TOPICS
TOPICS
Administration will push for governmentwide pay for performance
Calling the federal pay system "balkanized to the point of a risk of failure," Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry said on Wednesday that he will pursue a significant reform of the civil service system within the next two years, with the goal of establishing a governmentwide pay-for-performance system.
"About every 50 years or so, someone tries to take on Title 5 reform...I think it's time again," Berry said at a meeting with reporters. "So we are going to [work] with all partners...and build a pay system that will last for another 50 years."
Berry said President Obama has asked him to prepare a three-pronged strategy to reform the law on federal employee pay: create a fair and credible performance appraisal and accountability system; develop training that would prepare employees for promotion and support them throughout their careers; and establish genuine parity between federal and private-sector salaries for employees in comparable occupations.
"I believe if we can deliver the first two [items], and they are serious and true, and will be understandable to employees, managers and the public, that we can convince the public that an adjustment on comparability is in order," Berry said, acknowledging that it would be difficult to establish pay comparability immediately during a recession.
He said he hoped that the administration and Congress, with help from employee groups and academics, could create a pay-for-performance system that would cover a large majority of federal employees. Berry said the new system should include large raises for a small group of truly outstanding performers, not just salary adjustments to account for the cost of living. He also noted that poor performers should be given a period of time in which to improve their work, or risk losing their jobs.
Berry acknowledged that designing a rigorous and sound system was a significant challenge, and doubted that any private sector company would dare hold itself up as a model for performance-based pay. But Berry said that during meetings with employee and managers' groups, even those organizations that opposed pay for performance during the Bush administration were willing to at least explore reforms.
"If we have good communication and open and honest negotiations, we can get there," Berry said. "No one has foreclosed this as an option, said, 'You're crazy, you're not going to get there, [or] I'm not going to participate.'"
Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said that she looks forward to working with Berry on pay reform and appreciated a more collaborative approach.
"Director Berry knows that NTEU's mission is to ensure that the federal workforce is treated fairly," she said. "The previous administration's proposals did not, in our view, meet that objective."
Berry laid out an ambitious agenda in other areas as well. He has assigned teams drawn from multiple divisions at OPM to find ways to simplify the hiring process, design more ambitious work-life balance programs, and improve veterans' preference programs.
Berry said he hoped to make progress on all three of those priorities by June 2010. On hiring in particular, he wants to create mandates rather than recommendations. As an initial goal, he suggested eliminating Knowledge, Skills and Abilities statements in favor of resumes, and requiring agencies to use simplified descriptions in job postings.
"OPM has basically tried the nice way, which has been recommendations and sweetly asking" agencies to change, Berry said. "I don't see this effort as an attempt to build another set of nice options that people have a choice to use. It will be mandated in the federal government, and we will use the power of the president to make sure it's implemented in every agency."
Berry also said that the 10 extra points veterans receive on civil service exams was not sufficient. He said his goal was to make OPM "a modern headhunting firm for veterans," providing individual career counseling and placement services for veterans who have returned to the United States and hope to find work in civilian agencies.
In addition to reforming the pay system, Berry said his longer-term goals include increasing the diversity of the federal workforce and moving aggressively to control costs in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He will appoint Christine Griffin, the former Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner, to head the agency's diversity reform efforts once she is confirmed as OPM deputy, Berry said.
COMMENTS
- i have been with the Service since 11-1985. I have a 4.6 eval. I am a woman, Native American, and slightly disabled which does not affect my work. I am not promoted, am not helped, am not given help when ask for it. I feel like the gov no longer wants me and is trying to do everything to get rid of me. I have BQ's as #1 on numerous positions and have interviewed for them but others have been hired. I have been told things such as "you weren't peppy enough in the interview". Some jobs did not even interview for the Grade 13 positions which is a violation of the Union Contract but the union says forget it and move on. I and others are not given any giudance or time to complete the new resume on USA Jobs. We are told a good employee would do it on their own time. These good employees are having their evals lowered without the benefit of prior written documentation. It seems that OPM and the Service does not want to promote within but wants to do what other national companies do with high seniority people - get rid of them by whatever means before their retirement and benefits kick in. liz weigand Posted June 24, 2009 10:27 AM
- NSPS is supposed to be a pay for performance system but in reality it is not. I rejoined the Federal system after spending 23 years as a Professional. At that time the position I accepted was an GS 11/12. After a HR mishap I was granted my GS12 just a little over 1 year later even though my Supervisor recommended, because of my experience, a jump to GS12 after I had been on board for 6 months. His request was turned down. Now I am in NSPS after converting from a GS12-4 to YD-2. I am a Registered Architect with over 25 years experience. If I was being hired today as a new employee I would be coming in as at least an evualivent to a GS13. Because I have stayed with the system, my salary is no where near what it should be. The last NSPS round (our first) was a dismal failure. It was clear after a misshap when an ecell document with every person showing their salary, number of shares received was published. It showed that the former GS15's got 5-6 shares, former GS14's got 4-5 shares, former GS13's got 3-4 shares and former GS 12's got 2 shares. It seemed to have nothing to do with performance. It was quite clear that the "good old boy network" was still very hard at work. Two shares of an already small salary is highly unsatisfactory. Will the new reforms assess who they have and what they would have to offer to attain them today? Or do I have to leave the Federal system to get what I should be being paid? I suspect the parity system will only address the hiring of new people and leave us already loyal hard working people to lower and lower living standards. Jacalyn Habiger, RA Posted June 10, 2009 7:58 AM
- In general, NSPS appears to be too complicated and costs too much. As a transparency exercise I would like to see the total employees covered by NSPS, hours and dollars used by DCMA, including training, to implement and process the FY 2008 ratings. I would also like to see the number of employees covered by the GS system, hours and dollars used by DCMA, including training, to process the GS system CY 2008 ratings. Also in the interest of transparency, I would also like to see the ratings, broken down from DCMA Headquarters, through Divisions and Centers to the Tertiary CMO level. I suspect that a higher percentage of higher ratings went to Centers, Divisions and Headquarters then to CMO’S. The calculation would be as follows: number of eligible NSPS employees with higher ratings at each activity/ total NSPS eligible employees at each activity. If my hypothesis is correct, this would be objective proof that the NSPS system is unfair. Concerned Posted June 4, 2009 1:45 PM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco









