And no matter what I do as a low level manager I will get 3's. so what's the point? Why should I strieve harder next year?
Pay-For-Performance Stinks!
Paralegal Specialist USPS Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:19 AM
The system was supposedly designed to make the appraisal process more objective, but -- by including so-called "core dimensions," such as communication, organization, etc., as a major part of the evaluation, it allows subjectivity right back in. I came out alright, but a colleague who consistently outperforms everyone got a lower rating so that an insufferable suck-up slacker could get the extra point. There is also the influence of budget. Our entire office is limited to the "Contributor" range, even though we are the top -- of 9 -- office in the country, because the agency lost money last year, even though we made money for the company.
Pay for Performance
Labor Relations Officer Department of the Army Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:20 AM
I am a huge fan of Pay for Performance. It's about time we said to civil servants that you must do more than come to work and have a pulse in order to receive a top block rating. Pay for Performance forces sets the bar much higher and rightfully so. I do understand that it's time consuming and labor intensive for supervisors, but then we pay them to supervise and that is now part of the job. I, for one do not advocate going back to TAPES, where everyone got the same rating because supervisors didn't want to do their job and were too afraid to accurately rate their employees. It might take a couple of years to work out the kinks, but I believe anything worth doing is tough and we owe it to our employees to demand the best from them and reward accordingly.
Re: Pay for Performance
Civil Engineer Dept of the Army Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:13 AM
Put down the cup and step away from the Kool-Aid. NSPS doesn't do anything to enhance the effectiveness of the agency. By putting the decision on individual ratings in the hands of an anonymous pay pool panel that doesn't know what you do, doesn't care what you do, and not only doesn't have to justify their decisions, but is prohibited from justifying them, is a prescription for alienating all employees. My supervisor's assessment says I exceeded all my objectives (and I did), but the panel in its infinite wisdom gave me a 3 while giving 74% of the pool 4s or 5s. Everyone is shocked when I tell them what I got. All the supervisors are frustrated with the system that, in reality, cuts them out of the process while still requiring them to expend a lot of time and effort. Those who are rated low get no credible feedback on why they were rated that way or what they need to do to improve their rating.
Re: Pay for Performance
LRO Air Force Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:02 AM
In the AF,
1.2% rated 1 or 2
53% rated 3 (valued employees)
40.3% rated 4
5.5% rated 5
Seems to be a real motivator when a componet in effect says, "we consider any of you "valued performers" right down there with the bottom 1.3% of our employees."
Those who receive a rating of 4 may be motivated but the "valued employees" are certainly not.
Re: Pay for Performance
Unhigh on the Food Chain VA Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:35 PM
It is very obvious that you work for an organization with accountability. That is not evident in VA and the pay for performance only allows incompetent managers to penalize good employees who refuse to "suck up."
Re: Pay for Performance
Editor DoD Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:56 PM
Labor Relations Officer - I don't know if you are the same person who writes in everytime there's an article about NSPS, but if so, you prove yourself to be even more of an ignoramus each time you respond! It's obvious you are just sticking to the party line and saying what you think you are supposed to say about NSPS, but you're not even listening to the very intelligent arguments against NSPS. I am not under NSPS (thankfully), but I agree with several posters here that the main problems in this (or any) system are managers who don't know how to motivate their employees and those in the pay pool, who rate people without ANY knowledge of what those employees actually do. One more thing - NSPS obliterates confidentiality - more than one NSPSr I know says that everyone else knows what rating they got and immediately the comparisons begin. How is THAT a good thing? It just lowers morale and destroys any sense of teamwork.
Re: Pay for Performance
Employee Defense Commissary Agency Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:37 PM
It's ironic that the only positive comments come from a "Labor Relations Officer" If this is such a great system, why have the Unions fought so hard not to implement it. I agree with the majority, the NSPS system is not working. It looks good for the bosses when they have the bell effect and the majority are rated as 3's. This system reeks of "good ole boy" and suck up employees benefiting. Those employees that do a good job, but are not in the "in crowd" will never be recognized in this system. GO AWAY NSPS!!!
Re: Pay for Performance
Diversity Manager DOL Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:52 PM
thee is no way there are that many 4/5's in the AF. The problem with NSPS is that supervisors fail to take their jobs seriously when it comes time to evaluate their personal. There should be as many 1/2's are there are 4 and 5's.
That's the reason why the 3's feel slighted. Its the taxpayers who have a right and expectation to insure their CS perform properly
Re: Pay for Performance
Border Patrol Agent U.S. Border Patrol Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 PM
It's a wonderful system that turns employees into nothing more than beggars and self-promoters who spend more time doing this than their jobs. The hard workers won't bother begging for raises and promoting themselves and they will get left behind the suck ups. You are right, it is a wonderful system.
Pay for Performance
Worker Government Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:30 AM
One of the major problems is evaluations. The problems start with criteria. In my job they are and must be subjective as my work is not bean counter type of work. It evaluates certain things which is a subjective job. Based on the issues and the complexity of the issuesinvolved, the case could take a short period of time or a long period of time. Therefore, the manager must do a subjective evaluation.
The problem here is that some managers, either are not
competent enough to do this type of evaluation, listen to their managers about quantity issues, or just does not like the worker. So the evaluation is lower and based on baloney.
For this reason, I would not like my annual increases or step increases to be based on my evaluation.
I exceed, but am not outstanding. Therefore, I believe DOD workers raises should be civil service raises.
Performance
Accountant Army Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:31 AM
Those that do perform still get less. Those who don't still get reward. When are managers going to deal with documenting bad performance.
There are too many people now that are not working that would appreciate a job in the gov't and be glad to perform.
This is what would improve the gov't workforce.
PFP
Nora Otte Southwest Civilian Personnel Operations Center Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:32 AM
For the last almost three years I have been under NSPS and being rated a '3' for all three years. I know people such as STUDENTS are receiving '4' therefore getting more shares than that of the actual workforce. Maybe it is just my organization but people who work with the pay pool manager fair better than those actually performing the duties. Why should I work hard, have a 99.5% goodness of data just to be rated a '3'? My managers all are very pleased with the personnel service that I give their organizations but that doesn't set me apart from lower performers and they get more shares than I. Something is definitely wrong with NSPS.
Future of Pay Performance
Staffing Specialist Civilian in Kansas Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:33 AM
I am an NSPS employee, I just received my rating, it was a "3". In the NSPS world that is considered to be a "Valued Employee". In the real world it means, no matter how hard you work, how many managers give you the thumbs up, the PAY POOL MANAGERS decide your fate. I know this because I had received emails from different managers telling how I went above the call of duty for their employees. I put this in my self assessment rating and received a "3". So even with this kind of input, I received a "3" because that is what the HIGHER PAY POOL MANAGERS who decide the rating and the amount each person gets has decided I am worth.
So to your PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM, I say, GO AWAY.
Re: Future of Pay Performance
Fed Peasant DOD Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:40 PM
I have experienced your situation in the past. It leaves some bitterness, & distrust, that unfortunately lasts for a long, long time. These fools, with these rigged personel systems, & formulas have no idea how this impacts the careers & lives of workers. Or if they do, they are simply callous, stupid, & shelfish. You are probably a person with a strong work ethic & pride. You will still try to do a good job. You will still be a good coworker, to those deserving such team work. And, you will become more outspoken & challenge authority!!!
Today's column above
HR Specialist OPM Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:35 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Evaluations BS
Acountant, Retired gs 14 DOE, Albuquerque Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:58 AM
Social scentists over and over have shown that performance evaluations are counter productive and a waste of time. A few get rewards weather desearved or not and the rest are average and a few get punished. Therefore on average it lowers morale and reduces productivity. DOE was a scientific organization and very progressive management and we were evaluated by pass/fail. Rewards were based on achievements as they were done. Then DOD took over part of DOE and brought back the old evaluation systems. Cynicism and frustration increased overnight along with turnover. But it made management feel better, I guess..lol
NSPS In General
HR Specialist Army Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:20 AM
The entire NSPS system is cumberson when you take into consideration that not everyone in DOD was converted and we are now dealing with multiple systems, the lack of sufficient guidance for NSPS, and the time spent managing the PFP. While the rating period ends 30 Sep 09, it takes 3 months to deal with the pay pool issues and review process before the rating is finalized. For each employee who rated at least a 3, multipe personnel actions are required - up to 3. Now that the ratings are final, the complaints are coming in. As a HR specialist, unless I leave DoD, I cannot escape NSPS as a non-bargaining unit, I am NSPS and I must work with the complexities and inconsistancies that abound in this system on a daily basis. As an example, there are employees who perform work at a GS-13 level, but are being paid at the GS-12 level; on the other hand there are employees at the GS-2 equivalent level being paid at the GS-6 level. Lucky us in DOD who are covered by NSPS.
NSPS
Electronics Engineer DOD Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:24 AM
I like the comparision with school grades. I was never inspired to reach for the "Magna Cum Laude" because it was a bar that was raised far too high. I never even bother with that and I think most students felt that way. By the same token, when I see that only 1.3% would receive a rating of "5" and maybe another 2.4% would receive a rating of "4" while most people will get a rating of "3" ("Valued Performer"), I am going to figure that the chances that I will get higher than a 3 is rather remote and a 4 or 5 will get me only a few hundred dollars bonuses. I'm sorry but it just doesn't motivate me to excel in my job. In fact, I find it insulting. If they want to improve performance, how about giving us an additional week off for completing a 6-week job in half the time?
Don't give a damn about the rating system
Assistant Property Manager GSA Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:40 AM
Sorry but I don't. I just want to come to work, do the job, and go home at night. If the boss pats me on the back, that's enough for me. I don't require some bonus ... just make sure I get my regular pay. I know my supervisor finds it frustrating that I feel that way but I'm only being honest.
The only carrot anyone can dangle in front of me is to let me do the programs that mean something to me and shed the ones that I know someone else has a better apptitude for. This idea that anyone can do any program is nonsense.
So, if I'm being graded on a program I don't give a rats ass about and want out of, don't be surprised if I'm ambivalent.
Re: Don't give a damn about the rating system
Diversity Manager DOL Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 PM
totally agree and why should the taxpayers be forced to provide CS a raise every year when no one else in society receives one
Re: Don't give a damn about the rating system
worker us govt Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:57 AM
No one else gets a raise? Bunk! Lot of people get raises even in bad economic times. You just hear of those who don't.
It is not my fault that congress grants a raise. If you feel so guilty about your raise this year you may donate it back to the government at the same web site you can buy savings bonds. If you don't do that, you are just a lot of hot air. But I would bet you feel you are the only one that deserves a raise, don't you?
As for those who didn't get a raise this year, I am sorry.
Applications are available at OPM.GOV.
Pay-Banding
Manager Treasury Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:49 AM
Pay-Banding is not a motivating factor when the supervisor is earning less than the non-supervisors. For example, a supervisor before becoming one was a GS-13 step 5 and now is an IR-05 under pay-banding. The increases through pay-banding does not surpass a non-supervisor at a GS-13 step 6. With the possibility of receiving an outstanding at the cost to the others in the group, who are working just as hard and producing results and receive a lower rating, the increase in salary comes close to a GS-13 step 7. Where is the merit in this system?
The Future of Pay-For-Performance Under Pres. Obam
HR Spec DoD Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:02 AM
Sitting in HR, the most difficult part of applying PFP in a fair and meaningful manner is the human aspect. Supervisors and employees alike have a difficult time with stating and understanding their objectives. Objectives can sometimes be written too broad. As another HR Specialist once told me, its a "Nike" job objective which means "Just do it."
NSPS
Ist Line Supervisor DLA Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:11 AM
NSPS is so time consuming that it definately does not pay for itself. At the end of the year when we are trying to "get our numbers", upper management is not there to assist and push things through we need from them. They are busy in panels and Pay Pools doing reviews that will most likely be a 3 for most. And as far as the "high end" of the pay bands...we have already been told that there is a block and if you are a GS 12 the highest you will go is to a GS 12 step 10 in NSPS so there is no incentive to add to your salary. All you will get are bonuses. There was nothing wrong with the old system if the managers would have worked it the way it was intended. They could have held up a step increase if they would have done the paperwork. Same as NSPS.
Disappointment
Flight/Ground Test Scheduler/Flight Management USAF Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:13 AM
I have 20 years with the AF Active duty 16 of which I have served in the same career field. I have 7 years a contractor and 8 years a civil servant in the same career field. I have a bachelors degree and my job performance is thought highly of by my supervisors, commanders, and co-workers. I am on a highly visible program of great importance to the Air Force and I am doing the job as one while others categorized in this career field have three to eight people doing the same thing that I do as one. I am being paid just above entry level and NSPS is dictating this to Commanders. Those who were hired before this mess are receiving 3 times as much as me and do not even have the experience. The system is wrong and it does nothing for the moral or the mission we are trying to do for our country.
Glass Ceiling with a new name
Information Protection DoD, USAF Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:34 AM
Here PFP managers have upped the anntie in driving skilled personnel away. They have instituted, or I should say reimposed, a "glass ceiling" on the wages within a payband, creating their own unoffical pay bands (and this is left to the ind mgrs). While advertising positions to be filled at the min-max pay, once filled impose unadvertised max pay that they believe a position is "worth." This leads folks to believe wrongly that they can advance in the position and be rewarded for outstanding work, to the max dollar value advertised for that position. When asked about this practice the lead manager for PFP stated that while our base was the only organization in the govn't to do this,"they were simply leading the way for the rest of government agencies to follow." They didn't feel this was unfair to impose such an unequal practice on their employes that no one else in government service has imposed on them. Civ Svs should not be an unequal "wing it" system open to unequal treatment.
NSPS
DoD manager DoD Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:46 AM
We're all out west, our pay pool is on the east coast and a odd thing happen this past year, the majority (99%) of the 4s and 5s were given out to the east coaster. I had one of my most busies years and I describe that well in my assessment and my supervisor supported it. I got a 3 and now I make less than what I would have if I would have stayed a GS.
Application
Little Guy DoD Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:41 PM
According to the author "Pay-for-performance does not apply to the president, senators, congress members, or cabinet secretaries."
This is good for them because not only would they not be paid for their horrible performance. In fact, they should owe the taxpayer money for being such lousy workers.
PFP
IT Specialist USDA Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:07 PM
In the old system, cash awards went to people in impact positions. Many workers were in positions where they could not shine enough to get them. I have seen the same people get cash awards repeatedly. I don't see how this is better. And a 5 is not an "A", it is a "role model." Everybody can get an "A" in a class, but everybody on a team cannot be a "role model" because then "role model" would be normal, and therefore a "3". Both systems allow suck-ups and good old boys to get ahead. The new system does provide a way to stop oxygen thieves from advancing and giving what would have been theirs to the other workers. As to saving money, if a system that promotes bad workers is cheaper than a system that doesn't, I am for the more expensive system. A "3" will get more money than they would have in the old system, assuming there are a few "1's' and "2's."
Alternatives to PFP?
Program Manager AFFTC/412 TMG/DRJ Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:11 PM
Your comments and supporting data in this article are very interesting and thought provoking. Here at Edwards AFB we also went through an experimental version of NSPS called CCAS where salary increases were based on "mission contribution". Most people liked it better than the General Wage system. Data suggests it did enable Federal agencies to more effectively compete with private industry for valuable personnel. NSPS is A LOT of work, more so than CCAS. So what would we replace either of them with? Reinstitute General Wage system? I think not. A system based solely on number of years in service produced and provided a haven for a disproprtionately high number of sloths. There is ample evidence (both qualitative and quantitative) that pay for performance has demonstrated to be the system that most motivates humans toward desirable behavior. We need to keep refining the system to decrease supervisor workload and more directly connect performance to pay. AND allow the Fed to fire people!
Re: Alternatives to PFP?
LRO USDA Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:11 AM
You can fire people under the GS. The problem is with Edwards AFB where I worked for many years and am quite aware of Edwards managerial and staff is managers are lazy and do not do the work required. They also promote their cronies in many cases who don't know how to do the proper job. of course since the MIL/CIV conversion less and less of those retirees are available to (illegally) promise jobs to, and bypass civilians who have worked for 25 years within the organization which has been what has happened in the past. Also CCAS has no relationship to NSPS as it was based on a totally different pay scheme. But you still had favoritism. PFP is silly since their is no product made for the government and thereby no profit sharing to participate in. Its robbing Paul to pay Peter and the 3 months required for the nonsense is why I left DOD and went to another Agency who doesn't participate in that nonsense. I am now earning twice what i learned at Edwards AFB by using the merit system.
NSPS
Analyst DON Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:14 PM
We just completed our first payout under NSPS and while I was very happy with the outcome, I agree the system is cumbersome, time-consuming, ill-effective, demoralizing, and costly. There is no telling how much it is costing the taxpayer to maintain and sustain this PFP system. For managers, supervisors, and employees alike, tracking and documenting the work efforts, comparing those against the objectives and contributing factors and performance indicators, writing to this so it captures meeting or exceeding this objective, worrying about the "bell curve" and whether you are giving too many 3's or 4's (no 5's) is a challenge and all-consuming. Under a pass/fail system, there was always other award recognition avenues you could take advantage of to either recognize a one-time effort or a years worth of excellent performance. For me, I will work just as hard under either system and not harder under NSPS but it is always in the back of my mind that I must make time to document my work.
Bands within bands
Regional Emergency Manager DoD Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:23 PM
While pay bands may have been implemented as a way to show an employee how high they can get within their pay band, the Navy (at least some locations) have taken it a “step” further. They have added a “low, middle and high” band within the designated pay band. And, they are instituting policy to keep personnel within the tighter band such that pay pools give bonuses vice salary increases if you are near the top of the sub-band. Now in a traditional 3-band system, the Navy will have 9 bands - one short of the previous 10 Steps.
When the President considers revisions, he should also look at how current users have modified the original concept into something that approximates the old System but with a much heavier administrative and time burden. As you have pointed out this will ultimately be a “Value” decision - “Where’s the beef?”
Re: Bands within bands
Safety Specialist DVA Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:20 PM
1st time I am blogging. My email is f.cullen@rcn.com
I am FERS for 20 years in traditional GS position. Interviews in Defense Agency coming soon. NSPS is the pay ban structure. Foreign to me. Any web-sites blog sites, etc to quickly learn and comprehend pay bans?
FC
Our budget limits how well an employee can do
Diversity Manager ICE Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:33 PM
Sad but true: We have a yearly award budget. I couldn't award every employee that deserved recognition if I wanted to. If we have $75K to hand out every year, someone's gotta lose out.
The current system may be flawed, but why not fix it instead of scrapping it?
Either way, someone's getting screwed.
Re: Our budget limits how well an employee can do
Fed Peasant DOD Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:47 PM
Diversity Manager ICE:
The current system works just fine. It appears that you enjoy, and revel, in having such power over employees.
Re: Our budget limits how well an employee can do
Prof Small College Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:39 AM
Only in the federal government do employees assume that supervisors should not be able to control their employees. It is very amusing that some of you are deathly afraid that you will actually have to justify receiving a pay check. Supervisors do, and should have, complete control over employees in the supervisor's work place. If you do not like it start your own business.
NSPS
enngineering data specialist USAF Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:49 PM
NSPS means wider pay bands and less kangaroo panels!
NSPS for barganing unit people is hanging by a string!
Regime
Utility Specialist DOE Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:51 PM
Next time reconsider your choice of words. It renders bias to your article, and damages your credibility.
PFP is no better than what we have now
Diversity Manager ICE Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:17 PM
What's frustrating to me, as I read these comments, is that so many of the folks responding are poor writers; the grammar, elementary or worse, the punctuation atrocious. While writing may not be a factor in that person's job description—or even an element in his or her appraisal—it shows that some folks just don't care about doing a good job.
I review about 100 employee appraisals a year. When I see that employee reads and writes at a 6th grade level, I rate that person a lot lower than his or her counterparts. That employee won’t receive anything higher than a Fully Successful rating, no matter that the employee believes he or she deserves an Outstanding rating, a Quality Step Increase and a cash award. A large percentage of the bargaining unit—and many supervisors/managers—spend the greater part of their day telling others how much more they deserve instead of focusing on completing their assigned mission. PFP will work as well as any of the current systems we already have.
Re: PFP is no better than what we have now
Program Analyst Navy Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:32 AM
You might want to rethink your own logic. Theoretically speaking, if you hire a QUARTERBACK to carry a football and require him to make 4 touchdowns per game and he does, why does he have to be proficient in reading and writing? In other words, I, like you, have a pet peeve regarding grammar, spelling, and the lack of some folks writing ability. However, if I don't need them to writie a thesis, a law, a regulation, a governing instruction, why penalize them because they can't if I didn't hire them for that? Why not mentor their ability, encourage them to read, and help them learn to write well, rather than take the easy way out and just mark them Fully Successful rather than something higher? If you receive a resume' and there is an error, do you pull it from consideration? If yes, you just might have lost the best candidate. Don't be so hard; use your heart when handling others. Use your head when handling yourself.
Re: PFP is no better than what we have now
Prof Small College Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:00 PM
I once had an employee file an EEOC complaint against me for non-selection. At the hearing before the fact finder (not the AJ) I present both applications,i.e., the complainant's application and the application of the person that was selected for the position for inclusion in the Report of Investigation (ROI). The complainant's application packet had a total of 139 errors. The person selected had no errors. The complainant's attorney appeared shocked. The focus of the complainant's case was that her "Kreedentials" were superior to the person I selected. She did not pursue the complaint any further. Her sloppy work insured that she did get promoted.
Hamstrung by rules
Engineer Air Force Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:39 PM
My organization (I believe by Air Force direction) chose to NOT use the weighting and chose to limit objectives to three.
For those who are math challenged, that means that someone working their buns off on an objective that takes 80% of his/her time will not get proportional credit for that performance.
Give that person a "5" for the 80% objective, and then a "3" for the two remaining objectives, then give all objectives the same rating weight, the employee gets a whopping 3.6 rating (4), with a two share payout.
However, allow the ratings to be weighted at 80/10/10, and the person's 5/3/3 rating jumps to 4.6, with a four share payout.
The system allows weighting, the rating tools allow weighting, but our leadership somehow believes we all spend equal time and/or have equal impact for each objective.
NSPS could have worked.
NSPS
Program Analyst Navy Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:41 PM
There is no consistency in application. Our Region has imposed pay bands within pay bands. Now they want to establish like objectives for like positions so they can standardize objectives. Maybe they didn't like the payout outcome? Their latest idea is letting others that don't know you review your final. How many people do we need to review behind the reviewers? Wonder what that will cost? Sustaining this is costly. Our Region is selling us that 3's are for work we're paid to do but have no problem giving themselves 4's and 5's. There is no clear value in NSPS. There are ways to deny within grade increases if someone isn't performing and there's awards such as Quality Steps if you outperform. Now we have two different pay and recognitions processes and systems since we have GS and NSPS. Some say have's and have not's. And if you were a top step, you get mostly bonus but you get shorted in base salary which impacts retirement for the rest of your life. Hows that good?
NSPS Payouts
Analyst AF Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:02 PM
Set dollar amount based on percentage of total salary set aside in the CWB is required to be expended for salary increases, however, in pay pools where there are a higher percentage of the workforce (typically @ HQs level) that are at the top of the pay band, employees are paid out in bonus and higher salary increases are forced to be paid out to not necessarily top performers.
Pay Band YA-02 too large - GS-13's equivs should have been included in a separate pay band with GS-14 equivalents.
Pay Band Ratings
Program Management Analyst DOC/NOAA Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:22 AM
Pay Band is a joke. First the Performance Description given under the Pay Band is generic and literally describes nothing the person actually does. Correct me if I am wrong, I thought the objectivity of the Pay Band was to recognize the employees that went the extra mile, not who you know. There is still a great injustice in how a knowledgable hard worker is rated for one you are writing your own performance and than the supervisor evaluates. In the old days the supervisors wrote your performance and it was discussed. Now the employees writes there own performance and you are called in to sign it. This rating has caused such a low morale in the government and proves if you are not in the group no matter how hard you work succesfully you will still be at the bottom. At least the old system you knew you would get a step increase which helped long term, especially with the high cost of living. Pay Band is all about being in the right place and knowing the right people.
Future Performance Plan
IT Specialist DOD Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:45 AM
Maybe "Pay for Performance" will be renamed to "Pay to Play Performance" plan. It would be more accurate when looking at how NSPS is being administered.
Base Pay
Quality Assurance NAVY Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:47 AM
I'm FERS and my base pay is not getting what it would if I was not under NSPS even though I'm a valued employee. I'm being told I do a great job, so, what are the 4 and 5 people doing? They spend more time in the boss' office instead of doing their job.
Less Pay
Contract Specialist Dept of the Army Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:30 AM
Under the NSPS system as a "Value Performer Employee" my base pay is less than what I would be making under the old GS system. From the charts that were presented to our office for our Pay Pool Results, 74% were rated as "3", 23% were rated "4", and 2% were rated "5", and only 1% was rated "2", and no % for "1". How can this be a fair system. When you can not even reach the base pay of the next step in your old pay grade and you are amoung the 74% of the Value Performer in your Command.
PFP what a joke
IRS sourcing guy IRS Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:46 AM
I am a FLM with the IRS. I must admit I am very lucky, because I have the best employee's in the place. Having said that, let me rant about PFP. So with our current application "HR CONNECT" we are required to i/p commitments each year based upon what upper management wants. ( ok fair enough ), although they are not my commitments, I have to play the game. So now I have done my job for 10 months, when it's time for me to i/p my self assesment. I'm allowed 2 pages at 10 Ariel font to describe what I've done during the year. (IMHO not enough space). Now my boss get to evaluate me based upon what I've accomplished, but he only gets to write ONE page on what I'v done. Hmm, not too fair, but then it goes to a group of people who don't know me, what I do for a living, or what I've had to overcome to accomplish what i've done, that decide what I am worth. This is a great system. Did I tell you that I'm the only manager that performs the duties that I do, so there is no one to compare me to.
Don't forget
Scientist EPA Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:13 AM
You have to contend with factors that do not reflect true performance: favoritism and the "quota" of each ranking category.
Petition campaign
Fisheries biologist NOAA Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:39 AM
Why not flood the presidents office with petition letters to let him know how we feel ablut this ill-concieved and poorly executed plan. This is the worst idea the man has ever come up with- which is saying ALOT!
Today's Column / Pay Banding
Safety Inspector FAA Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:19 PM
The FAA has more longevity with pay banding than some of the systems that have been more recently implemented. There are two major problems: First is that the actual awarding of pay raises for merit (termed superior contribution increases) is absolutely subjective even though the internal propaganda states they are not. It's even more insidious that a thin veneer of objectivity (being asked to rate oneself against organizational goals) masks the final outcome which is actually a group of managers in a conference room deciding who they like the best. Second is when you as an employee bump against the top of your pay band (which happens more and more every year since the level set for top of the pay band does not keep pace with the general, annual increase), you receive your increase as a cash payment, which on the surface is OK; however you could find yourself trapped in an unmoveable high three position for purposes of retirement annuaity calculations. A lawsuit is pending.
Shares
Worker Army Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:36 PM
I received a 3. But, it must have been a "low" 3 because I only received 1 share like 4 others in a group of 109. My supervisor said the pay pool manager said I needed to be more "visible". So I guess I will move my desk to the hallway just outside his office so he can see me. NSPS is unfair to the mid-careerist like me. The new hires on NSPS don't know any better and the employees nearing retirement have already reached the top of the pay chart. So they pay them off with bonuses which by the way or taxed at higher rate. I know because my measly bonus of $378 turns out to be $174 Whoopee! Compared to my GS-12 peers at step 4, I'm out $3,700 this year.
Re: Shares
Diversity Manager DOL Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:12 PM
My 1st question is how did you become a 12, you think that a bonus is taxed at a higher rate?? You should be happy that you are employed at all
Re: Shares
IT Specialist DOD Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:45 PM
Div Manager - Your insults are unnecessary at times even though I have to laugh at times. My guess is you are about 5 foot tall, but you have got to be a 12 foot pain in the butt. Anyway, he is right. You do get hammered in taxes when you get bonuses or awards. All the taxes get pulled out. When they are done, it doesn't add up to much.
NSPS/PFP
Human Resources Specialist Kansas Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:51 PM
I hate the NSPS/PFP system. To me, they should have left well-enough alone & kept the GS/WG system in place. It had been around for 50 years..why spoil a good thing?? I also think appraisals should be done away with completely, and if a person is doing well or not doing well, just document it.
pay for performance
CTE SSA Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:52 PM
I would like to know how this will encourage "quality" work?
Isn't the government in enough mess already with the shoddy work from employees who are often pushed to their breaking point?
You still have many under CSRS who have been dedicated employees for many years.
Why not just move out the "dead wood" and end this before it begins.
In just a few years many more of us will be retired.
Why make life even more miserable than it already is?
Pay For Performance
Power System Operator Western Area Power Admin-DOE Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:58 PM
This program was tried several years ago and it didn't work then, nor does it work now. It has no bearing on an individuals performance in regards to what his/her payout will be. Higher level managers are telling supervisors what to limit ratings to when appraisels are given and then the large and best appraisels are given among the managers. They are lining each others pockets and continuing the unethical practices that are nothing more than a resurrection of the old PFP techniques. In short......WASTE, FRAUD & ABUSE!!!
pay for performance
frontliner USPS Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:35 PM
My myopic manager will easily forsake the "service" part of MY job to meet the "performance numbers" required for his..bonus pay, unwittingly losing the confidence of the public and our income.
Pay Bands within the Pay Bands
Director Marine Corps Community Services Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:45 PM
During my final rating in Oct with NSPS, I was informed that there was a band with the pay band based on job description, however, that was never mentioned during any of the trainings I attended. I am in Pay Band 2, and recieved the majority in bonus due to this band within the Pay Band. Seems to me that I am being kept within the GS grade pay scale that no longer exists for NSPS. Can anyone tell me where that is in writting??? This seems to be a way to keep good employees without giving them a proper raise.
PFP
fed34+ GOVT Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:25 PM
When it can be guarantee no favoritism from the managers, I can go along with the PFP. It is a known fact, Managers do have a say in this process, they have their "lunch" partners best interest at hand, and care less about the REAL WORKERS under their command. It is all about friendships: Your Partying Group- Your Happy-Hour Group- Your Gossiping Group, and yes Your Main Dinner Party Group. These GROUPS of people do no have to work as hard as the Real workers because their backs are covered by the managers.
PFP
Labor Relations Army Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:59 AM
One thing you did not address under NSPS your value is determined by a pay pool manager that most likely doesn't know you from Adam. Your rating is deflated by some panel of managers that is looking out for their employees. So if your supervisor or second line supervisor is not part of the paypool then you have no advocate for the rating. The Best part is that if you are rated higher by your supervisor but the rating is knocked down by the paypool, they won't even tell you. Bell curves are not the fairest way. Lets face it the only way to be fair is to force supervisors to do the unpleasant task of rating people properly. But then that might reflect poorly on them, i.e. how can a supervisor get a good rating if their employees don't?
NSPS
Quality Assurance Supervisor N/A Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 AM
I was a believer at first but became ill when I was told that we were all getting 3's even prior to submitting our final drafts demonstrating our performance. I put in hundreds of hours outside of my agency working on other agency matters without regret or compensation. Despite having mandatory training I needed to attend to and fixing an area that I was promoted to, which was a disaster and exceeding the metrics I was given (two weeks prior to closeout) I still received this rating. I enjoy working and have filled the "shoes" of much higher authority than my own without missing a beat. Working hard for our soldiers is something I enjoy and take personally. If I did feel that I was not adding value to my agency I would not even comment on this topic much less stay in the position. However, it is very difficult to understand how I can do better. I search for projects and participate in programs where the goals are beneficial and the benefits real and lasting. Nonetheless, I do not feel this program has been fair to those of us who are not lazy and do represent our agency with honor. The taxpayer’s money is being well spent on those of us who are working and trying to make a difference. NSPS has thrown water on that fire for many. It is so bad that I have individuals pulling CFC pledges because they are so angry about their payout. Again, if it was pay for performance, then I really want to meat the person who got a five. I am guessing he was issued a halo.
Pay-by-performance
Fed Worker FAA Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:38 AM
This pay-for-performance system has not been fully thought out.............It has so many flaws and unfriendly requirements that this system will only benefit the managers. Our leader in our office is very unpredictable - therefore going under this pay-for-performance system with a leader of this character will not benefit us. We all do our jobs very, very well - but are not recognize for it under this GS system, now we are going under this pay-for-performance; we will never be recognized nor receive any type of incentives or fair rating. Please some one stop this madness before it actually takes affect.
Pay for Popularity
Specialist Navy Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:27 AM
I was in the Demo project for many years and was compensated better than the average person. However, I saw allot of fellow employees that were well above average get nothing year after year. I have since converted to a GS job (protected by the Union) and have no intentions of returning to an NSPS position. This pay-for-popularity NSPS system will severely impact the ability of the Government to attract good people and will further promote job jumping which is now rampant with our young people.
NSPS
Supervisory Engineer Air Force Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:16 PM
First, the AF bastardized the entry into NSPS by elevating anyone with the "Deputy" title (some former GS 13 or 14) to Pay Band 3 while most of the remaining GS 14 supervisors were delegated to PB 2. Foul!
Next, demotivate the staff with this bogus "valued performer" grade with 1 share payout that is less that the cost of living increases provided to the GS personnel we supervise. Foul!
Lastly, I've had three military supervisors in the rating period and received zero, not a single performance feedback. Foul!
NSPS needs to go into the failed experiment trash barrel.
Pay loss over time
Engineering Technician Navy Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:24 AM
It seems that the yearly raise for most employees under PFP will average about the same as a COLA in the old system. For most new employees who came in at step 1 or 2 and then converted to PFP will realize a loss of pay over time due to the lack of normal step increases. With part of the payout being bonus pay instead of base pay, employees lose base pay over time resulting in lower retirement payments as well. I believe this is the way the PFP system was intended to reduce costs.
FAIR
Operations Manager USACE Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:01 AM
To say that there should be as many 1/2s as 4/5s is the belief that before I rate or evaluate anyone's performance that all performance is based on a bell curve. That's not true. Peformance is based on the idividual contributions to the organization. In some organizations there are far many superior performers than those that need improvement and the opposite in others. NSPS does not delegate to field supevisors the authority intended, nor does it promote good harmony and morale in the workplace when I as a manager must give someone a 3 when in fact the justification was clearly a 2 but the higher leverl reviewer believes the employee deserves a pay raise (regardless of the NSPS assessment). NSPS doesn't work.
Pay For Performance
Program Technician Farm Service Agency Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:04 AM
Pay for Performance???? What a joke! When those who go above and beyond the call of duty to help the farmers and those who text-message and surf the web day in and day out receive the same rating, what has been accomplished? Has anyone locally or at the Washington level ever heard of "no motivation"? Until this agency has some "real" managers who do what they are being paid to do, this pathetic system will NEVER WORK.
Pay Banding vs GS Schedule
GS-13 EOS Dept of Labor Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:53 PM
In Grad school several yrs ago when pay banding first came out I conducted research to test the advantages & disadvantages vs our GS scale. The advantages stopped after new hires being able to negotiate starting salaries. I found a high potential for discrimination to occur as it is very subjective, difficult to monitor, time consuming, and expensive. The GS scale is not perfect but it was not broken and has processes in place to trim out non-performers with the WIGI & PIPs for supervisors not affair to utilize them.
success and follicular count
see jay fha Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:41 PM
Dozens of scientific social studies show that people with full heads of hair are more successful in careers and life in general. I think the ratings for people with full heads of hair are more favorable to those without. When did we ever have a bald president? I don't think bad toupees count.
NSPS
Now Average Employee Army Wed Feb 4, 2009 5:45 PM
NSPS suffers the same flaws as the old Merit Pay System.
Managers are not evaluating performance, they are managing metrics and forcing ratings to fit a metric profile that creates the illusion of truly evaluating performance.
Most senior managers and personnel achieved their level via a promotion process because they distinguished themselves. The new process forces an evaluation curve and a process that does not reasonably reflect performance.
Pay for performance is an admirable objective, however flawed in execution.
How NSPS works for me.
Administrative support assistant Defense Logistics Agency Tue Apr 7, 2009 7:41 AM
What can you say about pay for performance. I have heard everyone's comments about NSPS. I personally feel that in my current situation it doesn't work for me. I work hard, my work ethics should not be in questioned, I will perform each and every task to the best of my abilities and I want everything done in a timely manner. It doesn't alway happen that way. I work for managers that are very controling, micro managers. I don't often receive the information that I need to perform my work. I work independently, creating data, draft and etc... without as much as good work! When I began in NSPS, I Knew that thing would change. When you pay some for there performance know what they do. Don't judge me harshly. NSPS helps management hurt people they don't care for, as in my case. I have a degree, experience in other job careers, toured different countries. I have applied and referred for positions, but not choosen, because of the connect of management. I only want to work. WHY
Pay Performance
IT Specialist Naval Medical Center Portsmouth Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:13 AM
The president and congress should not receive a pay performance. Their job is to make sure that the Americans are being treated fairly, that is the civil service worker. Civil servants make far less than than on the outside.
The president and congress make far more than any of us will make in our lifetime.
PFP in a Union Run Quasi-Federal Organization
Retired Postmaster USPS Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:41 AM
PFP was introduced into the USPS merit system at the beginning of the new millennium. From the start I was cautiously optimistic about its worth. Only a short amount of time passed before I realized the obvious pitfalls: 1. The goals and subsequent ratings are far too subjective, and the ability to achieve the ones set for any management employee often cannot be achieved due to thumb control from upper management and contractual nuances governing union protected employees. 2. The "good old boy system" trumps any and all ratings methods allegedly implemented. Rewards go to the favored few despite actual performance. This is a morale buster for those managers outside the in-group. 3. "Deadwood" remains despite low performance ratings prompting the "why bother" attitude among the masses. In my opinion, PFP will never be effective in a union controlled agency. There must be total workforce buy in and goals set that don't depend on someone else's authority to achieve.
Pay for Performance
Postmaster United States Postal Service Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:59 PM
While this sounds like a good system, it doesn't work, because the powers that be make it impossible to make your goals. Not only are we given ridiculously unachievable goals at the beginning of the year, but the goals (i.e,. for total workhours, total expenses, etc.), are reduced every single momth, making them even more impossible to meet. A normal Postmaster in a small town (EAS-20) has absolutely NO WAY to reach the goals given.
NSPS GO AWAY, PLEASE GO AWAY
Administrative Assistant Navy Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:00 PM
I worked for a supervisor for a little over 2-years until I got another. He never gave me a good rating or applauded me for anything I did but kept the candy dish full. As soon as he hired another assistant, he puts her in for Civilian of the Quarter. I was covering a position that was once covered by 2-secretaries in which one was a GS-08. That was the position I was placed in at a 6. The other secretary retired and there I was wearing both hats. Now if I was working under the same supervisor as a NSPS employee, I would NOT get a high performance rating no matter what or how much I did. I'm just not the right color! Go figure! Is this how NSPS is suppose to work? So you see, NSPS will never work for everyone...it depends upon who happen to be your supervisor.
only a 3
Navy
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:17 AM
And no matter what I do as a low level manager I will get 3's. so what's the point? Why should I strieve harder next year?
Pay-For-Performance Stinks!
USPS
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:19 AM
The system was supposedly designed to make the appraisal process more objective, but -- by including so-called "core dimensions," such as communication, organization, etc., as a major part of the evaluation, it allows subjectivity right back in. I came out alright, but a colleague who consistently outperforms everyone got a lower rating so that an insufferable suck-up slacker could get the extra point. There is also the influence of budget. Our entire office is limited to the "Contributor" range, even though we are the top -- of 9 -- office in the country, because the agency lost money last year, even though we made money for the company.
Pay for Performance
Department of the Army
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:20 AM
I am a huge fan of Pay for Performance. It's about time we said to civil servants that you must do more than come to work and have a pulse in order to receive a top block rating. Pay for Performance forces sets the bar much higher and rightfully so. I do understand that it's time consuming and labor intensive for supervisors, but then we pay them to supervise and that is now part of the job. I, for one do not advocate going back to TAPES, where everyone got the same rating because supervisors didn't want to do their job and were too afraid to accurately rate their employees. It might take a couple of years to work out the kinks, but I believe anything worth doing is tough and we owe it to our employees to demand the best from them and reward accordingly.
Re: Pay for Performance
Dept of the Army
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:13 AM
Re: Pay for Performance
Air Force
Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:02 AM
1.2% rated 1 or 2
53% rated 3 (valued employees)
40.3% rated 4
5.5% rated 5
Seems to be a real motivator when a componet in effect says, "we consider any of you "valued performers" right down there with the bottom 1.3% of our employees."
Those who receive a rating of 4 may be motivated but the "valued employees" are certainly not.
Re: Pay for Performance
VA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:35 PM
Re: Pay for Performance
DoD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:56 PM
Re: Pay for Performance
Defense Commissary Agency
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:37 PM
Re: Pay for Performance
DOL
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:52 PM
That's the reason why the 3's feel slighted. Its the taxpayers who have a right and expectation to insure their CS perform properly
Re: Pay for Performance
U.S. Border Patrol
Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 PM
Pay for Performance
Government
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:30 AM
One of the major problems is evaluations. The problems start with criteria. In my job they are and must be subjective as my work is not bean counter type of work. It evaluates certain things which is a subjective job. Based on the issues and the complexity of the issuesinvolved, the case could take a short period of time or a long period of time. Therefore, the manager must do a subjective evaluation.
The problem here is that some managers, either are not
competent enough to do this type of evaluation, listen to their managers about quantity issues, or just does not like the worker. So the evaluation is lower and based on baloney.
For this reason, I would not like my annual increases or step increases to be based on my evaluation.
I exceed, but am not outstanding. Therefore, I believe DOD workers raises should be civil service raises.
Performance
Army
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:31 AM
Those that do perform still get less. Those who don't still get reward. When are managers going to deal with documenting bad performance.
There are too many people now that are not working that would appreciate a job in the gov't and be glad to perform.
This is what would improve the gov't workforce.
PFP
Southwest Civilian Personnel Operations Center
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:32 AM
For the last almost three years I have been under NSPS and being rated a '3' for all three years. I know people such as STUDENTS are receiving '4' therefore getting more shares than that of the actual workforce. Maybe it is just my organization but people who work with the pay pool manager fair better than those actually performing the duties. Why should I work hard, have a 99.5% goodness of data just to be rated a '3'? My managers all are very pleased with the personnel service that I give their organizations but that doesn't set me apart from lower performers and they get more shares than I. Something is definitely wrong with NSPS.
Future of Pay Performance
Civilian in Kansas
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:33 AM
I am an NSPS employee, I just received my rating, it was a "3". In the NSPS world that is considered to be a "Valued Employee". In the real world it means, no matter how hard you work, how many managers give you the thumbs up, the PAY POOL MANAGERS decide your fate. I know this because I had received emails from different managers telling how I went above the call of duty for their employees. I put this in my self assessment rating and received a "3". So even with this kind of input, I received a "3" because that is what the HIGHER PAY POOL MANAGERS who decide the rating and the amount each person gets has decided I am worth.
So to your PAY FOR PERFORMANCE SYSTEM, I say, GO AWAY.
Re: Future of Pay Performance
DOD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:40 PM
Today's column above
OPM
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:35 AM
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
FAA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:21 AM
Re: Today's column above
DOL
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:58 PM
Re: Today's column above
DOD
Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:39 AM
"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
DoD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:56 AM
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
CCM
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:27 AM
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
DOD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:28 AM
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
DOD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:32 AM
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
USDA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:48 AM
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
IRS
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:52 AM
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
Evaluations BS
DOE, Albuquerque
Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:58 AM
Social scentists over and over have shown that performance evaluations are counter productive and a waste of time. A few get rewards weather desearved or not and the rest are average and a few get punished. Therefore on average it lowers morale and reduces productivity. DOE was a scientific organization and very progressive management and we were evaluated by pass/fail. Rewards were based on achievements as they were done. Then DOD took over part of DOE and brought back the old evaluation systems. Cynicism and frustration increased overnight along with turnover. But it made management feel better, I guess..lol
NSPS In General
Army
Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:20 AM
The entire NSPS system is cumberson when you take into consideration that not everyone in DOD was converted and we are now dealing with multiple systems, the lack of sufficient guidance for NSPS, and the time spent managing the PFP. While the rating period ends 30 Sep 09, it takes 3 months to deal with the pay pool issues and review process before the rating is finalized. For each employee who rated at least a 3, multipe personnel actions are required - up to 3. Now that the ratings are final, the complaints are coming in. As a HR specialist, unless I leave DoD, I cannot escape NSPS as a non-bargaining unit, I am NSPS and I must work with the complexities and inconsistancies that abound in this system on a daily basis. As an example, there are employees who perform work at a GS-13 level, but are being paid at the GS-12 level; on the other hand there are employees at the GS-2 equivalent level being paid at the GS-6 level. Lucky us in DOD who are covered by NSPS.
NSPS
DOD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:24 AM
I like the comparision with school grades. I was never inspired to reach for the "Magna Cum Laude" because it was a bar that was raised far too high. I never even bother with that and I think most students felt that way. By the same token, when I see that only 1.3% would receive a rating of "5" and maybe another 2.4% would receive a rating of "4" while most people will get a rating of "3" ("Valued Performer"), I am going to figure that the chances that I will get higher than a 3 is rather remote and a 4 or 5 will get me only a few hundred dollars bonuses. I'm sorry but it just doesn't motivate me to excel in my job. In fact, I find it insulting. If they want to improve performance, how about giving us an additional week off for completing a 6-week job in half the time?
Don't give a damn about the rating system
GSA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:40 AM
Sorry but I don't. I just want to come to work, do the job, and go home at night. If the boss pats me on the back, that's enough for me. I don't require some bonus ... just make sure I get my regular pay. I know my supervisor finds it frustrating that I feel that way but I'm only being honest.
The only carrot anyone can dangle in front of me is to let me do the programs that mean something to me and shed the ones that I know someone else has a better apptitude for. This idea that anyone can do any program is nonsense.
So, if I'm being graded on a program I don't give a rats ass about and want out of, don't be surprised if I'm ambivalent.
Re: Don't give a damn about the rating system
DOL
Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 PM
Re: Don't give a damn about the rating system
us govt
Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:57 AM
It is not my fault that congress grants a raise. If you feel so guilty about your raise this year you may donate it back to the government at the same web site you can buy savings bonds. If you don't do that, you are just a lot of hot air. But I would bet you feel you are the only one that deserves a raise, don't you?
As for those who didn't get a raise this year, I am sorry.
Applications are available at OPM.GOV.
Pay-Banding
Treasury
Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:49 AM
Pay-Banding is not a motivating factor when the supervisor is earning less than the non-supervisors. For example, a supervisor before becoming one was a GS-13 step 5 and now is an IR-05 under pay-banding. The increases through pay-banding does not surpass a non-supervisor at a GS-13 step 6. With the possibility of receiving an outstanding at the cost to the others in the group, who are working just as hard and producing results and receive a lower rating, the increase in salary comes close to a GS-13 step 7. Where is the merit in this system?
The Future of Pay-For-Performance Under Pres. Obam
DoD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:02 AM
Sitting in HR, the most difficult part of applying PFP in a fair and meaningful manner is the human aspect. Supervisors and employees alike have a difficult time with stating and understanding their objectives. Objectives can sometimes be written too broad. As another HR Specialist once told me, its a "Nike" job objective which means "Just do it."
NSPS
DLA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:11 AM
NSPS is so time consuming that it definately does not pay for itself. At the end of the year when we are trying to "get our numbers", upper management is not there to assist and push things through we need from them. They are busy in panels and Pay Pools doing reviews that will most likely be a 3 for most. And as far as the "high end" of the pay bands...we have already been told that there is a block and if you are a GS 12 the highest you will go is to a GS 12 step 10 in NSPS so there is no incentive to add to your salary. All you will get are bonuses. There was nothing wrong with the old system if the managers would have worked it the way it was intended. They could have held up a step increase if they would have done the paperwork. Same as NSPS.
Disappointment
USAF
Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:13 AM
I have 20 years with the AF Active duty 16 of which I have served in the same career field. I have 7 years a contractor and 8 years a civil servant in the same career field. I have a bachelors degree and my job performance is thought highly of by my supervisors, commanders, and co-workers. I am on a highly visible program of great importance to the Air Force and I am doing the job as one while others categorized in this career field have three to eight people doing the same thing that I do as one. I am being paid just above entry level and NSPS is dictating this to Commanders. Those who were hired before this mess are receiving 3 times as much as me and do not even have the experience. The system is wrong and it does nothing for the moral or the mission we are trying to do for our country.
Glass Ceiling with a new name
DoD, USAF
Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:34 AM
Here PFP managers have upped the anntie in driving skilled personnel away. They have instituted, or I should say reimposed, a "glass ceiling" on the wages within a payband, creating their own unoffical pay bands (and this is left to the ind mgrs). While advertising positions to be filled at the min-max pay, once filled impose unadvertised max pay that they believe a position is "worth." This leads folks to believe wrongly that they can advance in the position and be rewarded for outstanding work, to the max dollar value advertised for that position. When asked about this practice the lead manager for PFP stated that while our base was the only organization in the govn't to do this,"they were simply leading the way for the rest of government agencies to follow." They didn't feel this was unfair to impose such an unequal practice on their employes that no one else in government service has imposed on them. Civ Svs should not be an unequal "wing it" system open to unequal treatment.
NSPS
DoD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:46 AM
We're all out west, our pay pool is on the east coast and a odd thing happen this past year, the majority (99%) of the 4s and 5s were given out to the east coaster. I had one of my most busies years and I describe that well in my assessment and my supervisor supported it. I got a 3 and now I make less than what I would have if I would have stayed a GS.
Application
DoD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:41 PM
According to the author "Pay-for-performance does not apply to the president, senators, congress members, or cabinet secretaries."
This is good for them because not only would they not be paid for their horrible performance. In fact, they should owe the taxpayer money for being such lousy workers.
PFP
USDA
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:07 PM
In the old system, cash awards went to people in impact positions. Many workers were in positions where they could not shine enough to get them. I have seen the same people get cash awards repeatedly. I don't see how this is better. And a 5 is not an "A", it is a "role model." Everybody can get an "A" in a class, but everybody on a team cannot be a "role model" because then "role model" would be normal, and therefore a "3". Both systems allow suck-ups and good old boys to get ahead. The new system does provide a way to stop oxygen thieves from advancing and giving what would have been theirs to the other workers. As to saving money, if a system that promotes bad workers is cheaper than a system that doesn't, I am for the more expensive system. A "3" will get more money than they would have in the old system, assuming there are a few "1's' and "2's."
Alternatives to PFP?
AFFTC/412 TMG/DRJ
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:11 PM
Your comments and supporting data in this article are very interesting and thought provoking. Here at Edwards AFB we also went through an experimental version of NSPS called CCAS where salary increases were based on "mission contribution". Most people liked it better than the General Wage system. Data suggests it did enable Federal agencies to more effectively compete with private industry for valuable personnel. NSPS is A LOT of work, more so than CCAS. So what would we replace either of them with? Reinstitute General Wage system? I think not. A system based solely on number of years in service produced and provided a haven for a disproprtionately high number of sloths. There is ample evidence (both qualitative and quantitative) that pay for performance has demonstrated to be the system that most motivates humans toward desirable behavior. We need to keep refining the system to decrease supervisor workload and more directly connect performance to pay. AND allow the Fed to fire people!
Re: Alternatives to PFP?
USDA
Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:11 AM
NSPS
DON
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:14 PM
We just completed our first payout under NSPS and while I was very happy with the outcome, I agree the system is cumbersome, time-consuming, ill-effective, demoralizing, and costly. There is no telling how much it is costing the taxpayer to maintain and sustain this PFP system. For managers, supervisors, and employees alike, tracking and documenting the work efforts, comparing those against the objectives and contributing factors and performance indicators, writing to this so it captures meeting or exceeding this objective, worrying about the "bell curve" and whether you are giving too many 3's or 4's (no 5's) is a challenge and all-consuming. Under a pass/fail system, there was always other award recognition avenues you could take advantage of to either recognize a one-time effort or a years worth of excellent performance. For me, I will work just as hard under either system and not harder under NSPS but it is always in the back of my mind that I must make time to document my work.
Bands within bands
DoD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:23 PM
While pay bands may have been implemented as a way to show an employee how high they can get within their pay band, the Navy (at least some locations) have taken it a “step” further. They have added a “low, middle and high” band within the designated pay band. And, they are instituting policy to keep personnel within the tighter band such that pay pools give bonuses vice salary increases if you are near the top of the sub-band. Now in a traditional 3-band system, the Navy will have 9 bands - one short of the previous 10 Steps.
When the President considers revisions, he should also look at how current users have modified the original concept into something that approximates the old System but with a much heavier administrative and time burden. As you have pointed out this will ultimately be a “Value” decision - “Where’s the beef?”
Re: Bands within bands
DVA
Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:20 PM
I am FERS for 20 years in traditional GS position. Interviews in Defense Agency coming soon. NSPS is the pay ban structure. Foreign to me. Any web-sites blog sites, etc to quickly learn and comprehend pay bans?
FC
Our budget limits how well an employee can do
ICE
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:33 PM
Sad but true: We have a yearly award budget. I couldn't award every employee that deserved recognition if I wanted to. If we have $75K to hand out every year, someone's gotta lose out.
The current system may be flawed, but why not fix it instead of scrapping it?
Either way, someone's getting screwed.
Re: Our budget limits how well an employee can do
DOD
Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:47 PM
The current system works just fine. It appears that you enjoy, and revel, in having such power over employees.
Re: Our budget limits how well an employee can do
Small College
Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:39 AM
NSPS
USAF
Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:49 PM
NSPS means wider pay bands and less kangaroo panels!
NSPS for barganing unit people is hanging by a string!
Regime
DOE
Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:51 PM
Next time reconsider your choice of words. It renders bias to your article, and damages your credibility.
PFP is no better than what we have now
ICE
Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:17 PM
What's frustrating to me, as I read these comments, is that so many of the folks responding are poor writers; the grammar, elementary or worse, the punctuation atrocious. While writing may not be a factor in that person's job description—or even an element in his or her appraisal—it shows that some folks just don't care about doing a good job.
I review about 100 employee appraisals a year. When I see that employee reads and writes at a 6th grade level, I rate that person a lot lower than his or her counterparts. That employee won’t receive anything higher than a Fully Successful rating, no matter that the employee believes he or she deserves an Outstanding rating, a Quality Step Increase and a cash award. A large percentage of the bargaining unit—and many supervisors/managers—spend the greater part of their day telling others how much more they deserve instead of focusing on completing their assigned mission. PFP will work as well as any of the current systems we already have.
Re: PFP is no better than what we have now
Navy
Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:32 AM
Re: PFP is no better than what we have now
Small College
Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:00 PM
Hamstrung by rules
Air Force
Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:39 PM
My organization (I believe by Air Force direction) chose to NOT use the weighting and chose to limit objectives to three.
For those who are math challenged, that means that someone working their buns off on an objective that takes 80% of his/her time will not get proportional credit for that performance.
Give that person a "5" for the 80% objective, and then a "3" for the two remaining objectives, then give all objectives the same rating weight, the employee gets a whopping 3.6 rating (4), with a two share payout.
However, allow the ratings to be weighted at 80/10/10, and the person's 5/3/3 rating jumps to 4.6, with a four share payout.
The system allows weighting, the rating tools allow weighting, but our leadership somehow believes we all spend equal time and/or have equal impact for each objective.
NSPS could have worked.
NSPS
Navy
Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:41 PM
There is no consistency in application. Our Region has imposed pay bands within pay bands. Now they want to establish like objectives for like positions so they can standardize objectives. Maybe they didn't like the payout outcome? Their latest idea is letting others that don't know you review your final. How many people do we need to review behind the reviewers? Wonder what that will cost? Sustaining this is costly. Our Region is selling us that 3's are for work we're paid to do but have no problem giving themselves 4's and 5's. There is no clear value in NSPS. There are ways to deny within grade increases if someone isn't performing and there's awards such as Quality Steps if you outperform. Now we have two different pay and recognitions processes and systems since we have GS and NSPS. Some say have's and have not's. And if you were a top step, you get mostly bonus but you get shorted in base salary which impacts retirement for the rest of your life. Hows that good?
NSPS Payouts
AF
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:02 PM
Set dollar amount based on percentage of total salary set aside in the CWB is required to be expended for salary increases, however, in pay pools where there are a higher percentage of the workforce (typically @ HQs level) that are at the top of the pay band, employees are paid out in bonus and higher salary increases are forced to be paid out to not necessarily top performers.
Pay Band YA-02 too large - GS-13's equivs should have been included in a separate pay band with GS-14 equivalents.
Pay Band Ratings
DOC/NOAA
Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:22 AM
Pay Band is a joke. First the Performance Description given under the Pay Band is generic and literally describes nothing the person actually does. Correct me if I am wrong, I thought the objectivity of the Pay Band was to recognize the employees that went the extra mile, not who you know. There is still a great injustice in how a knowledgable hard worker is rated for one you are writing your own performance and than the supervisor evaluates. In the old days the supervisors wrote your performance and it was discussed. Now the employees writes there own performance and you are called in to sign it. This rating has caused such a low morale in the government and proves if you are not in the group no matter how hard you work succesfully you will still be at the bottom. At least the old system you knew you would get a step increase which helped long term, especially with the high cost of living. Pay Band is all about being in the right place and knowing the right people.
Future Performance Plan
DOD
Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:45 AM
Maybe "Pay for Performance" will be renamed to "Pay to Play Performance" plan. It would be more accurate when looking at how NSPS is being administered.
Base Pay
NAVY
Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:47 AM
I'm FERS and my base pay is not getting what it would if I was not under NSPS even though I'm a valued employee. I'm being told I do a great job, so, what are the 4 and 5 people doing? They spend more time in the boss' office instead of doing their job.
Less Pay
Dept of the Army
Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:30 AM
Under the NSPS system as a "Value Performer Employee" my base pay is less than what I would be making under the old GS system. From the charts that were presented to our office for our Pay Pool Results, 74% were rated as "3", 23% were rated "4", and 2% were rated "5", and only 1% was rated "2", and no % for "1". How can this be a fair system. When you can not even reach the base pay of the next step in your old pay grade and you are amoung the 74% of the Value Performer in your Command.
PFP what a joke
IRS
Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:46 AM
I am a FLM with the IRS. I must admit I am very lucky, because I have the best employee's in the place. Having said that, let me rant about PFP. So with our current application "HR CONNECT" we are required to i/p commitments each year based upon what upper management wants. ( ok fair enough ), although they are not my commitments, I have to play the game. So now I have done my job for 10 months, when it's time for me to i/p my self assesment. I'm allowed 2 pages at 10 Ariel font to describe what I've done during the year. (IMHO not enough space). Now my boss get to evaluate me based upon what I've accomplished, but he only gets to write ONE page on what I'v done. Hmm, not too fair, but then it goes to a group of people who don't know me, what I do for a living, or what I've had to overcome to accomplish what i've done, that decide what I am worth. This is a great system. Did I tell you that I'm the only manager that performs the duties that I do, so there is no one to compare me to.
Don't forget
EPA
Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:13 AM
You have to contend with factors that do not reflect true performance: favoritism and the "quota" of each ranking category.
Petition campaign
NOAA
Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:39 AM
Why not flood the presidents office with petition letters to let him know how we feel ablut this ill-concieved and poorly executed plan. This is the worst idea the man has ever come up with- which is saying ALOT!
Today's Column / Pay Banding
FAA
Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:19 PM
The FAA has more longevity with pay banding than some of the systems that have been more recently implemented. There are two major problems: First is that the actual awarding of pay raises for merit (termed superior contribution increases) is absolutely subjective even though the internal propaganda states they are not. It's even more insidious that a thin veneer of objectivity (being asked to rate oneself against organizational goals) masks the final outcome which is actually a group of managers in a conference room deciding who they like the best. Second is when you as an employee bump against the top of your pay band (which happens more and more every year since the level set for top of the pay band does not keep pace with the general, annual increase), you receive your increase as a cash payment, which on the surface is OK; however you could find yourself trapped in an unmoveable high three position for purposes of retirement annuaity calculations. A lawsuit is pending.
Shares
Army
Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:36 PM
I received a 3. But, it must have been a "low" 3 because I only received 1 share like 4 others in a group of 109. My supervisor said the pay pool manager said I needed to be more "visible". So I guess I will move my desk to the hallway just outside his office so he can see me. NSPS is unfair to the mid-careerist like me. The new hires on NSPS don't know any better and the employees nearing retirement have already reached the top of the pay chart. So they pay them off with bonuses which by the way or taxed at higher rate. I know because my measly bonus of $378 turns out to be $174 Whoopee! Compared to my GS-12 peers at step 4, I'm out $3,700 this year.
Re: Shares
DOL
Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:12 PM
Re: Shares
DOD
Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:45 PM
NSPS/PFP
Kansas
Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:51 PM
I hate the NSPS/PFP system. To me, they should have left well-enough alone & kept the GS/WG system in place. It had been around for 50 years..why spoil a good thing?? I also think appraisals should be done away with completely, and if a person is doing well or not doing well, just document it.
pay for performance
SSA
Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:52 PM
I would like to know how this will encourage "quality" work?
Isn't the government in enough mess already with the shoddy work from employees who are often pushed to their breaking point?
You still have many under CSRS who have been dedicated employees for many years.
Why not just move out the "dead wood" and end this before it begins.
In just a few years many more of us will be retired.
Why make life even more miserable than it already is?
Pay For Performance
Western Area Power Admin-DOE
Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:58 PM
This program was tried several years ago and it didn't work then, nor does it work now. It has no bearing on an individuals performance in regards to what his/her payout will be. Higher level managers are telling supervisors what to limit ratings to when appraisels are given and then the large and best appraisels are given among the managers. They are lining each others pockets and continuing the unethical practices that are nothing more than a resurrection of the old PFP techniques. In short......WASTE, FRAUD & ABUSE!!!
pay for performance
USPS
Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:35 PM
My myopic manager will easily forsake the "service" part of MY job to meet the "performance numbers" required for his..bonus pay, unwittingly losing the confidence of the public and our income.
Pay Bands within the Pay Bands
Marine Corps Community Services
Sat Jan 24, 2009 1:45 PM
During my final rating in Oct with NSPS, I was informed that there was a band with the pay band based on job description, however, that was never mentioned during any of the trainings I attended. I am in Pay Band 2, and recieved the majority in bonus due to this band within the Pay Band. Seems to me that I am being kept within the GS grade pay scale that no longer exists for NSPS. Can anyone tell me where that is in writting??? This seems to be a way to keep good employees without giving them a proper raise.
PFP
GOVT
Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:25 PM
When it can be guarantee no favoritism from the managers, I can go along with the PFP. It is a known fact, Managers do have a say in this process, they have their "lunch" partners best interest at hand, and care less about the REAL WORKERS under their command. It is all about friendships: Your Partying Group- Your Happy-Hour Group- Your Gossiping Group, and yes Your Main Dinner Party Group. These GROUPS of people do no have to work as hard as the Real workers because their backs are covered by the managers.
PFP
Army
Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:59 AM
One thing you did not address under NSPS your value is determined by a pay pool manager that most likely doesn't know you from Adam. Your rating is deflated by some panel of managers that is looking out for their employees. So if your supervisor or second line supervisor is not part of the paypool then you have no advocate for the rating. The Best part is that if you are rated higher by your supervisor but the rating is knocked down by the paypool, they won't even tell you. Bell curves are not the fairest way. Lets face it the only way to be fair is to force supervisors to do the unpleasant task of rating people properly. But then that might reflect poorly on them, i.e. how can a supervisor get a good rating if their employees don't?
NSPS
N/A
Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 AM
I was a believer at first but became ill when I was told that we were all getting 3's even prior to submitting our final drafts demonstrating our performance. I put in hundreds of hours outside of my agency working on other agency matters without regret or compensation. Despite having mandatory training I needed to attend to and fixing an area that I was promoted to, which was a disaster and exceeding the metrics I was given (two weeks prior to closeout) I still received this rating. I enjoy working and have filled the "shoes" of much higher authority than my own without missing a beat. Working hard for our soldiers is something I enjoy and take personally. If I did feel that I was not adding value to my agency I would not even comment on this topic much less stay in the position. However, it is very difficult to understand how I can do better. I search for projects and participate in programs where the goals are beneficial and the benefits real and lasting. Nonetheless, I do not feel this program has been fair to those of us who are not lazy and do represent our agency with honor. The taxpayer’s money is being well spent on those of us who are working and trying to make a difference. NSPS has thrown water on that fire for many. It is so bad that I have individuals pulling CFC pledges because they are so angry about their payout. Again, if it was pay for performance, then I really want to meat the person who got a five. I am guessing he was issued a halo.
Pay-by-performance
FAA
Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:38 AM
This pay-for-performance system has not been fully thought out.............It has so many flaws and unfriendly requirements that this system will only benefit the managers. Our leader in our office is very unpredictable - therefore going under this pay-for-performance system with a leader of this character will not benefit us. We all do our jobs very, very well - but are not recognize for it under this GS system, now we are going under this pay-for-performance; we will never be recognized nor receive any type of incentives or fair rating. Please some one stop this madness before it actually takes affect.
Pay for Popularity
Navy
Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:27 AM
I was in the Demo project for many years and was compensated better than the average person. However, I saw allot of fellow employees that were well above average get nothing year after year. I have since converted to a GS job (protected by the Union) and have no intentions of returning to an NSPS position. This pay-for-popularity NSPS system will severely impact the ability of the Government to attract good people and will further promote job jumping which is now rampant with our young people.
NSPS
Air Force
Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:16 PM
First, the AF bastardized the entry into NSPS by elevating anyone with the "Deputy" title (some former GS 13 or 14) to Pay Band 3 while most of the remaining GS 14 supervisors were delegated to PB 2. Foul!
Next, demotivate the staff with this bogus "valued performer" grade with 1 share payout that is less that the cost of living increases provided to the GS personnel we supervise. Foul!
Lastly, I've had three military supervisors in the rating period and received zero, not a single performance feedback. Foul!
NSPS needs to go into the failed experiment trash barrel.
Pay loss over time
Navy
Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:24 AM
It seems that the yearly raise for most employees under PFP will average about the same as a COLA in the old system. For most new employees who came in at step 1 or 2 and then converted to PFP will realize a loss of pay over time due to the lack of normal step increases. With part of the payout being bonus pay instead of base pay, employees lose base pay over time resulting in lower retirement payments as well. I believe this is the way the PFP system was intended to reduce costs.
FAIR
USACE
Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:01 AM
To say that there should be as many 1/2s as 4/5s is the belief that before I rate or evaluate anyone's performance that all performance is based on a bell curve. That's not true. Peformance is based on the idividual contributions to the organization. In some organizations there are far many superior performers than those that need improvement and the opposite in others. NSPS does not delegate to field supevisors the authority intended, nor does it promote good harmony and morale in the workplace when I as a manager must give someone a 3 when in fact the justification was clearly a 2 but the higher leverl reviewer believes the employee deserves a pay raise (regardless of the NSPS assessment). NSPS doesn't work.
Pay For Performance
Farm Service Agency
Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:04 AM
Pay for Performance???? What a joke! When those who go above and beyond the call of duty to help the farmers and those who text-message and surf the web day in and day out receive the same rating, what has been accomplished? Has anyone locally or at the Washington level ever heard of "no motivation"? Until this agency has some "real" managers who do what they are being paid to do, this pathetic system will NEVER WORK.
Pay Banding vs GS Schedule
Dept of Labor
Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:53 PM
In Grad school several yrs ago when pay banding first came out I conducted research to test the advantages & disadvantages vs our GS scale. The advantages stopped after new hires being able to negotiate starting salaries. I found a high potential for discrimination to occur as it is very subjective, difficult to monitor, time consuming, and expensive. The GS scale is not perfect but it was not broken and has processes in place to trim out non-performers with the WIGI & PIPs for supervisors not affair to utilize them.
success and follicular count
fha
Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:41 PM
Dozens of scientific social studies show that people with full heads of hair are more successful in careers and life in general. I think the ratings for people with full heads of hair are more favorable to those without. When did we ever have a bald president? I don't think bad toupees count.
NSPS
Army
Wed Feb 4, 2009 5:45 PM
NSPS suffers the same flaws as the old Merit Pay System.
Managers are not evaluating performance, they are managing metrics and forcing ratings to fit a metric profile that creates the illusion of truly evaluating performance.
Most senior managers and personnel achieved their level via a promotion process because they distinguished themselves. The new process forces an evaluation curve and a process that does not reasonably reflect performance.
Pay for performance is an admirable objective, however flawed in execution.
How NSPS works for me.
Defense Logistics Agency
Tue Apr 7, 2009 7:41 AM
What can you say about pay for performance. I have heard everyone's comments about NSPS. I personally feel that in my current situation it doesn't work for me. I work hard, my work ethics should not be in questioned, I will perform each and every task to the best of my abilities and I want everything done in a timely manner. It doesn't alway happen that way. I work for managers that are very controling, micro managers. I don't often receive the information that I need to perform my work. I work independently, creating data, draft and etc... without as much as good work! When I began in NSPS, I Knew that thing would change. When you pay some for there performance know what they do. Don't judge me harshly. NSPS helps management hurt people they don't care for, as in my case. I have a degree, experience in other job careers, toured different countries. I have applied and referred for positions, but not choosen, because of the connect of management. I only want to work. WHY
Pay Performance
Naval Medical Center Portsmouth
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:13 AM
The president and congress should not receive a pay performance. Their job is to make sure that the Americans are being treated fairly, that is the civil service worker. Civil servants make far less than than on the outside.
The president and congress make far more than any of us will make in our lifetime.
PFP in a Union Run Quasi-Federal Organization
USPS
Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:41 AM
PFP was introduced into the USPS merit system at the beginning of the new millennium. From the start I was cautiously optimistic about its worth. Only a short amount of time passed before I realized the obvious pitfalls: 1. The goals and subsequent ratings are far too subjective, and the ability to achieve the ones set for any management employee often cannot be achieved due to thumb control from upper management and contractual nuances governing union protected employees. 2. The "good old boy system" trumps any and all ratings methods allegedly implemented. Rewards go to the favored few despite actual performance. This is a morale buster for those managers outside the in-group. 3. "Deadwood" remains despite low performance ratings prompting the "why bother" attitude among the masses. In my opinion, PFP will never be effective in a union controlled agency. There must be total workforce buy in and goals set that don't depend on someone else's authority to achieve.
Pay for Performance
United States Postal Service
Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:59 PM
While this sounds like a good system, it doesn't work, because the powers that be make it impossible to make your goals. Not only are we given ridiculously unachievable goals at the beginning of the year, but the goals (i.e,. for total workhours, total expenses, etc.), are reduced every single momth, making them even more impossible to meet. A normal Postmaster in a small town (EAS-20) has absolutely NO WAY to reach the goals given.
NSPS GO AWAY, PLEASE GO AWAY
Navy
Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:00 PM
I worked for a supervisor for a little over 2-years until I got another. He never gave me a good rating or applauded me for anything I did but kept the candy dish full. As soon as he hired another assistant, he puts her in for Civilian of the Quarter. I was covering a position that was once covered by 2-secretaries in which one was a GS-08. That was the position I was placed in at a 6. The other secretary retired and there I was wearing both hats. Now if I was working under the same supervisor as a NSPS employee, I would NOT get a high performance rating no matter what or how much I did. I'm just not the right color! Go figure! Is this how NSPS is suppose to work? So you see, NSPS will never work for everyone...it depends upon who happen to be your supervisor.