Don Vito Corleone Genco Pura Olive Oil Importers Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:56 AM
The best way to kill a stupid idea is not to fight it, but to insist that it is so good, we should include a more powerfull group that will lobby to kill the baby in the crib. Let's face it, you want to see some action out of an officer, threaten his benifits.
The military would kringe under a PFP system. The military has the same system as GS Civil servants with an other name. Rank is the same as grade and years of service is the same as step. We could have 3 bands for officers and enlisted and we could make them all you mybiz.
Think of it this way, if offcers had 3 bands-Jr. Officers, Field Grade, and General and some was promoted from Major to Lt. Col within band. The could only get a 5% increase and they will not get their full COLA and Step increase. The baby will be dead.
Re: Want to Kill PFP--Include the Military
Hoffa C.O. Dept of Justice Witness Protection Program Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:56 PM
I love your proposition!! I could see the body counts going sky high like in Vietnam. Inflated of course and no where close to reality, of killed enemy troops!! The military is authoritarian and very political. They will need a real grievance system to handle the wave of complaints/grievances. The officer corp and senior NCOs are apt to see a lot of grievances. That would be fun to watch, as their culture gets a taste of the best in private sector practices, so we are told.
Re: Want to Kill PFP--Include the Military
Aerospace Engineer DoD Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:42 PM
I agree. Since pay-for-performance is so great, mandate that it should be enacted for the military immediately, then watch the brass at the Pentagon pull every string to totally kill it faster than you can say Jack Robinson.
Pay to Perform - the latest fool's gold
Field Director USDVA Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:42 AM
Of course it's fool-hardy. but politicians LOVE the fool-hardy, as it makes convincing propaganda for the masses. It's just like saying we can close the deficit "simply" by eliminating all 'waste" in government programs. As if there was a line item for it.
Or the fools who follow the EEO has resulted in anything but unspoken (and often spoken) job and promotion quotas, not giving equal opportunity to all.
Or the fools who follow the various "flavors of the month" to cure all the government's ills - TQM, Zero-based budgeting, The Grace Commission, blah blah blah.
the reality is that if you really want to overhaul the government -- really make it "perform for pay", you would have to start with Congress and its ridiculous, contradictory, self-serving legislation and earmarks. Then move on to the Civil Service Rules which provide vast disincentive for any manager to take action against anyone who is below marginal.
PFP
Computer specialist FAA Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:02 AM
If you look at FAA employee survey results from the years prior to enactment of the PFP system the numbers speak louder than words we now as an agency are near the bottom of the list and it’s not the work as federal agency’s go what we do is vital for the health and welfare of the country and I think we do it in spite of the PFP system think about working knowing that you are at the top of your pay scale and no matter how well you do job wise your pay wont go up nor will the bottom line of your retirement pay at least when you retire you will at least get the COLA if there is one
Above article
HR Specialist OPM Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:03 AM
As one who served as a charter member of the "GM" merit pay system established by the CSRA of 1978, I can attest to the sturm und drang that accompanied that well-meaning but ultimately frustrating and disappointing attempt to implement a PFP approach for GM-13/15 managers and "management officials" under its coverage. The PFP approach seems to founder primarily on one major factor (though others, including widespread reluctance to deal with clearly demonstrated poor performance, exist as well), which is the intractability of seeking to reduce to a supposedly objective and quantifiable basis performance expectations of work characteristics that are inherently resistant to such Procrustean bed parameters. What may be feasible with regard to lower graded jobs where the work is primarily comprised of performance of repetitive tasks not involving the application of judgment or analyis, is most definitely not the case with most Federal white collar jobs. Thus the frustration with PFP.
Re: Above article
worker Fed Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:02 AM
I do lower graded work. I guarantee you that the nuts and bolts of my job are not repetitive without judgement. I must know law and be able to use it competently. It is also lower than a management job. Your facts are very wrong.
Dead Issue?
Labor Employee Relations Manager VA Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:04 AM
NSPS specifically, according to the original law is due to expire this year unless Congress approves it again..........
Re: Dead Issue?
LR Manager DoD Component Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:30 PM
VA LR Manager...before you comment on something outside your agency...do your homework. You are referring to a sunset date that applied ONLY to the NSPS labor relations rules...which not only were never implemented, but Congress removed the authority in January 2008. The pay for performance system has NEVER had such a sunset date although many people such as yourself have been confused about that point.
Pay For Performace
Contracting Officer DCMA Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:06 AM
Enjoyed your article. PFP is a harsh reality being ignored by executive mgmt and the crafty politicians.
A good idea not effectively implemented fails. With PFP you have an idea that sounded good but its implementation was poor and not practical for the Gov't.
I was a GM and saw it collapse on its own weight. Not only was it an HR flop but was finanacially draining and those at the top seemed to benefit the most whether warranted or not.
Under PFP, I see people doing the same old things and going through the motions with little, if any, additional benefits. Oh yes, there are metrics and performance standards but are they the right ones that can truly be measruable that correlate to the job at-hand. It appears to be window dressing to me.
DCMA embraced Deming, TQM guru, but not on a wholesale basis. He advocated doing away with performance evaluations as he contended they did more harm than good.
Gov't is not industry. When will this be recognized?!
Pay for Performance
Accounting Tech National Finance Center-COD Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:47 AM
iWho makes the final judgements on this pay for performance thing? I will tell you who....your supervisor or/& Branch Chiefs. And contrary to popular beliefs in the section or branch they are human and will react from a human standpoint such as likes and dislikes, their own prejudices, their feelings from interacting with said employee or just how that employee looks. For example: Suzy is a pretty, outgoing woman that tries to always please (some might say 'brown nose" management). Then let's look at Helen who is not pretty even too heavy some might say. She is a loner and doesn't really interact with others in her branch. She may have initiated a EEO complaint against her supervisor or branch chief. Now what makes you think that a supervisor or branch chief could look at both these women in the same light and judge their work fairly? Just look at the amount of EEO complaints out there if you doubt me.
Re: Pay for Performance
worker Fed Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:05 AM
Excellent points and very true. Also, if you just disagree with your manager on an issue, he may take offense. I know this is true with the manager's manager because I have experienced it. Even when they are wrong.
Here's an Idea
HR (labor) USAF Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:48 AM
Establish a job; set the salary or hourly wage; adjust as needed for inflation and say to the applicant or incumbent, "This is what the job pays; here is what is required in the job; you perform these duties and you get a pay check; you don't and you get fired. If you want a larger paycheck, find, apply for and accept another job with a higher set salary."
That should be the definition of PFP in the government.
If you are so valuable and want your income to depend on the vagaries of your performance, then get your dead a_ _ out in the private sector!
Re: Here's an Idea
engineer USACE Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:32 AM
totally agree with comment, very will stated
Re: Here's an Idea
Unhigh on the Food Chain VA Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:25 AM
Unless, of course (see earlier comment), you are instructed to perform duties of the "brown-noser," or they keep changing your duties to suit their buddies and refuse to actually put your duties in writing.
Re: Here's an Idea
worker Fed Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:10 AM
Your specs will encourage people to perform at the fully successful level and no higher. Not a good idea.
Re: Here's an Idea
HR (labor) USAF Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:41 AM
To FED Worker,
Give the country a workforce performing fully successfully at the jobs and duties required for a set salary... not a bad idea as far as I can see.
The current view of the workplace that everyone should be special and can work above "fully successful" is the result of a coddling culture and concern if Little Jimmy is being encouraged enough.
What is lost on today's workforce is the idea that only your best is, in fact, good enough to be "fully successful" at your job. If you are able to do more or better, you find a better paying and more demanding job. You don't complain that my current job doesn't pay me what I'm worth.
Like I mentioned, if your that great hit the private sector which is just waiting to reward you with what you really deserve.
No stomach for this
Electronics Engineer Dept. of Defense Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:11 AM
I quit reading this piece after the gush-athon by this author. His pro-gay gushing over the author's aberrant lifestyle totally disgusted me. Not gonna read another single word . . .
And I bet your at the top of the NSPS ladder with your bigotted statements and lack of tolerance! Another example of why the system is broke!
Re: No stomach for this
worker Fed Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:14 AM
What does his sexual preferences have to do with anything? Why is it negative?
Gays want to be treated as regular people, not as negative or positive for their preferences. What is wrong with that?
I am not gay, so I do not gain by these comments.
Re: No stomach for this
Analyst DOD Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:55 AM
We shouldn't be surprised that a DOD reader was offended by gay-positive comments. The DOD is one of the most discriminatory friendly - gay-bashing places to work under...I hope he is already or nearing retirement..gays serving openly in the military is the future...has been for decades in Europe. The reason that gays are even referenced is the OPM Director is openly gay - a first as far as the highest level held to date...secondly, it remains legal to discriminate against gays, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered (GLBT) employees in the federal workplace. Every other conceiveable group is already protected - primarily by Title VII - regardless of one's religious or moral beliefs, legal discrimination against anyone in employment, housing, or lending is an abomination. GLBT employees should be protected and will obtain the protection in the federal workplace in the near future. Diversity cannot be stopped and makes the government more efficient.
Run like a business?
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DON Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:23 AM
Let's see....big business is getting tax funds and not really being held accountable.
Let's see...Majorly large bonuses for "performance" but who can really document what the bonus recipients did? (besides tank the economy.)
Let's see...Make a "business" model for something that is naturally "overhead". I see some strange attempts to prove "income" streams for what amounts to work needed to keep the whole shebang running.
Make good definitions of the job. Have pay increases become a true cola, give nice goodies to the top 10%, fire the bottom 10%, and treat the rest like the good, solid performers they are...and let them continue to earn enough to feed their families.
I agree with the guys that want to start "PFP" in congress THEN work it downstream.
PFP Isn't the Problem
HR Practitioner DoD Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:59 AM
I greatly respect Robbie and agree with his basic premise that we in the Government need to "look before we leap" into the PFP pool but I submit the problem isn't PFP. BTW, I agree that PFP arguably doesn't make a lot of sense outside of profit-making concerns because, as Robbie notes, most of the work public servants do is not easily quantifiable. Given that, assessments that drive pay decisions in the public sector necessarily take on a rather subjective hue. For that reason, I would encourage an entirely new paradigm for Federal performance appraisal - do individual performance assessment on an exception basis only. The focus should be on organizational performance targets not individual performance standards. If the organization succeeds, the assumption is that I've contributed to that success and my pay is set accordingly UNLESS I've been singled out for being a superior contributor or one that has failed to contribute. With the former, you get more, the latter, nada.
Re: PFP Isn't the Problem
Tomato, Pepper and Potato Grower Oaklandon Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:08 AM
Agree about org goals and rewards. That's fine for direct labor/line work. What about support staff? Support staff also contribute to overall org performance. How would you define org? Smallest org entity under one supe or larger?
Re: PFP Isn't the Problem
HR Practitioner DoD Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:10 AM
Tomato grower: The organization would have to be defined and it could be as large or as small as the leaders want it to be. In my case, it would be the HR organization. We have performance goals that align with the strategic goals and performance targets of the larger organization. I could be included in either organization for appraisal purposes. My proposal covers everyone, at every level, except the SES, who have their own system.
NSPS IS A JOKE= AN EXPENSIVE ONE
Retired Financial Analyst/Budget Analyst USAF Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:53 AM
After reviewing the results of NSPS at HAFB in Utah, this PFP needs to be shut down. The soaring costs in executive pay with poorer performance and financial results is evidence in itself. The retired military now running the system knows how to play the system to maximize their pay without any link to performance, or how to fill the squares to appear great without doing great. Talk about a buddy-buddy system, NSPS is the worst. By constantly changing or reassigning each other to new positions, switching jobs, they are able to key additional pay without additional responsibilities or proof of performance. The same as the GM scheme, the GS-15s get the most, the 14's less and the 13's and 12's whatever is left over. Some executives have keyed the system to increase their pay over 20% in one year!
A total lack of fidiciary responsibility is evident in every aspect of the NSPS. Another failure in DoD!
Re: NSPS IS A JOKE= AN EXPENSIVE ONE
Aerospace Engineer DoD Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:38 PM
There are two things that really torque me off about NSPS:
1) Supervision has a vested interest in keeping ratings low. Doing so ensures that shares are worth more money. Since supervision gives themselves most of the high ratings, the guys on the former-GS-12 level are left fighting for scraps.
2) The very few 4s that are given to the working level guys mostly go to the software and electrical engineers since they're the hardest to retain. Yes, NSPS ratings are used to discriminate. HAFB already has a real problem with religious discrimination, now we get job-series discrimination on top of it.
NSPS
ISS DoD Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:33 PM
I've read in a number of articles that if and when they do away with NSPS they will convert those of us under NSPS back to GS.
My question is this: what level do they put us back in the system? Some of us have gotten pay increases and reassignments to other commands with the 5% increase and if we are near or above the top step of the grade level will we be forced to get "save pay" until the step 10 catches up with us--effectively freezing our pay and eliminating any cost of living increase?
Or will we come back in at a grade and step that is close to our salary? Will we be stuck at the top step of the grade (example GS-12) that we were when we first were converted into the system?
Doing away with NSPS can possibly be painful for some of us who now exceed the top step of their initial grade. It will depend on how they do away with it, and splinter the three bands they created back into the GS system.
I'm holding my breath for the next shoe to drop...
Pay-for-Performance in Government
grunt cant say Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:22 PM
I bet teh Unions are just boiling, becasue thsi isn't what BO led them to believe.
Someone in DC who has lots of power, has pushed this and isn't going to let it go quitly into the light, becasue they know best and they are not going to listen to anyone.
Re: Pay-for-Performance in Government
Fed Peasant DOD Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:04 PM
Yee jest mite be right!! Somethins perculatin in high places. I call it the OBAMA RAMA.
PFP
Supreme Mongo Bureau of Mongo Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:15 PM
In the immortal words of my hero Scrooge; "Bah! Humbug!" That's what NSPS and all such pay systems are...a load of smoke and mirrors to fool the public and shaft the civil service employees. I also agree with the idea of PFP for congress. Earmark for a bridge to nowhere? 10% reduction in pay! Funds or grants for idiotic programs that will impoverish our grandkids? Recall election and give someone else a chance to do it right. As for OPM, they'll never get it right because congress won't let them.
Pay for Performance
Human Resources Specialist (Classification/Compensation) Department of the Navy Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:26 AM
Mr. Kunreuther's comments took me down memory lane wrt the Merit Pay System and other past attempts at pay for performance. Measuring employees contributions against their compensation is a mixed bag. While there are occupations where "dangling a carrot" can result in improved performance, there are also occupations where contributions aren't as measurable and a standard compensation approach more appropriate, e.g. repetitive functions like ordering parts. I have operated under 4 different performance systems during my career, ranging from five performance levels to two, pass/fail the absolute worst. While NSPS isn't perfect, the concept of "paying an employee to perform" vice "time on the clock" has merit. As Mr. Kunreuther mentioned having an objective, measurable performance management system in place is the key. In my career I have supervised stellar performers with 3-5 years of service, also those with one year of experience 20 times. Give me the ability to pay performers anyday!
Any system depends on the management. Each year I would ask my supervisor how I could exceed one particular standard. She would tell me (because she had to) and I would go about accomplishing everything she said.........AND SHE STILL NEVER GAVE ME AN EXCEEDED FOR THAT STANDARD. Once again if she gave her underlings larger bonuses, she probably didn't get as large a bonus herself. I always hated working for women. (I'm a woman).
How to make PFP work
Computer Expert DoD Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:10 PM
The people that want PFP are 1. Those that see lazy, angry managers promoted way beyond their potential that need to be removed from management - not retrained, and 2. Those that see lazy employees that run to the union every time they are asked to work.
The solution: Let the hard line managers evaluate the union workers, and let the unions workers evaluate the hard line managers and make both their decisions about who to keep and who to fire final and binding. The irritating people will be gone and the best and brightest will remain.
Pay for Performance
Retired USDOL - MSHA Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:23 PM
I've been retired 3 years now. I can't see that this will work any better than the bonus system for performance. My agency told the supervisor how many outstanding (rarely any), and above average ratings they were allowed to give. It didn't matter how many employees' deserved high ratings, the manager had to choose one or two. Some times it was said the we should take turns getting the high ratings!?!?!? This wasn't a fair system and I can't see a new system being any more fair!!!!!
NSPS
Research Scientist DoD Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:26 PM
While the official goals of increasing efficiency and improving the workforce may be laudable, this is not how NSPS is being viewed by my management. We have been told to expect all performance assessments within our organization to be "normalized." Our direct supervisors have been told they are not allowed to give a "5" rating, and they discouraged from giving a 4. Our semi-official goal is for everyone to get a 3. Whether this is to make life easy for the upper management, (no problem of gender or race discrimination, and no messy appeals if everyone gets a 3) or to slow wage growth is debatable. It has crushed morale and is hurting productivity--especially among the high performers, regardless of race or gender.
NSPS is a Ponsi
Scientist DOD Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:54 AM
Well, maybe not purely. What runs through my mind is "what if PfP actually worked"? Then best performers would get raises and poor performers would get unhappy. So the poor performers would leave and the next poor performers would see their pay start to erode. So they would leave. Eventually you would get an entire government of great performers and start rewarding the greatest of the great and punishing the average great. And so on. I cannot help but be amused by that picture, no matter how idealistic and non-realistic it is. As long as the pay increase is limited, this must inevitably happen. I have concluded that, for PfP to work, the pay increase money pool either must be unlimited or rise in a way that is tied to the performance history of the pay pool members. Otherwise, best performers eventually get distributed around a mean.
pay for performance
SSS USDA Mon Jul 6, 2009 10:29 AM
As long as there are supervisors who play favorites, and honor "brown nosers", pay for performance will not work. In our office there are several people who received new P.D.s with promotions attached whether they are truly qualified or not. The Government needs to fix the problem of poor supervisors, then tackle the problem of rewarding outstanding workers.
DoD needs to stop the Slow Roll
Program Analyst DoD Mon Jul 6, 2009 10:51 AM
Now that Congress and the Senate have both come on line and suggested that DoD get rid of NSPS, the military needs to be respectful of congress. DoD needs to stop with the excuses and DoD should be tasked to develop a timeline to migrate all workers back to the fair, honest, and open GS System. That time line should sequence so that this perfomance period is the end of NSPS. Government employees should not have to labor under an unfair system, pay should be calculated for each person as though they never left the GS System. Pay should be retroactive. OPM and OMB need to lean forward and get this migration over with by end of 2009.
Pay For Performance
Human Resource Specialist USDA Tue Jul 7, 2009 8:54 PM
Why is PFP on the fast track a USDA-FSIS but be put on the side at other Agencies.
Pay for Performance - Plutocracy
Forester US Forest Service Wed Sep 9, 2009 12:55 PM
In my view, Pay for Performance, increases the degree of Plutocracy in the United States (private and public sector).
My Webster’s dictionary states: Plutocracy - “Government by the wealthy; a controlling class of rich men”.
I understand the2009 compensation gap between the very wealthy and the working class equates to the 1928 gap.
GS is fair...really??
Informed DoD Wed Sep 9, 2009 10:53 PM
There is a very false assumption by Robbie, the unions, and many that commented on this article...that the GS system is fair and unbaised. Guess what...the same supervisors and managers that determine your ratings, shares, and payout in NSPS are the same people that determine your bonus (if your org gives them) and whether or not you'll get promoted under the GS. And by the way...these same supervisors provide your performance ratings under GS.
Seems to me the problem isn't the system, it's the supervisors...or at least that's what John Gage wants you to believe...
Now you tell me...is killing a system like NSPS the answer or just a way to sweep the problems under the carpet?
Want to Kill PFP--Include the Military
Genco Pura Olive Oil Importers
Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:56 AM
The best way to kill a stupid idea is not to fight it, but to insist that it is so good, we should include a more powerfull group that will lobby to kill the baby in the crib. Let's face it, you want to see some action out of an officer, threaten his benifits.
The military would kringe under a PFP system. The military has the same system as GS Civil servants with an other name. Rank is the same as grade and years of service is the same as step. We could have 3 bands for officers and enlisted and we could make them all you mybiz.
Think of it this way, if offcers had 3 bands-Jr. Officers, Field Grade, and General and some was promoted from Major to Lt. Col within band. The could only get a 5% increase and they will not get their full COLA and Step increase. The baby will be dead.
Re: Want to Kill PFP--Include the Military
C.O. Dept of Justice Witness Protection Program
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:56 PM
Re: Want to Kill PFP--Include the Military
DoD
Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:42 PM
Pay to Perform - the latest fool's gold
USDVA
Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:42 AM
Of course it's fool-hardy. but politicians LOVE the fool-hardy, as it makes convincing propaganda for the masses. It's just like saying we can close the deficit "simply" by eliminating all 'waste" in government programs. As if there was a line item for it.
Or the fools who follow the EEO has resulted in anything but unspoken (and often spoken) job and promotion quotas, not giving equal opportunity to all.
Or the fools who follow the various "flavors of the month" to cure all the government's ills - TQM, Zero-based budgeting, The Grace Commission, blah blah blah.
the reality is that if you really want to overhaul the government -- really make it "perform for pay", you would have to start with Congress and its ridiculous, contradictory, self-serving legislation and earmarks. Then move on to the Civil Service Rules which provide vast disincentive for any manager to take action against anyone who is below marginal.
PFP
FAA
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:02 AM
If you look at FAA employee survey results from the years prior to enactment of the PFP system the numbers speak louder than words we now as an agency are near the bottom of the list and it’s not the work as federal agency’s go what we do is vital for the health and welfare of the country and I think we do it in spite of the PFP system think about working knowing that you are at the top of your pay scale and no matter how well you do job wise your pay wont go up nor will the bottom line of your retirement pay at least when you retire you will at least get the COLA if there is one
Above article
OPM
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:03 AM
As one who served as a charter member of the "GM" merit pay system established by the CSRA of 1978, I can attest to the sturm und drang that accompanied that well-meaning but ultimately frustrating and disappointing attempt to implement a PFP approach for GM-13/15 managers and "management officials" under its coverage. The PFP approach seems to founder primarily on one major factor (though others, including widespread reluctance to deal with clearly demonstrated poor performance, exist as well), which is the intractability of seeking to reduce to a supposedly objective and quantifiable basis performance expectations of work characteristics that are inherently resistant to such Procrustean bed parameters. What may be feasible with regard to lower graded jobs where the work is primarily comprised of performance of repetitive tasks not involving the application of judgment or analyis, is most definitely not the case with most Federal white collar jobs. Thus the frustration with PFP.
Re: Above article
Fed
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:02 AM
Dead Issue?
VA
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:04 AM
NSPS specifically, according to the original law is due to expire this year unless Congress approves it again..........
Re: Dead Issue?
DoD Component
Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:30 PM
Pay For Performace
DCMA
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:06 AM
Enjoyed your article. PFP is a harsh reality being ignored by executive mgmt and the crafty politicians.
A good idea not effectively implemented fails. With PFP you have an idea that sounded good but its implementation was poor and not practical for the Gov't.
I was a GM and saw it collapse on its own weight. Not only was it an HR flop but was finanacially draining and those at the top seemed to benefit the most whether warranted or not.
Under PFP, I see people doing the same old things and going through the motions with little, if any, additional benefits. Oh yes, there are metrics and performance standards but are they the right ones that can truly be measruable that correlate to the job at-hand. It appears to be window dressing to me.
DCMA embraced Deming, TQM guru, but not on a wholesale basis. He advocated doing away with performance evaluations as he contended they did more harm than good.
Gov't is not industry. When will this be recognized?!
Pay for Performance
National Finance Center-COD
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:47 AM
iWho makes the final judgements on this pay for performance thing? I will tell you who....your supervisor or/& Branch Chiefs. And contrary to popular beliefs in the section or branch they are human and will react from a human standpoint such as likes and dislikes, their own prejudices, their feelings from interacting with said employee or just how that employee looks. For example: Suzy is a pretty, outgoing woman that tries to always please (some might say 'brown nose" management). Then let's look at Helen who is not pretty even too heavy some might say. She is a loner and doesn't really interact with others in her branch. She may have initiated a EEO complaint against her supervisor or branch chief. Now what makes you think that a supervisor or branch chief could look at both these women in the same light and judge their work fairly? Just look at the amount of EEO complaints out there if you doubt me.
Re: Pay for Performance
Fed
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:05 AM
Here's an Idea
USAF
Mon Jun 29, 2009 9:48 AM
Establish a job; set the salary or hourly wage; adjust as needed for inflation and say to the applicant or incumbent, "This is what the job pays; here is what is required in the job; you perform these duties and you get a pay check; you don't and you get fired. If you want a larger paycheck, find, apply for and accept another job with a higher set salary."
That should be the definition of PFP in the government.
If you are so valuable and want your income to depend on the vagaries of your performance, then get your dead a_ _ out in the private sector!
Re: Here's an Idea
USACE
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:32 AM
Re: Here's an Idea
VA
Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:25 AM
Re: Here's an Idea
Fed
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:10 AM
Re: Here's an Idea
USAF
Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:41 AM
Give the country a workforce performing fully successfully at the jobs and duties required for a set salary... not a bad idea as far as I can see.
The current view of the workplace that everyone should be special and can work above "fully successful" is the result of a coddling culture and concern if Little Jimmy is being encouraged enough.
What is lost on today's workforce is the idea that only your best is, in fact, good enough to be "fully successful" at your job. If you are able to do more or better, you find a better paying and more demanding job. You don't complain that my current job doesn't pay me what I'm worth.
Like I mentioned, if your that great hit the private sector which is just waiting to reward you with what you really deserve.
No stomach for this
Dept. of Defense
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:11 AM
I quit reading this piece after the gush-athon by this author. His pro-gay gushing over the author's aberrant lifestyle totally disgusted me. Not gonna read another single word . . .
Re: No stomach for this
USAF
Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:02 PM
Re: No stomach for this
Fed
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:14 AM
Gays want to be treated as regular people, not as negative or positive for their preferences. What is wrong with that?
I am not gay, so I do not gain by these comments.
Re: No stomach for this
DOD
Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:55 AM
Run like a business?
DON
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:23 AM
Let's see....big business is getting tax funds and not really being held accountable.
Let's see...Majorly large bonuses for "performance" but who can really document what the bonus recipients did? (besides tank the economy.)
Let's see...Make a "business" model for something that is naturally "overhead". I see some strange attempts to prove "income" streams for what amounts to work needed to keep the whole shebang running.
Make good definitions of the job. Have pay increases become a true cola, give nice goodies to the top 10%, fire the bottom 10%, and treat the rest like the good, solid performers they are...and let them continue to earn enough to feed their families.
I agree with the guys that want to start "PFP" in congress THEN work it downstream.
PFP Isn't the Problem
DoD
Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:59 AM
I greatly respect Robbie and agree with his basic premise that we in the Government need to "look before we leap" into the PFP pool but I submit the problem isn't PFP. BTW, I agree that PFP arguably doesn't make a lot of sense outside of profit-making concerns because, as Robbie notes, most of the work public servants do is not easily quantifiable. Given that, assessments that drive pay decisions in the public sector necessarily take on a rather subjective hue. For that reason, I would encourage an entirely new paradigm for Federal performance appraisal - do individual performance assessment on an exception basis only. The focus should be on organizational performance targets not individual performance standards. If the organization succeeds, the assumption is that I've contributed to that success and my pay is set accordingly UNLESS I've been singled out for being a superior contributor or one that has failed to contribute. With the former, you get more, the latter, nada.
Re: PFP Isn't the Problem
Oaklandon
Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:08 AM
Re: PFP Isn't the Problem
DoD
Wed Jul 1, 2009 10:10 AM
NSPS IS A JOKE= AN EXPENSIVE ONE
USAF
Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:53 AM
After reviewing the results of NSPS at HAFB in Utah, this PFP needs to be shut down. The soaring costs in executive pay with poorer performance and financial results is evidence in itself. The retired military now running the system knows how to play the system to maximize their pay without any link to performance, or how to fill the squares to appear great without doing great. Talk about a buddy-buddy system, NSPS is the worst. By constantly changing or reassigning each other to new positions, switching jobs, they are able to key additional pay without additional responsibilities or proof of performance. The same as the GM scheme, the GS-15s get the most, the 14's less and the 13's and 12's whatever is left over. Some executives have keyed the system to increase their pay over 20% in one year!
A total lack of fidiciary responsibility is evident in every aspect of the NSPS. Another failure in DoD!
Re: NSPS IS A JOKE= AN EXPENSIVE ONE
DoD
Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:38 PM
1) Supervision has a vested interest in keeping ratings low. Doing so ensures that shares are worth more money. Since supervision gives themselves most of the high ratings, the guys on the former-GS-12 level are left fighting for scraps.
2) The very few 4s that are given to the working level guys mostly go to the software and electrical engineers since they're the hardest to retain. Yes, NSPS ratings are used to discriminate. HAFB already has a real problem with religious discrimination, now we get job-series discrimination on top of it.
NSPS
DoD
Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:33 PM
I've read in a number of articles that if and when they do away with NSPS they will convert those of us under NSPS back to GS.
My question is this: what level do they put us back in the system? Some of us have gotten pay increases and reassignments to other commands with the 5% increase and if we are near or above the top step of the grade level will we be forced to get "save pay" until the step 10 catches up with us--effectively freezing our pay and eliminating any cost of living increase?
Or will we come back in at a grade and step that is close to our salary? Will we be stuck at the top step of the grade (example GS-12) that we were when we first were converted into the system?
Doing away with NSPS can possibly be painful for some of us who now exceed the top step of their initial grade. It will depend on how they do away with it, and splinter the three bands they created back into the GS system.
I'm holding my breath for the next shoe to drop...
Pay-for-Performance in Government
cant say
Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:22 PM
I bet teh Unions are just boiling, becasue thsi isn't what BO led them to believe.
Someone in DC who has lots of power, has pushed this and isn't going to let it go quitly into the light, becasue they know best and they are not going to listen to anyone.
Re: Pay-for-Performance in Government
DOD
Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:04 PM
PFP
Bureau of Mongo
Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:15 PM
In the immortal words of my hero Scrooge; "Bah! Humbug!" That's what NSPS and all such pay systems are...a load of smoke and mirrors to fool the public and shaft the civil service employees. I also agree with the idea of PFP for congress. Earmark for a bridge to nowhere? 10% reduction in pay! Funds or grants for idiotic programs that will impoverish our grandkids? Recall election and give someone else a chance to do it right. As for OPM, they'll never get it right because congress won't let them.
Pay for Performance
Department of the Navy
Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:26 AM
Mr. Kunreuther's comments took me down memory lane wrt the Merit Pay System and other past attempts at pay for performance. Measuring employees contributions against their compensation is a mixed bag. While there are occupations where "dangling a carrot" can result in improved performance, there are also occupations where contributions aren't as measurable and a standard compensation approach more appropriate, e.g. repetitive functions like ordering parts. I have operated under 4 different performance systems during my career, ranging from five performance levels to two, pass/fail the absolute worst. While NSPS isn't perfect, the concept of "paying an employee to perform" vice "time on the clock" has merit. As Mr. Kunreuther mentioned having an objective, measurable performance management system in place is the key. In my career I have supervised stellar performers with 3-5 years of service, also those with one year of experience 20 times. Give me the ability to pay performers anyday!
Re: Pay for Performance
USDOL - MSHA
Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:13 PM
How to make PFP work
DoD
Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:10 PM
The people that want PFP are 1. Those that see lazy, angry managers promoted way beyond their potential that need to be removed from management - not retrained, and 2. Those that see lazy employees that run to the union every time they are asked to work.
The solution: Let the hard line managers evaluate the union workers, and let the unions workers evaluate the hard line managers and make both their decisions about who to keep and who to fire final and binding. The irritating people will be gone and the best and brightest will remain.
Pay for Performance
USDOL - MSHA
Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:23 PM
I've been retired 3 years now. I can't see that this will work any better than the bonus system for performance. My agency told the supervisor how many outstanding (rarely any), and above average ratings they were allowed to give. It didn't matter how many employees' deserved high ratings, the manager had to choose one or two. Some times it was said the we should take turns getting the high ratings!?!?!? This wasn't a fair system and I can't see a new system being any more fair!!!!!
NSPS
DoD
Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:26 PM
While the official goals of increasing efficiency and improving the workforce may be laudable, this is not how NSPS is being viewed by my management. We have been told to expect all performance assessments within our organization to be "normalized." Our direct supervisors have been told they are not allowed to give a "5" rating, and they discouraged from giving a 4. Our semi-official goal is for everyone to get a 3. Whether this is to make life easy for the upper management, (no problem of gender or race discrimination, and no messy appeals if everyone gets a 3) or to slow wage growth is debatable. It has crushed morale and is hurting productivity--especially among the high performers, regardless of race or gender.
NSPS is a Ponsi
DOD
Wed Jul 1, 2009 3:54 AM
Well, maybe not purely. What runs through my mind is "what if PfP actually worked"? Then best performers would get raises and poor performers would get unhappy. So the poor performers would leave and the next poor performers would see their pay start to erode. So they would leave. Eventually you would get an entire government of great performers and start rewarding the greatest of the great and punishing the average great. And so on. I cannot help but be amused by that picture, no matter how idealistic and non-realistic it is. As long as the pay increase is limited, this must inevitably happen. I have concluded that, for PfP to work, the pay increase money pool either must be unlimited or rise in a way that is tied to the performance history of the pay pool members. Otherwise, best performers eventually get distributed around a mean.
pay for performance
USDA
Mon Jul 6, 2009 10:29 AM
As long as there are supervisors who play favorites, and honor "brown nosers", pay for performance will not work. In our office there are several people who received new P.D.s with promotions attached whether they are truly qualified or not. The Government needs to fix the problem of poor supervisors, then tackle the problem of rewarding outstanding workers.
DoD needs to stop the Slow Roll
DoD
Mon Jul 6, 2009 10:51 AM
Now that Congress and the Senate have both come on line and suggested that DoD get rid of NSPS, the military needs to be respectful of congress. DoD needs to stop with the excuses and DoD should be tasked to develop a timeline to migrate all workers back to the fair, honest, and open GS System. That time line should sequence so that this perfomance period is the end of NSPS. Government employees should not have to labor under an unfair system, pay should be calculated for each person as though they never left the GS System. Pay should be retroactive. OPM and OMB need to lean forward and get this migration over with by end of 2009.
Pay For Performance
USDA
Tue Jul 7, 2009 8:54 PM
Why is PFP on the fast track a USDA-FSIS but be put on the side at other Agencies.
Pay for Performance - Plutocracy
US Forest Service
Wed Sep 9, 2009 12:55 PM
In my view, Pay for Performance, increases the degree of Plutocracy in the United States (private and public sector).
My Webster’s dictionary states: Plutocracy - “Government by the wealthy; a controlling class of rich men”.
I understand the2009 compensation gap between the very wealthy and the working class equates to the 1928 gap.
GS is fair...really??
DoD
Wed Sep 9, 2009 10:53 PM
There is a very false assumption by Robbie, the unions, and many that commented on this article...that the GS system is fair and unbaised. Guess what...the same supervisors and managers that determine your ratings, shares, and payout in NSPS are the same people that determine your bonus (if your org gives them) and whether or not you'll get promoted under the GS. And by the way...these same supervisors provide your performance ratings under GS.
Seems to me the problem isn't the system, it's the supervisors...or at least that's what John Gage wants you to believe...
Now you tell me...is killing a system like NSPS the answer or just a way to sweep the problems under the carpet?