Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 42
Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
The Persistence of Pay-for-Performance in Government
Total Comments: 42
Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2114 | +0.0012 | +0.70% |
| F | $13.6201 | -0.0062 | +2.14% |
| C | $13.8116 | -0.0706 | +4.49% |
| S | $17.9282 | -0.1903 | +8.91% |
| I | $18.5079 | -0.0782 | -0.16% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1968 | -0.0789 | +3.59% |
| L 2030 | $15.9593 | -0.0673 | +3.23% |
| L 2020 | $15.7365 | -0.0532 | +2.72% |
| L 2010 | $15.4595 | -0.0197 | +1.57% |
| L Income | $14.0856 | -0.0155 | +1.48% |
March 22, 2010
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PFP
Bureau of Mongo
Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:15 PM
Post Reply
In the immortal words of my hero Scrooge; "Bah! Humbug!" That's what NSPS and all such pay systems are...a load of smoke and mirrors to fool the public and shaft the civil service employees. I also agree with the idea of PFP for congress. Earmark for a bridge to nowhere? 10% reduction in pay! Funds or grants for idiotic programs that will impoverish our grandkids? Recall election and give someone else a chance to do it right. As for OPM, they'll never get it right because congress won't let them.
Pay for Performance
Department of the Navy
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:26 AM
Post Reply
Mr. Kunreuther's comments took me down memory lane wrt the Merit Pay System and other past attempts at pay for performance. Measuring employees contributions against their compensation is a mixed bag. While there are occupations where "dangling a carrot" can result in improved performance, there are also occupations where contributions aren't as measurable and a standard compensation approach more appropriate, e.g. repetitive functions like ordering parts. I have operated under 4 different performance systems during my career, ranging from five performance levels to two, pass/fail the absolute worst. While NSPS isn't perfect, the concept of "paying an employee to perform" vice "time on the clock" has merit. As Mr. Kunreuther mentioned having an objective, measurable performance management system in place is the key. In my career I have supervised stellar performers with 3-5 years of service, also those with one year of experience 20 times. Give me the ability to pay performers anyday!
Re: Pay for Performance
USDOL - MSHA
Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:13 PM
How to make PFP work
DoD
Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:10 PM
Post Reply
The people that want PFP are 1. Those that see lazy, angry managers promoted way beyond their potential that need to be removed from management - not retrained, and 2. Those that see lazy employees that run to the union every time they are asked to work.
The solution: Let the hard line managers evaluate the union workers, and let the unions workers evaluate the hard line managers and make both their decisions about who to keep and who to fire final and binding. The irritating people will be gone and the best and brightest will remain.
Pay for Performance
USDOL - MSHA
Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:23 PM
Post Reply
I've been retired 3 years now. I can't see that this will work any better than the bonus system for performance. My agency told the supervisor how many outstanding (rarely any), and above average ratings they were allowed to give. It didn't matter how many employees' deserved high ratings, the manager had to choose one or two. Some times it was said the we should take turns getting the high ratings!?!?!? This wasn't a fair system and I can't see a new system being any more fair!!!!!
NSPS
DoD
Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:26 PM
Post Reply
While the official goals of increasing efficiency and improving the workforce may be laudable, this is not how NSPS is being viewed by my management. We have been told to expect all performance assessments within our organization to be "normalized." Our direct supervisors have been told they are not allowed to give a "5" rating, and they discouraged from giving a 4. Our semi-official goal is for everyone to get a 3. Whether this is to make life easy for the upper management, (no problem of gender or race discrimination, and no messy appeals if everyone gets a 3) or to slow wage growth is debatable. It has crushed morale and is hurting productivity--especially among the high performers, regardless of race or gender.
NSPS is a Ponsi
DOD
Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:54 AM
Post Reply
Well, maybe not purely. What runs through my mind is "what if PfP actually worked"? Then best performers would get raises and poor performers would get unhappy. So the poor performers would leave and the next poor performers would see their pay start to erode. So they would leave. Eventually you would get an entire government of great performers and start rewarding the greatest of the great and punishing the average great. And so on. I cannot help but be amused by that picture, no matter how idealistic and non-realistic it is. As long as the pay increase is limited, this must inevitably happen. I have concluded that, for PfP to work, the pay increase money pool either must be unlimited or rise in a way that is tied to the performance history of the pay pool members. Otherwise, best performers eventually get distributed around a mean.
pay for performance
USDA
Mon Jul 6, 2009 10:29 AM
Post Reply
As long as there are supervisors who play favorites, and honor "brown nosers", pay for performance will not work. In our office there are several people who received new P.D.s with promotions attached whether they are truly qualified or not. The Government needs to fix the problem of poor supervisors, then tackle the problem of rewarding outstanding workers.