Is the General Schedule a Pay for Performance System
Commenter RH wrote yesterday that he was frustrated by "All this talk of 'reform' and finding a better system - when the current GS system offers all of those capabilities THAT GO UNUSED by supervisors and managers." It's not the first time I've heard that complaint, and I'm certain it won't be the last. But I think, ultimately, it's less important to ask if the General Schedule system, as written, contains provisions to tie performance to compensation, and much more important to ask why it hasn't been enforced as a pay for performance system.
Psychology is part of it, certainly. John Berry, at our meeting with him on Wednesday, said "It deals with human nature. Parents do not like to discipline their kids. Why do we think managers like to discipline their employees?" And to overcome that natural tendency, it makes sense that managers will need substantially more training than they get now to get comfortable evaluating their employees, and good at doing it. But I'm not sure that's the entirety of the problem. And I think figuring out what happened to the General Schedule system is going to have to be the first step in any meaningful reform of the pay system.
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.
No new system will fix the problem, as the commenter implies. It is adherence to a system that will make the situation better.
If we put a new performance based system in place, but managers and employees circumvent it by rating people to keep people happy and avoid the "conflict" of real feedback, then we spent a lot of time and money for no benefit.
Worth noting - any system can, and will be, gamed. You must design it such that the gaming results in the desired performance you are looking for.
ckstevenson Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 11:30 AMWe are seeing the results of our children that are not disciplined; they have everything done for them while they are not "allowed to fail." We are creating lazy kids that feel entitled to whatever they dream. The important missing part is that parents don't teach their kids how to work towards their dreams (the parents just fulfill them for the kids to keep the kids happy). OK - so that is an extreme example and I don't suggest government employees are even close.
If a manager tells the employees that they are doing a great job all the time without some suggestion of improvement then we are making our employees like big kids. If an employee gets a good rating every year they start to expect it. If they do the same work as last year (no better, no worse) then where is the incentive to increase performance -- performance will flatten out and the private industry perception (of lazy government) becomes reality.
Managers need to be coaches and teach employees how to increase performance. Part of the teaching process means there will be some amount of failure. One year of a mediocre rating may lead to several years of a *real* great rating.
Brad Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 12:03 PMthe gs system has never been a P4P system its a pay for attendence and a job for life. The end result is the taxpayers are sick and tired of paying so shoddy work.
dan m ketter Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 1:25 PMIf the gov was a car company it would have been out of business in the 50's
The current GS system has several provisions to recognize those employees who excel in their performance. One that is NOT used often and some agencies do not use it at all is the Quality Step Increase (QSI.) Too bad, because it does more to reinforce good performance than any of the pay for performance systems that I have seen. DHS spent 100's of millions of dollars in developing a system that did not work and was later abandoned.
DHS Retiree Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 2:17 PM