Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 28
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Making Pay-For-Performance Pay Off (Part 3)
Total Comments: 28
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.7470 | +0.0007 | +0.05% |
| F | $12.6172 | +0.0216 | +0.29% |
| C | $10.5209 | +0.0356 | +0.83% |
| S | $12.5059 | +0.1427 | +2.45% |
| I | $14.5176 | +0.1584 | +1.84% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $12.6448 | +0.0773 | +1.24% |
| L 2030 | $12.7606 | +0.0676 | +1.09% |
| L 2020 | $12.9752 | +0.0566 | +0.91% |
| L 2010 | $13.8966 | +0.0292 | +0.46% |
| L Income | $12.8270 | +0.0186 | +0.33% |
January 8, 2009
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Pay for Performance
BOP
Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:27 PM
Post Reply
The pay for performance aspect of these new systems has drawn much attention and debate, as planned. The real reason these systems are so important to the "agenda" is the removal of RIF rights. The removal of these rights will allow easy headway to the ultimate goal of outsourcing which will allow a profit for someone (not employees) via federal non-profit agencies. Has anyone heard the term commercial in nature?
The difference between being an outstanding worker and a marginal worker is not important to anyone if that position will be given to a private sector employee making little more than minimum wage with no benefits. As long as well-qualified people have the opportunity for a job making a decent wage with benefits they will do so. I believe the day is coming (sooner if this is allowed to progress) that well-qualified people will increasingly be forced to accept these lower paying no benefits job. Who wins in that case? Big business.
Ask the most outstanding worker who has recently lost his job as a car builder if any of those outstanding job performance ratings matter now that he is a janitor.
Pay 4 Performance
USDA
Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:20 PM
Post Reply
As a new manager, I have no real allegiance to any employee evaluation system because I have no real managerial experience with any of them. While these articles have generated a volume of comments, most comments appear to define the problem. What I need are solutions and I just don't have enough experience or training to answer this problem! If the old 5 step rating system was so bad, what makes Pass/Fail so much better or what make the present group in power think Pay for Perfoermance will be so much better? I don't think the current GS system is so bad, I'm just not sure how to fix it? What would it take? How long? Will the 'fix' be worthwhile? Will it be cost effective?
I think the push to Pay for Performance is budget driven! How better to avoid the annual, biannual or triannual salary increase. Under P4P, there will be raises, or bonuses, for those who deserve them. The private sector already has this concept and its called, "Your bonus is based on what have you done for me lately?" The bigger problem for civil servants under P4P will be the same as always--an UNFUNDED Mandate! The old, "Yes, you deserve a performance bonus; but current the budget just doesn't have sufficient money for it right now. Maybe next year. But keep up the good performance just the same. I suspect there will be bonuses under P4P; however, they will not make it down to the level where the real work gets done and they would do the most good.
As a parting shot, I dearly hope our Congress and current Administration would show some real leadership for a change and institute P4P for themselves. Show me how good this system can be before you force it on me.
Where's the Money?
Army
Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:24 AM
Post Reply
P4P may work or not. I hope it does. Change is good as long as it is done with full budget support. The key to making any P4P system work is the money. Bottom rung offices within the Agency have no control over their budgets. The "pay" part of P4P will depend on how much money is available in the Agency budget. The lower rung offices will have to choose between spending money on training, office furniture, or performance awards. Shrinking Budgets will be another excuse for not adequately funding the P4P System. The same Govt will still exist, with all of its flaws and good public servants. P4P will not solve anything in the Govt realm because the Govt does not have the flexibility nor authority to give good performers "generous" rewards. See the Gov Exec article regarding the IBM P4P system. P4P in the Govt is a pipe dream wrapped around a cost cutting agenda. Sorry for my negativity, but lets get real.
STEPs
DoD - Army
Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:30 AM
Post Reply
Standards That Enhance Performance (STEPs) put too much emphasis on process and little or none on the end result. It is entirely possible that an employee can conform to the process perfectly and turn out junk for an and result. Indeed, I have worked with such people. They follow every dance step to the letter, but are otherwise not very competent, and produce poor results.
In addition, by emphasizing process over results, high achievers who don't conform to the prescribed process would be evaluated poorly. You'd lose the very people you want to keep. I suppose an evaluatoir could classify them as overqualified, thereby justifying the evaluation process, and, by the way, covering their own rears by conforming to the process rules laid down for them.
STEPs, therefore, is just another system, with its own flaws, and improving little, if anything. In my years of service I've seen these things come and go, and they all crashed and burned. STEPs, if adopted, will be no different.
Re: STEPs
Government Personnel Services
Fri Jul 29, 2005 9:47 AM
If your boss were to add metrics to the Fully Successful standard (say, "Completes at least 16 reports during the rating year.") that could be made part of the standards as well. ...and remember these are the standards of just one critical element.
In the end, you're right. Neither STEPs nor the next idea re: evaluations will be "the solution." It's just the next step. Sorry 'bout the pun.
Supervisors are too afraid
FAA / ATO
Fri Jul 29, 2005 8:07 PM
Post Reply
In my division of the FAA, we receive a partial pay raise due to being a "superior contributer". The problem is our management is so afraid of EEO complaints and greivances that they grant nearly everyone with the award. It just boils down to plain communism after a while.
P4P
NRCS
Mon Aug 1, 2005 1:08 PM
Post Reply
Anyway you slice it this set of articles generated a lot of good discussion and caused many people to think and re-think about the process. My hat's off to the author. Thank you!
STEP's Work
NG
Thu Aug 4, 2005 12:33 PM
Post Reply
Our agency trained toward the STEP's performance standards program in the mid 1990's. What an amazing breakthrough in standards writing! While some mgr's still insist on "bean counting" (some activities may actually be able to count the beans) many of our mgr's swtiched to the STEP concept. Appraisal appeals are nearly non-existent, supervisors and employees that I talk to like the "process based" approach. I will never write a standard any other way again. Thanks for the good work.