Letters

Rating in Vain?

Paul Light's criticism of the federal performance appraisal system in "Behold Lake Wobegon East" (The Public Service, October) reveals a misunderstanding of the process, the significant improvements over the past several years, and the role of the Office of Personnel Management.

The decentralized performance appraisal systems of today, for all of their faults, are much more effective than the top-down mandated system of the past. In fact, the important changes to the performance appraisal system of recent years renders the generalizations made in the commentary all the more untenable.

I am troubled by the charge that OPM attempts to hide data on governmentwide averages. We opted to sacrifice the calculation of average ratings in exchange for performance appraisal systems that are tailored for individual agencies.

OPM no longer calculates government-wide appraisal rating averages because the system has been decentralized. It is impossible to average ratings that are based on different scales. Regulations dictate that "3" represents a passing rating, however, a "3" based on a five-point scale is not equivalent to a "3" based on a two-point scale. To average those numbers would be inappropriate and utterly meaningless.

Light seems to base his opinions on two mistaken assumptions. He assumes that the performance rating of record is the measure by which agencies evaluate all performance. The fact is that government agencies (as well as private-sector firms) are well aware of the dangers of placing too much importance on the individual summary rating, which can represent just one form of evaluating employee performance. Increasingly, agencies like the Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Mint are also using balanced measures to make judgments about employee performance, particularly group performance.

Light's assumption that all agencies follow one system of performance appraisal is demonstrably false and unfortunately misinforms the rest of his piece. Contrary to his assertion of indifference on the part of the President and Vice President, the Clinton-Gore administration significantly decentralized the performance appraisal systems that addressed their individual missions better than a "one size fits all" governmentwide approach.

The results have been encouraging both for agencies and for OPM. Agencies are experimenting with bold new approaches to performance appraisal and reward systems, including linking cash awards to group level achievement rather than individual ratings.

Rather than resort to so-called solutions like artificially capping outstanding ratings (which would only lead to the different problem of rotating the top rankings), agencies are taking prudent steps to develop performance appraisal systems that effectively evaluate the productivity and quality of their workforces. In fact, many agencies have taken steps to deal with the very problem of rating inflation that is addressed in Light's commentary.

I realize that performance ratings are a subject that many managers approach with discomfort. This is true in private companies as well. Few managers, if any, relish the opportunity to rate a fellow employee, especially when those ratings have important consequences. In recognition of this reality, OPM has a responsibility to assist managers in this task by allowing them to evaluate performance in ways that will best serve their mission and be fairest to those who are rated. The development of our new decentralized performance appraisal system was a move toward this objective. It was a move to meet our obligation to both managers and employees across our diverse federal community.

Janice R. Lachance
Director
Office of Personnel Management

Unimpressed With the Press

I kept waiting for Tom Shoop to present balanced information in "The Pentagon vs. the Press," (The Media, October). But it was never there.

Shoop quotes Andrea Stone as saying "military officials have not presented a complete picture of the damage inflicted nor how much more will be required to make Belgrade agree to allied demands." Does anyone really think that NATO knew how much more would be required to make Belgrade agree? Doesn't that very statement expose Andrea Stone's lack of qualifications to report on military actions? The basic problem with military coverage these days is that members of the press are incredibly ignorant about the military; incredibly arrogant in their assumption that only they can get at the truth; and incredibly ignorant in their belief that getting that bonus for a hot story is more important than the lives of military members.

Shoop says the military is reluctant to give information that may help an enemy because lives are at stake (the press apparently has absolutely no scruples of its own in this vein). Yet by implication he finds fault with the efforts to restrict information that would kill our pilots.

USA Today reporter Steve Komarow whines that the no-name policy "really hampered reporters." Of course, as Shoop said, it was adopted to avoid having pilots' families targeted. Could he not have pointed out the selfish nature of such a whine? Even as an editor of what is usually a well-balanced publication, Shoop cannot bring himself to say anything negative about the self-importance of the press. No wonder the military doesn't trust the press. Komarow apparently would be willing to trade not having his job "hampered" for the lives of pilots' families. Great example of the integrity of the press. Most of what the press so frequently trumpets about the "people's right to know" really is about the ability of the press to make a few bucks.

If, as Shoop says, in the next war "media manipulation" may not be so easy, then one can only hope the military will take a firm, no-exceptions position of telling the media absolutely nothing.

C. N. Calvano

Fired Up Over Hiring

"Wasted Talent" by Peg Tackett and "Left in the Lurch" by Robert Vincelette (Letters, November) are an interesting contrast to Francis Pandolfi's "Put the Right People in the Right Jobs" (Viewpoint, November). The letters from two career employees proposed improving federal personnel processes, while Pandolfi, a former noncareer employee, proposed dismantling many of them.

While aspects of both approaches have merit, as a longtime federal employee it is difficult for me to support the philosophical foundation of Pandolfi's position. He voiced the familiar lament of many noncareer appointees to federal positions-that he
couldn't hire "good people" and fire "deadwood" with impunity. What he and many business leaders often fail to recognize is that for every mindless, wasteful, inefficient and unfair government personnel practice, one can find business personnel practices which are just as (or even more) mindless, wasteful, inefficient and unfair.

The millions of people with "at will" employment contracts in the business sector who have been fired for reasons not associated with their performance-i.e., their boss didn't like them, they weren't with the program, they didn't fit the corporate image, etc.-can testify to this. The government's attempts to prevent and correct such abuses in the federal workplace-ineffective though they often are-should be lauded and not castigated.

Indeed, Pandolfi's criticism of the "government's cultural needs for consensus, collaboration, ownership and buy-in" is way off target, because under most circumstances those values are essential to effective federal operation. What federal officials, and indeed everyone, should do is adopt and adapt the best practices of all sectors and apply them when and where appropriate. Pandolfi appears unable or unwilling to look for that which is good in federal personnel practices which, by inference, probably indicates that he was also unwilling to learn from the many dedicated and skilled career employees working under him.

Mark Kilkenny
Program Analyst
Glenn Research Center NASA

Francis Pandolfi's article deserves a resounding AMEN! His situation, however, reflects only one of a number of ridiculous impediments to hiring practices in the federal government. I have often been frustrated by the fact that effective talent has been available in-house, but requirements of previous experience at the next lower grade forced agencies to seek talent elsewhere.

Richard L. Herrington

Correction

The November article "Setting Up Shop" incorrectly stated that the Federal Prison Industries' UNICOR program receives an appropriation. UNICOR is self-supporting.