointment in the size and distribution of pay increases. Question: Can a government that is running trillions in the red, come up with the kind of money that will make NSPS the panacea it was marketed to be?
NSPS evolved because of the "premise" that there are a lot of lazy government employees picking up big paychecks for underperformance and/or incompetence. Question: What evidence was that premise based upon? I never saw the evidence. How bad was the problem? Or was the premise an fabrication used for marketing NSPS?
There were poor performers under the GS system, but there was a mechanism for dealing with them. Management typically didn't use the mechanism. They often merely resorted to the old reliable...Reassign the problem child to somebody else. NSPS seems to have tightened up on performance problems by opening the door to using misconduct measures for dealing with poor performance. Perhaps that was the only change necessary to help fix performance problems. Now all that's needed is management that earns its management money by using the system for dealing with poor performance.
It seems the marketing of NSPS identified poor performers as the need for a change but devoted most of the new system to rewarding the workers who weren't the poor performers. Was the identified problem wrongly identified, or was the fix the wrong fix?
I sure hope the federal unions don't see those graphs that show the high ratings and fattest pay raises going to the high-priced management crowd.
-
81619
I have been in the civil service for 18 months and, before that, private industry for 20 years, and before that I was a civil servant under the GS system. I was a little nervous about NSPS for my first full year, but it worked out REALLY well for me and I received a much bigger raise than I would have under the GS system. I will say that I am a high performer as we are able to easily track what we produce and I always take on thing above my job description. So, for me, I like it. I do agree though that the government spends WAY TOO MUCH TIME administering the plan. Too much. In private companies, naturally, we do pay-for-performance but we don't spend nearly the time on it.
It has also been good to read others' comments on NSPS and how they feel unfairly treated. That does need to be taken into consideration. I am lucky that I feel our office, my supervisor, and our pay pool are very fair. I do believe that supervisors still don't want to rate people low that deserve to be taken down for poor performance. They just don't want to go there. Probably due to fears of complaints. But, believe me, there are PLENTY of "2" employees out there but, looking at our agency's rating summary, you'd never know it.
I also think that people define a "3" rating as a "C" like in school. A "3" is not. Most people are going to be a "3" like it or not. A "3" is a valued performer who works independently to get the job done. That's most people. A "4" and "5" should be rare. These are people who routinely go above and beyond.
-
81604
The problem with the old system was that folks advanced in spite of performance. I find it interesting that most of the complainers feel the system did not adequately consider their performance. Perhaps they are wrong, and the system did consider it and they just didn't make it. That's hard to swallow, but it is probably true. Unions don't like to here that talk because they rely on dues from everyone, including low performers. Most people come to work and do the jobs they were hired to do and do them well. That is not a high performer. That is doing what you were paid to do and it is not a negative. Likewise, extra pay and advancement is not an entitlement. Most folks do their jobs very well but are NOT high performers.
The issue is not really NSPS, but moving beyond an entitlement culture. Could NSPS be improved? Yes, starting with front line supervisors being able to write objectives and counsel employees on how to become high performing.
-
81596
NSPS is extremely expensive--in time, effort and money--for all involved. The only positive comments I've ever heard about it have come from those who designed & dictated its implementation, along with a few managers above second-level supervisors. As I have stated before, DoD should look at the Army's Total Army Personnel System (TAPES) as a viable personnel evaluation system. TAPES has worked well for a number of years, and continues to work well for those still under it. We have employees under both in this organization, and those under TAPES enjoy fair & honest appraisals, with appropriate rewards for their efforts. TAPES sets standards, defines objectives & enumerates results--just as NSPS is supposed to do--but also provides for a variety of monetary and honorary awards based on employees' supervisors & senior raters' assessments of their performance--something NSPS is supposed to do, but does not. For those who think step increases are "automatic for just showing up," that has not been my experience in more than 25 years. Supervisors must certify that employees' performance is satisfactory for the within-grade step increases to be granted. We have had a few denied because of sub-standard performance, and those employees weren't around very long. I've seen very few examples of the lazy, non-productive civil service worker around this installation, and all the civilian employees in this organization are carefully screened & selected from a large pool of highly-qualified, motivated candidates. Just for the record, we have hired several personnel under GS & NSPS, and the process is no different under NSPS than under GS, just as tedious, just as time-consuming. The advertised advantages of NSPS do not exist. Matters are complicated even further by having two different pay systems in the same office. Some supervisors are under NSPS, while others & non-supervisory employees are under GS. Abolish NSPS & look at the Army's TAPES for a good basis to build a better system.
-
81594
I got a GS-9 target 11 job and then we went into NSPS and am still in that lower pay grade--2 years later. If you aren't at the GS-11, step 4, pay, you aren't considered a GS-11 (in case you leave NSPS for a base that isn't in it). Now they've got us in 4 different ranges within the pay band so there are glass ceilings. You can't go to the top of the pay band as promised when NSPS was first pitched to us back in 2006. And as for the pay raises, if you aren't a favorite or politician, you don't get much there either. The managers are taken care of, but not the lowly worker. I've seen some people get a $5K raise, but they were sleeping with the boss and eventually married him. And if you transfer to another position, you can only get a 5% increase and some organizations on this base are so cheap (because their upper management makes all the money and gets the big pay raises), they offer 2-3% to accept their positions. Who are they kidding? I hope the House and Senate win on this one. The lowly government employee surely isn't in this pay system.
-
81590
Do all proponents of NSPS walk around with their heads in the sand, or does it just seem that way? A theme that runs through the comments of those who think NSPS is the best thing since Starbuck's coffee, is the suggestion that people who do not like NSPS, want to return to the GS system because GS employees get undeserved raises and bonuses. This is no more factual than thinking that every NSPS employee who gets a 4 or 5 rating and a hefty salary increase and bonus actually deserves them. As a supervisor who has been under NSPS for three years, it is my experience that there are just as many NSPS employees who are given ratings, raises and bonuses they have not earned as there are GS employees who may receive step increases they do not deserve.
The problem with both systems is managers and supervisors are not being held accountable for properly monitoring performance and appraising employees. NSPS proponents would have us believe GS employees receive step increases just because they show up at work. These employees do not have to be granted step increases they have not earned, just as NSPS employees should not be given salary increases they have not earned. The tools supervisors need to manage the performance of GS or NSPS employees are available. Under either system, supervisors need to be held accountable, and rated on the way they exercise their supervisory responsibilities.
NSPS is time consuming and costly. Too many ratings are decided by Pay Pools, not by supervisors and higher level reviewers who know the employees and what they are doing. At the end of the 30 Sep 09 NSPS appraisal cycle, my annual reviews for employees were returned time again for rewrite, to the point that the final review for one employee had little resemblance to what I started out with. The employee's rating was lowered. She filed a Reconsideration Request (I supported her 100%), and was granted the rating she deserved. Had I not been forced to revise the review, she would have gotten this rating in the first place, and saved a lot of time, effort and money. It is not uncommon for Pay Pools to have raters inflate reviews so that employees receive higher ratings. There is opportunity for questionable ratings in both systems. NSPS is a lot more time consuming and costly. Let's scrap it and save tax payers some money.
-
81587
What we don't need are more self-serving or anectodal comments from a bunch of HR folks. The HR guy from the Corps in supporting NSPS said he worked harder than his less productive colleague, so NSPS rewarded him, and not the other guy. Sure, is that BS supposed to be proof that NSPS is working?
-
81579
Love NSPS, it allows me to create my own raise and keep the masses collecting a portion of what they would have gotten before. Sure there is a lot of paperwork, but hey it's free money. Sometimes late at night I get a little upset in the stomach about taking advantage of the little people, but then again it could just be gas.
-
81577
Gov Exec has a bias and consistently tilts in favor of NSPS in its writing, misleadingly makes it appear like the issue is pay for performance. It is NOT. The very title "National Security" Personnel System clearly shows the intent was political, not true performance. Pay Demo projects were popular, but NSPS is not like that and is disliked for good reason. Even most of those whose job it is to sell NSPS including me realize DoD needs to start over. NSPS forces distributions and the amount of monies available vary depending on the agency and major command. Many, many millions of dollars are being spent on a system that simply enforces a bell curve distribution and so does not motivate performance because most become "3" anyway. Sure a few benefit by connections or gaming the system but that was never the point.
-
81576
It does not matter how bad, how unfair, or how mis-managed NSPS is......the process will not change due to COSTS! Costs to stop and costs to start a new. Think about it, over 10 Billion (and rising) to get to where we are today.
-
81575
So the folks pushing this BS assembled their lackeys and had a rally. The fact that they had to do that only proves the points most of these commenters are making.
Keep posting those comments and writing your legislators, folks. This emperor is stark naked, fat, and ugly, and we need to make Congress aware of that. NSPS is worse than a bad joke. It's costing all of us money and resulting in a work force more adept at puffing itself up than in doing its job.
-
81567
Share value is a function of the total amount in the pay pool divided by the number of shares awarded. Therefore, if the the ratings in the pay pool are higher, more shares awarded, the share value will be less. The fewer shares awarded, lower number of 4s and 5s, the share value will be higher. Apparently, not so simple math.
-
81565
Warterboarding (torturing) captives also had supporters, in very high places. Does that make it a viable alternative?
I'm not sure what the point of this article is if the rank and file overwhelmingly dislike it & do not trust the outcomes?
-
81564
The tools for managing performance were there in the GS system. The supervisor could deny a WIGI, no performance award, put the employee on a PIP, etc... The opposite was also available: QSI, performance awards, etc... It's funny that people think that if a new system is put out there that these same managers will actually do what they should to ensure everyone is pulling their weight. The GS system protects people who do their jobs fom the clicks and the good-ole-boy network.
-
81552
What a waste of the taxpayers' money! Pay for performance was an available option under the GS system through QSIs, promotions and other awards, providing incentive for the high achievers, without taking away programmed within grade increases or cost of living increases for average employees. As with the NSPS, Lab and Acq demos, the managers must excercise the system fairly and impartially to work properly. That's where each pay system shows success and failure. Under open and good management and management control each can be successful. Without management control and under laziness, incompetence or favoritism of managers any pay system fails. In my 30+ years I've worked and managed under GS and then worked under the lab demo. Under GS and mangement contol I was rewarded and as a manager rewarded my employees who excelled at their jobs. Under lab demo, without management control, I received accelerated pay increased. The lab demo implementation, at my location, has led to the vast majority being rated at the top. While my organization may have an excellent workforce should most of us be considered top performers or average? What caused this? It's easier for management. It avoids conflict between management and employees. The vast majority see their pay increase faster than under the GS system. A win-win for everyone except the taxpayer. I question calling the lab demo(the China Lake experiment) a pay for performance system. Bottomline all the pay systems can work, can reward top performers, or can be abused by management both for and against the workers. The GS system wasn't broke. It might have needed a few tweeks, but not the major overhaul of the NSPS or lab and acq demos. Control management and their abuses, that's where the problem is.
-
81551
Sorry Dems...NSPS and many other Bush policies will be around for many years to come. Looks like Obama and W have a lot in common. NSPS, Don't Ask Don't Tell, War (Afganaistan), and Big Spending.
That's not change that's more of the same.
-
81548
Can someone explain how it's "fair" for an employee rated "3" at one command can take home a bigger raise than an employee rated "4" at another command on the same base? Why aren't all commands required to have the same share value?
-
81545
The need to do away with this program. The only people who support it are the higher management because they get the big bonuses and the Pentagon folks. No one in the real working ranks of the Army likes this pay for performance system.
-
81542
The fact is that NSPS is here to stay. The higher ups have no intention of discontinuing NSPS. These public forums are just a dog-n-pony show.
-
81540
I have a problem with the entire review, beginning with something called the Defense Business Board. Until we realize that government "service" is not a "business", we can not begin to undo the damage done by this system and other systemic changes made beginning with Ronald Reagan. The Department of Defense is not a business - it is a SERVICE. It provides service to the American people in general and to the American warfighter in particular. Until people begin to realize that DOD, and other government agencies are NOT businesses, we are just wasting a lot of time and effort.
-
81539
NSPS requires secrecy about what rating your immediate supervisor feels you deserve until he/she makes your case to a panel of people who don't work with you on a daily basis. The hiring process takes forever. Our organization has been trying to replace a worker who retired in Jan 2008. The position is still vacant. NSPS requires managers to debate ratings vice managing, or providing technical support to their employees. It needs to go!
-
81537
I'll be very interested in the panel's decision. While we all wait, could someone tell me who approved changing historical personnel records by changing all my GS appraisal scores to 3s? Wouldn't that qualify as fraud? Regardless of what happens to NSPS, I want my hard earned record restored so it reflects the original rating.
-
81535
This is typical. If the system works in your favor then it is understandable that you would be in support of it. But across the board it is not fair especially in that performance objectives are too loosely defined and not consistent from a command's division to division.
-
81532
NSPS is far better than the old GS system. Only weak, incompetent workers need automatic step increases. If you can do your job you will get promoted. Stop assuming the system owes you something.
-
81529
Stay the course is just another phrase for "nothing left to lose" as the song goes. To quote a Human Resource representative as backup to the NSPS is egregious in the extreme. Let me tell you why: While the title Human Resource implies an entity to which civil service employees might turn for assistance, it is, in fact, the very opposite. It operates in defense of government management; when an agency manager takes action to discipline an employee, including severe decisions like removal from federal employment, the Human Resource Department is responsible for protecting the manager against action that violates Title V. Unless the agency has a union, the employee has absolutely no support from the Human Resource representative. Any support emanating from a person representing the Human Resource Department in a DOD agency lacks credibility.
-
81522
Mr. Isaac's comment shows how NSPS hides the source of negative or lower ratings, leaving the first line managers to take the heat from employees. It lowers morale tremendously when employees do not know why a rating was changed. In the old system, higher level managers, who changed the supervisor's appraisal of an employee, had to sign off on their changes. We still have the same problem either way. People managing the reward pool try to lower ratings so the payouts are larger. Many deserving employees end up with nothing. Supervisors work hard to develop a highly trained, efficient work force, and Congress does not provide the funds to keep them motivated.
-
81521
The power of the paypool to discount a supervisor's rating of an employee is an affront to the supervisor's authority and responsibility. This is the biggest impediment to NSPS acceptance. The second biggest detractor is the amount of time the employee and supervisor spend crafting competitive justifications to support ratings above "valued perfromer." In the end, if your supervisor can't write well, you lose at the pay pool despite your level of performance.
-
81519
Unless managers or employees change, NSPS will be just as ineffective as the old system. NSPS does have it good points, especialy with regards to pay increases, which outpaces the old system by far. Before in the old system, the step increases were systematically given based on senority or longitevity. NSPS actually allows one to advance more quickly up the pay scale without question. NSPS is ripe with flaws however. As an example, last year my supervisors lied on my NSPS performance, in a postiive direction, and I received a 4. My department chief's reasoning was based on the belief that OCONUS branch of our organization was being trampled in the Paypool by the CONUS employees, keeping the performance money in CONUS. As a result, he felt the playing field was leveled, but in reality it was compromised.
-
81518
People say its unfair, but what was so fair about the previous "pay for attendance" system. Finally, the producers are being rewarded and the slackers are not being rewarded just for showing up.
-
81516
I am "caught" between the two systems whereas I have worked 10 months under NSPS only to find that when accepting a GS position that I am entitled to NO PAY INCREASE OR BONUS! I think that OPM needs to have regulations and methods for the two systems to "talk to each other" and for employees come out ahead when they are good performers. This will happen too when people cross into different pay pools and are there a few short months or get new supervisors at the end of the year. Is the idea to "freeze" people into geographical positions so they can get as a minimum, the cost of living increase? This is another good thing about the GS System that NSPS is sorely lacking. I make a good wage but it certainly does feel great to get at least a cost of living increase every year instead of the nothing I will get this year.
-
81511
This system has to go. First, it relies on having the GS system as its backbone. Second, it's a sham. The good 'ole boy network is in full swing, giving the ones that play ball the biggest raises. Don't dare stand fast to your technical opinion - they'll get you in the end, as in the end of the rating period. Third, the COLA is given to us by Congress each year - how can they legally take it and distribute it amongst themselves? Fourth - the managers don't want to take the time to understand what everyone in the pay pool is doing, so they have come up with a standard set of performance criteria. Fifth, at many places they don't want folks migrating up to the GS15 level so they have installed artificial caps. Sixth, it hasn't helped recruitment or rentention one bit, I challenge you to find a single person that took a Federal job because it was covered by NSPS, or left because it was a GS job. Seventh, it takes a HUGE amount of time to prepare the NSPS ratings each year - and it's all a joke because almost everyone gets the same number of shares. There are more reasons to get rid of it......
-
81510
NSPS is the only tool we have which encourages performance in the federal work place. Since implementing NSPS at our hospital we've seen a marked improvement in service to patients by health care providers, nursing and administrative staff. As important, or arguable more so, we have seen managers involved in actually managing their civilian staff. The GS rating system is in no way like the OER or NCOER system the military uses to motivate officers and noncommissioned officers. Military promotion is directly tied to the documented performance of the uniformed "employee" through their OEr or NCOER. Not so, with the GS rating system. GS ratings are passive a, disconnected, report card which the ratee expects to be inflated and also to receive the same cash award they did the year before. Their military supervisor use the report card for no purpose but meet the suspense to turn it in to HR by deadline. NSPS has awoken both parties to the idea that work is about performance. Why not accept this truth and herald NSPS as the first positive thing to happen to the federal work force in a very long time?
-
81507
THis is not a fair system to our lower GS employees I am a witness to it and I feel this NSPS should be destroyed. I will testify before Congress of my unjust and people have witness it from there respective.
-
81500
"'I can say, categorically, yes, I think we've seen a budget increase of a couple of million dollars," said O'Neil, when asked how much the NSPS had cost the center."
Even those who profess to love NSPS must face this fact: important (and limited) resources are tied up in its administration. Is it worth it? And this on top of BRAC. Wow.
-
81499
It's time for NSPS to be reversed. The rollout of NSPS has been toxic to the workforce. The NSPS workforce actually does less than they previously did. NSPS has focused individuals only on what their performance plan says they should do without regard to what really must be taken care of. The real scandal is paying people GS-15 Step 10 money for sitting at their desk with their feet on their desks watching ESPN all day long. NSPS hasn't stopped that! No pay for performance can. It takes leadership and quality management. This doesn't exist and never will as long as cronyism is the prevailing management process.
-
81489
The headline says that NSPS BOASTS SUPPORTERS, yet the majority of the writers comments reflect the opposite.
Both the House and the Senate are saying NO TO NSPS.
Even Brad Bunn couldn't support it with any passion.
-
81486
Please...please...kill NSPS once and for all. It is a complete and utter failure in every way. Bring us back to the General Schedule, which was more fair and certainly more transparent. We can tweak and improve the General Schedule which has stood the test of time.
On a side note, I love how the Program Executive Office for NSPS packed the house with "supporters" in that recent public hearing. Of course all the hard-working majority within DoD who HATE the system couldn't do that because they were busy actually WORKING. Of course the PEO for NSPS and his cronies have a vested interest in keeping NSPS alive - but at the expense of the masses who are punished by this corrupt pay system. Love it.
-
81484
Good ole boy system resurrected...Front line managers/supes have never been or are they allowed to grade employees without interference from upper management they always thinks they know the employees better than their supe...upper management thinks they see/have a better shade of gray or have a more knowledgeable base from which to screw employees in an assessment of someone they don't work with directly but only on a fleeting basis!!!..implement a peer computer assessment where each employee rates their own work group and take an average with input from front line management...the workforce is very critical of itself when its completely anonymous...
-
81481
NSPS is NOT about what you do but about how well you and your supervisor present your accomplishments. You need to be a good creative writer.
-
81480
The reason some of the people are happy is because the majority of the people who have been converted to NSPS are supervisors and managers. They control the awards system and process and they have managed to give themselves the maximum increase allowed every year by taking the lion's share of the award pot and the civilian pay pool and those employees who are not management or are not management favorites are given the crumbs. I have seen manager's wages increase 8% or more every year. There are alot of them at my base who are earning over $100,000 up to $150,000 after NSPS. Most managers are greedy and take care of themselves and make sure their favorites are taken care of. If you don't kiss up you will get nothing even if you are the hardest working employee in the office.
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.