GovernmentExecutive.com

Many union leaders interpreted the Obama administration's March 16 decision to temporarily suspend conversions of employees into the National Security Personnel System as a sign that the president intended to end the controversial pay-for-performance system.

But John Berry, Obama's choice to lead the Office of Personnel Management, the agency overseeing the NSPS review with the Defense Department and the White House, told a Senate panel last week that he will consider NSPS with an open mind.

Overall, the Obama administration doesn't seem inclined to scrap pay for performance in government, certainly not in theory, and perhaps not in practice. Berry also told lawmakers that while he will uphold fairness and the integrity of the merit system principles, he is amenable to any personnel system that effectively motivates employees.

"I don't come into this with an ideological bent and say we have to keep everything the same," Berry told Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Federal Workforce Subcommittee, in response to a question about whether he would conduct a comprehensive review of federal pay-for-performance systems. "I don't come in with any predisposition, no prejudice, other than what works the best."

Berry said he believed performance appraisal systems needed to be more straightforward and carry higher consequences. Twice during his career, he said, he told subordinates that they had to improve their performance, or look for jobs elsewhere. In both instances, Berry said, those employees later thanked him for pushing them to focus on what they wanted to do in their careers.

"In appraisal systems, you can't make everybody happy," he said. "There are problem employees. If someone is not doing their job and not performing up to standard, it is demoralizing to everyone to see that. We've got to do that through fair appraisal systems, where if people are not performing the job and meeting those core responsibilities, they should be removed."

Berry said he also recognized that a stronger performance appraisal system required managers to have better training and more assistance with understanding the value of negative feedback.

"We've got to figure out how to do that [training] in a way that recognizes that we're afraid to tell people when they're doing the wrong thing and heading in the wrong direction," Berry said. "We need to let managers know [they are] helping that person."

Berry isn't the only one with performance on his mind. Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor who is now Agriculture Department secretary, said in an interview last week with Government Executive that he wanted to develop more rigorous performance measurements to see how well his department was meeting a range of specific goals. He also might have to figure out how to integrate the more stringent performance measurements with the pay-for-performance system he is inheriting at the Food Safety Inspection Service. That program is scheduled to launch in July.

One question Berry will have to answer if confirmed is whether the smattering of pay-for-performance systems throughout the federal sector has produced lessons that can be applied governmentwide, or whether OPM will have to continue to help agencies design tailored programs.