Controversy continue around pay-for-performance in government despite apprehensions by many employees and supervisors. Successful performance appraisals require a system that works well. The author has a “modest proposal” to help supervisors and managers be more objective in rating employees.
As NSPS is challenged in court, DoD is moving out by scrupulously avoiding unionized employees. This gives thousands of DoD professionals a way out–they can form a bargaining unit.
Serious efforts aimed at improving the competence of supervisors will do more for government than a dozen pay-for-performance systems. Administrative costs of deciding who should get what raises is greater than the total pool of money being divided.
The author considers the potential for using mediation to resolve conduct problems where a collaborative approach may prove more successful than a punitive one.
The disciplinary system for federal employees is cumbersome and time-consuming. Here are suggestions for fixing the system.
Do we need a marginal rating for federal employees? In a practical sense, marginal ratings result in nothing but work for the supervisor.
As the Bush administration’s initiatives to establish “pay-for-performance” move toward implementation, questions and doubts prevail. (Part 3 of 3 in a series of articles on pay for performance).
If the federal government is to achieve even modest success in implementing new DHS and DoD regulations that tie salaries to individual achievement, some formidable barriers must be scaled.
DoD and DHS are the vanguard agencies for widespread introduction of pay for performance. As implementation nears, doubts and concerns within government are reaching tsunami levels…