Letters

Congratulations for having captured so well the perils and key contradictory forces involved in moving the federal government to a pay-for-performance system ("The Rating Game," August). I just retired after a 30-year career in human resources that spanned many agencies and systems, and I can honestly say I never met one system that I liked or found effective. At best some were harmless.

I doubt any large-scale nonprofits out there actually have successful models, since I haven't heard anything too revelatory. Various administrations tend to look for business models, which often have tangible bottom lines, to drive the train for everyone. But as your aticle shows, federal programs have very muddled bottom lines.

Paul Ward
Reston, Va.

My boss works hard to provide a supportive atmosphere that encourages creativity and initiative. She does her level best to motivate employees through regular performance discussions and praise. So all seems well-except for the one dismal performer who would have been out long ago in the private sector. Yet she persists in our group like a bad case of the flu.

My boss says it's virtually impossible to fire a unionized federal employee with many years of tenure. That's a disincentive for everyone, considering that all federal employees got the same merit percentage this year.

Managers should be able to set performance expectations and hold people accountable. Poor performers should be given training and other opportunities to improve. If they don't, managers should be able to institute a progressive disciplinary procedure. The federal system has a long way to go before that becomes reality.

Name withheld by request