Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 80
Page 1 of 8

« Previous | Next »

Sizing Up Pay-For-Performance In The Next Administration

NSPS is bad gas

Government Analyst
Department of Defense
Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:35 AM

Post Reply

When you go to a new gas station for the first time and get bad gas, chances are you won't be back. Its the same with NSBS. We've tried the new thing and its gumming up everything. Lets go back to what worked; the GS system. There is no question in anyones mind that the GS system could be improved: but you don't remove a system that is tried and true and that has worked well for over 50 years for a system that was poorly staffed, written in secrecy, makes decisions behind closed doors, demoralizes/demotivates the people that it evaluates and that steals from peoples retirements and believe it is going to be welcomed with open arms. NSBS has shown me one thing for certain... that government unions are a critical and vital part of our government and that the government tried to essentially disolve the workers unified representatives. NSBS has taught me one thing: that even senior civilians need the protection of the union from derelict aspirations of the federal government at times

Pay for Performance

supervisor
VHA
Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:36 AM

Post Reply

Yes, Yes, Yes --- the problem is and always will be bias. When your boss does not like you for what ever reason and those reasons are infinite. The reasons can be that you wore green shoes with pink socks, that you are married to another race person, that you are another race, your religion is odd, that you are old, ugly, got a pimple, got a disability, red hair, black hair, don’t wear finer nail polish. Where I work right now – the belief is that not every one can be superior so only one or two can get that rating and how do they determine who that is. It is crazy. Good workers often get the sour end of the stick. The decision is often based on something that is not work related. It is a shame that we can’t be rated fairly but that is the way it is. Has anyone every thought about doing a computer rating based on peer rating, self rating and supervisor rating?

Re: Pay for Performance

ISS
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:10 PM
I too agree that this article is beginning to get at the heart of the problem with Pay for Performance as implemented by the federal government. This is my second year under this system at two different commands and even though I've rated out a little higher than my peers, it was mostly because I figured out the system quicker, analyzed my job and started capturing metrics that I thought had meaning and value. I wrote my own objectives, talked management into accepting them, and then spent lots of time writing up my evaluation using the data I had captured over the year. I even wrote a suggested evaluation for my supervisor. All of this took a lot of time away from actually providing assistance to "customers" and meeting last minute deadlines. I am not a fan of NSPS because I still saw people who did not perform highly but got recognition, reassignments with pay increases, praise from management, and other rewards. There is a lot of room for bias with NSPS.

GPO/WEP

Secretary
ATF
Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:37 AM

Post Reply

The Social Security Fairness Bill should be passed as soon as possible. It is an unfair and discriminative to subject Americans to be eliminated from a social security benefit. I am a widow. I brought up two children worked for the government 25 years and I am unable to retire because of the GPO and WEP offset. I am included in both offsets.

Civil Service

GOV WORKER
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:43 AM

Post Reply

It may be that Civil Service is designed to be mediocre, even if you quantify and measure with standards every single job or task done by a CS, what metric do you compare it to? It's not like we deal in Profit and Loss very well, and many people in higher up positions would have no clue how to run a corner grocery. When you measure cost savings we only compare it to past expenditures only to find new boondogles to spend money on. NSPS was only designed to cap pay, it's really that obvious. The GS system with a rating scale that is easier to apply would make more sense, especially if there were metrics that really matter. No matter how you apply PFP there will be those that scream bias. Some will be justified, but I suspect that a great share of complaints will be sour grapes. I have seen some of the most obvious duds complain the loudest in the 2 agencies I have been in. These are some of the same people whom should never get an increase, and should be removed.

Change Just ONE Thing!

Manager
DOI
Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:46 AM

Post Reply

As a supervisor of 12 PFT employees I have put countless hours into "trying" to please the upper level managers of my agency regarding "Pay for Performance"! I completely rewrote the performance standards for every employee I supervise so that all targets "cascade" (the fact that things don't flow uphill by itself should be an indicator this wasn't going to work) up to the upper level managers. It's like trying to put a square peg into a round hole!! Now our new manager has a completely different idea on how these can be written so it WILL work, but I am NOT convinced that in the end all this rewriting of performance standards will accomplish anything meaningful, just make it complex!

In my opinion, just ONE thing needs to be changed in the GS system. If someone isn't performing their job to the minimum acceptable standards, they should be given a brief (90 days) period to improve, and if they don't or can't, they're either terminated or reassigned to a job they can do!!

Re: Change Just ONE Thing!

HR Specialist
Federal
Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:20 AM
Amen!

I have been in HR for over 20 years in both traditional GS agencies and in two "performance" agencies.

Most employees are motivated by the mission and by their teams....money is a secondary concern that typically arises when someone believes that others are gaming the system or receiving an undeserved preference.

The GS system is the fairest and easiest to admininster. If we could only easily remove the few bad apples who destroy organizational morale and absorb enormous amounts of supervisory and co-worker time the system would be vastly improved.

Re: Change Just ONE Thing!

Analyst KT
DoD
Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:56 AM
yes...and it's called PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) that 98 percent of managers/supevisors have no clue as to what it is, let alone how to use it. THAT's the problem - managers, supervisors not having a clue on what to do.

NSPS

Southern 2210
DISA
Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:48 AM

Post Reply

I was rated a 4 got a nice bump (about 6%) and a more than acceptable bonus. Almost 1700.

I was a GS12 step 10 (no higher steps). Without NSPS I would have gotten maybe the COLA raise and that's it. No place left to go but a 13 and that isn’t going to happen for a number of reasons.

Anyway...

I hate NSPS. Under the GS system it took me and my boss about 15 minutes a year to do paperwork. Inclusive.

Under NSPS I spent 10s of hours if not 100s doing mind bogglingly boring assessments, objectives and then re-doing them time and again. Getting them within the 8k character limit etc. My boss is a very conscientious person. He spent as much time on my assessments as I did. And he did it for each of this troops. Most of the last quarter of last year he was unavailable to do "work". He was working weekends as well on NSPS.

Bottom line: Thumbs down for NSPS

Re: NSPS

Director, Resource Management
ARMY
Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:12 PM
Talk about wasted time. I estimate that the tax payer losses 2-3 weeks of performance per employee each year for the evaluation process. I include to the time to establish the objectives, conduct the interim review, process the final evaluation, the pay pool process, reconsideration process, and we go on & on. The NSPS has killed moral.

Does NSPS change how I do my job?

DoD employee
DoD
Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:50 AM

Post Reply

The implementaion of NSPS has not changed how I approach my job one iota. The paypool is going to rate me the way they are going to rate me, no matter what my rating official says so I don't expect anything more than a 3, even if I believe I have performed better than that, especially compared to some of my coworkers. (Isn't the whole point to reward better performers?) Is there a forced distribution of ratings? No. Is someone taking a really close look at the distribution and trying to manipulate it into a bell curve? Yes.

Total Comments: 80
Page 1 of 8

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.