Business Is Good
I just got out of a meeting with some really nice folks from WorldatWork, which, among other things, provides intensive training to federal agencies who are implementing pay for performance systems. They told me their federal-sector business has DOUBLED in the past year. That's certainly an indicator of where thinking is concentrated on this subject in agencies.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Re: "...where thinking is concentrated on this subject in agencies." Hmmm ..."thinking in the agencies." O.k. fair enough. But, if we are to handicap the likely ACTIONS toward any increase in the use of "pay for performance" a la Defense Dept system, or any other system - you choose the form, format or system -- then don't we have to try and match THINKING with ACTIONS and then the LIKELIHOOD of ACTIONS? Please blog me into the floor if you like, but I see absolutely NO likelihood of a significant (my weasel word) increase in ACTIONS to implement more or enhanced pay for performance systems in the federal service during President Obama's first term. The Hill has recently "requested" that DOD suspend their current pay for performance systems (GovOnLine has been COVERING THIS STORY/ISSUE) -- and recall, Dod has only implemented for non-union personnel. The AFGE President and others have sponsored legislation to kill off the Dod system. Federal unions are uniformly opposed to pay for performance systems -- at least all present ones -- and the present Administration is greatly sympathetic ideologically and politically to unions -- federal unions specifically. Finally, "WorldatWork" -- o.k. fine peoples - but please Ms. R in future posts, provide a line on their bona fides for your non-smarty pants readers (i.e. not the smarty pants readers like me) who don't know that WaW is a combo group -- a professional and certifying organization for compensation analysis, and a thriving clearing house for consultant/contractor work. Might such an org have a BIAS toward rosy facts concerning their product? Might a reporter-blogger be a tad more skeptical in her posts? Here’s a modest idea for a future project and some posts:– recount your interviews on what the big thinkers believe are the REAL BIG PRIORITY PROBLEMS of civil service. In this context - ask the BIG THINKERS -- is pay for performance a minor problem, and if not, why not? I hunger for their answers. Here's mine: pay for performance is a NON-PROBLEM operationally (i.e. we need no new systems, no new law/legislation, very little contractor dollars), and a minor problem politically – it is a catchy phrase morphed into a gargantuan faux political worry about those darn civil servants which we
Citizens will never quite trust (thank-you free press reporters) but we do need our bureaucrats to run all the services we now need – so we want our servants more efficient, and we’ll search endlessly (after all the search doesn’t cost us tax payers much, and its good sport) for a fair, balanced, measurable method to reward the best and mollify the rest. Pay for performance is the public administration equivalent of a 20 year war in South East Asia -- a colossal waste of energy, money, and political capital - in search of a laudable but elusive operational goal. The wise politicians -- and I think President Obama is wise -- will declare victory after a pro forma inspection of the pay for performance army – staunch contractors, committed grad students and their beaming profs, zealous reporters, NPO troopers, the special ops blogger boys -- all with their shiny and new assessment weapons, plans and tanks-- and then, the wise leader will withdraw this valiant army to fight another battle. But, that's just my opinion. Plus ca change.
Concerned Retiree Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 11:29 AMAlyssa, why do you need to let us know you thought those contracters were "really nice?" What does personality have to do with it?
OPM's Human Capital Survey results tell the story very clearly - employees do not trust their managers to be fair. P4P does not fit with that scenario.
Period.
Charlie Posted Wednesday, February 25, 2009 12:40 PMGeorge Orwell bemoaned the lack of certainty in language in an exceptional article in the 1940's. His premise was, and still is, the lack of clarity in the use of language creates the problems we face and the challenges that future generations must endure. Ad agencies, business gurus, and others trend setters have destroyed the English language for all practical purposes. P4P is just the latest business buzzword that will be with us for say another 4-5 years and then they will move on to the next hot thing. Business and government are NOT the same and cannot be measured the same way. Will I be paid by the word? Because we cannot measure what we do with exact standards, how can you show you improved? I have suffered under 5 different performance plans, all inline with the latest buzz, and I can tell you none of them contributed to one additional work credit being generated. NOT ONE!!! It was paperwork and paperwork only. It is all a waste of time and money and will be gone in the near future.
Richard Black Posted Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:45 AM