Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 88
Page 2 of 10

« Previous | Next »

The Future of Pay-For-Performance Under Pres. Obama

Today's column above

HR Specialist
OPM
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:35 AM

Post Reply

The problems cited with the PFP approach merely replicate in a different form the ongoing attempt to square the circle when it comes to attempting to establish objective, credible, and meaningful performance expectations for the vast majority of the Federal workforce. The responsibilities of most white collar positions above the entry level in particular involve considerations focused much less on readily quantifiable measures or metrics of number of widgets processed than on considerations of quality or caliber of work performed - a much more difficult task to assess in objective, credible, and meaningful terms. Inevitably, performance assessments take on a highly subjective aspect when it comes to such situations. The widespread joy among agency managers when the mid-90s saw a surge in usage of pass-fail systems was a de facto recognition of the frustration they faced in trying to meet impossible expectations. Dr. Edwards Deming long ago rightly decried such appraisal systems.

Re: Today's column above

Personnel Research Psychologist
FAA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:21 AM
The crux of the issue is establishing "objective, credible, and meaningful performance expectations." Ideally, those would be tailored to the goals & objectives for which the employee is responsible. Which leads to very specific tailored performance assessments. Yet what the FAA has done is design "generic" cookie-cutter evaluations more about "style" than content. And to boot, the evaluation factors are subjective, less-than-credible and don't relate to the agency's far- and near-term goals which my work supports, rendering them meaningless. P4P requires hard work establishing individual performance expectations, and HR undercuts them by requiring cookie-cutter, generic, subjective "standards."

Re: Today's column above

Diversity Manager
DOL
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:58 PM
Dr Deming decried the existing CS system since it had no measures of success

Re: Today's column above

Scientist
DOD
Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:39 AM
Diversity Manager needs to read Chapter 2 of:
"The New Economics: For Industry, Government, Education"
By William Edwards Deming

"The ranking of people indicates abdication of management.

The aim of anybody, under the merit system, is to please the boss. The result is destruction of morale. Quality suffers.

Judging people, putting them into slots, does not help them to do a better job.

What to do? Abolish next Monday morning the merit system in your company. Explain to your people your reasons why. They will rejoice and be glad.

Sadly, forced ranking of government employees is a mandate of Congress. Why does Congress tamper with activities they know nothing about?"

W. Edward Deming was concerned with management and process. Anyway, that last sentence is so abrupt and seemingly out of place when one encounters it, one does not forget it, especially when one works for the federal government. Who is your Deming?

PFP loops

Contract Adm
DoD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:56 AM

Post Reply

The article has some very good points.

PFP and NSPS should not be in a not for profit governement organization.

Studies have shown that meager performance pay is a dis incentive and morale breaker to organizations. Unless of course....the incentive is a huge bonus on top of the gov. appropriated pay raise.

The system will always be flawed. The current GS system works now...fine....just that managers are terrible and yearly appraisal bonus. Managers do not like to do them and thus they don't get done.

I think it is attributed to the organizational structure, mission, and in doing "more with less" for managers.

Pay for Performance

Technician
CCM
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:27 AM

Post Reply

After reading a few of the comments already posted, I have to conclude that poor management is also a big problem in the federal government. No rating system,no matter how much money in may save the govt in the long run is going to fix one of the underlying problems we face as govt employees. Just because someone has an engineering degree doesn't make make them an effective supervisor/manager/leader. These people need more training and the criteria for selecting managers and supervisors needs to change as well. The govt can't depend on a new rating system to motivate employees to do better. That is part of the manager's job. If anything, NSPS has breed more negative morale than positive, at least in my organization. Our director and most of the supervisors here sure haven't helped either. Ask yourself this,"would you go to battle with your boss leading the way?" I sure wouldn't. A lot of things need to change if the govt wants the best out of its people. Not just the rating system.

Tangled Web Weaved

Fed Peasant
DOD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:28 AM

Post Reply

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to decieve!! NSPS, Max HR, & all the other disasters, are a curse upon federal workers. TRASH THEM NOW!!!

NSPS Performance Reports

Detective
DOD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:32 AM

Post Reply

Once again the Government has come up with a system that, as far as performance reports go, still allows the non performer to rate as well as the ones actually doing the work. Under NSPS the criteria for documenting performance is quantative not quality. If one can write their performance in such a way as to throw a lot of numbers around such as how many and how quick routine reports were processed instead of showing the results of substantive investigations and what the results were, then that person gets the "3" with two shares the same as the investigator who is always called on to handle the serious investigations or the "special or confidential investigations" assigned by command officials that are not mentioned in the "job objectives" therefore don't really contribute to the "value" of the employee. What's worse is that we're told that "Valued Employee" is the best we can expect and that we should be happy with it.

Pay for Performance

HR Specilaist
USDA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:48 AM

Post Reply

The article brings up some great points. Taken in its totally, It makes a most compelling case for eliminating financial reward systems altogether. We recently had an experinced employee (30 yrs. of service)y, who insisted on returning her $400 performance award because she was offended that a new employee recieved an $800 award. She eventually got the award cancelled. She felt that all her years of proven "Superior" peformance were unappreciated by her supervisor. I don't know all the circumstances of that case but her feelingas a very common. As someone mentioned to me recently decisions on all hirings, promotions, and awards are not based on merit but also friendships, divorce or other financial hardships, nepotism, friendships, golf buddies, retaliation, etc. This article discusses a symptom of a larger problem that the new adminitsration must address...getting and retaining good people to manage and supervise agencies and employees.

Pay for performance

tax examiner
IRS
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:52 AM

Post Reply

pay for performance isn't nothing but another name for look how good of a butt kisser I am to the boss. Most of these performance awards already issued to everyone is based on the first job you did & are still riding on. 3/4 of our office is that way. They came in at a grade 6 & are now grade 11 still getting the numbers that they got then & the award

Total Comments: 88
Page 2 of 10

« 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.