Some Thoughts On Pay Reform
Obviously, the big news of yesterday is Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry's announcement that he, with the support of the President, intends to pursue a reform of the federal pay system, with the aim of finding a comprehensive solution that will improve the quality of employee appraisal and its connection to compensation. I think there are a couple of things to keep in mind as this effort moves forward:
1. There are a HUGE number of conditions that need to be met for Title V reform to become a reality: The conditions Berry laid out in our meeting yesterday were as follows: the performance evaluation and management system needs to be credible and effective, but Berry said he doesn't think there is a private-sector model that exists that anyone would hold up for emulation, meaning reformers may be starting from scratch. There needs to be funding appropriated for a truly comprehensive management training system that probably would involve substantial curriculum development. The administration needs to be able to build public support for the concept of pay comparability. And the system that's designed needs to be able to function in a wide range of different agencies. Every single one of those things will be difficult to accomplish, and without any one of those elements, it seems extremely unlikely that reform will move forward.
2. Employee engagement will be critical: This is true for a number of reasons. First, if the performance appraisal system is going to be successful, both managers and employees will have to trust it and be willing to participate in it fully. The term "pay for performance" has become so electrified that it makes conversations unnecessarily difficult. The administration will have to find a way to diffuse that tension before it even begins serious negotiations. And beyond the simple workability of the system, employee groups have clout in Congress. A lot of lawmakers are convinced that employees have been wronged in the National Security Personnel System, and they will look to employee groups for signs that they trust any comprehensive pay reform before it passes.
3. We have no idea what a reform bill would look like. No one does. And until we do, it's impossible for anyone to judge the merits of such an effort on policy grounds. But Berry's primary points yesterday, that the federal pay system is balkanized, and that it makes sense to look at the systems out there to figure out in a methodical, serious way, what is effective and what isn't, seem uncontroversial.
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.
Seems it will be a long time before OPM comes up with a new plan. So in the meantime we get to sit here in the NSPS stew while management continues to promote their incompetent favorites at an accelerated pace? I hear from many non-favorite high producing employees that they're not willing to wait it out. I say go back to GS system for the meantime.
u no me Posted Thursday, May 28, 2009 12:44 PMOkay some musings on this post. First, with respect to the over 4,000 positions filled by politicos or politically vetted formally or informally. Reduce by 1/2. But also require that (This is for the SENATE whcih gives advise and consent) require that for each PAS position a package accompanies the nominee as to what formal and informal delegations of authority there are to the position. Legal delegations of authority are always to a position not a named person!
Pretty basic but then the Senate and the White House would really know what the nominee would be accountable and responsibile for accomplishing. This would also give subordinates a clue. I have seen a PAS confirmed for a position one day and then within a short period of time given a completely different set of duties.
At the non-career SES and Schedule C level a formal position description of the job should be required so no "Ghost" employees. And Career SES should all have written position descriptions with it being mandatory that it be distributed to all subordinates so those same subordinates can figure out what the SES thinks or should think they are supposed to be doing. Also when vacancies occur they should always be open nation-wide for minimum of 60 days and the position description should be part of the vacancy announcment. Suggest all career SES positions be for a term of years not to exceed 8-10! No exceptions for incumbents but criteria for retention when documented by cirumstances!
Okay, I would rebuild the civil service by having all civil service employment for a term certain depending on level with firing for cause! Grades 1-10 could be for a term of 15 years. Grades 11-15 for a term of 10 years. SES as described above. For lower grades 1-15 incumbents would be allowed to serve for two or three terms but never in the same job. But they would be fully trained and educated to move up or out or to move to at least 3 other jobs. No more than 15 years in one department or agency unless designated a "Critically Skilled Employee" a new term meaning that the individual's loss would result in an actual detriment to current operations or administration in that department or agency. Let's spread the talent around and let other departments and agencies have the pick of the litter so to speak. Some departments and agencies seem great as recruiting but while they recruit "gold" don't seem to be quite able to use it. This is not very well thought out but you get the idea. Usually the first 5 years in a job you learn it, second 5 you do it, and last 5 you are hoping for a change. Just for the record I was in several departments and agencies and within those moved several times to quite different jobs or programs, functions, or activities.
William R. Cumming Posted Thursday, May 28, 2009 1:17 PMAbout your post on pay for performance, I find it interesting that this is the latest and greatest management tool, yet there is no private sector pay for performance system that we can emulate. The Federal government on the cutting edge of personnel matters. Now there is a scary concept.
About Mr. Cumming's post. Unfortuntely, I think his statement that this is not very well thought out will turn out to be prophetic. I specifically object to no more than 15 years with a department or agency. Just when people are fully trained and ready to assume significantly greater responsibilities, they are forced to leave. Just when the agency is about to realize the best return on its significant training investment, the employee is forced out.
Where do people go? I am an Air Force employee in Dayton. There are not a lot of other Federal agencies here, and there is no guarantee that they will have positions I could move into. Do I have to leave the area? Who pays?
I don't have time to mention the other flaws I see.
wallyp Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 8:45 AMAll 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. There needs to be a "360-degree" element to performance appraisals and MERIT should a priority. The current practice of employees receiving Step increases regardless of performance needs to stop - a Step increase should be a reward/Incentive for ABOVE AVERAGE performance. Also, selections or promotions should be approved by an impartial board, with members being from different Grades. We need to revisit the reasons that Croniism persists and processes to prevent it. We have too many managers who have been promoted beyond their management and leadership abilities and are PROTECTED, despite the costs they create for the agency. We all know "pre-selection" really happens, but EVERY selectee should be board-screened on their professional merit, not just because the boss says "I want them in this position."
RH Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 9:57 AMIt's unfortunate that those of us on NSPS are not immendiately migrated back to the GS system, whcih was more tolerable than NSPS. Yearly performance appraisals are a matter of tolerance & brevity, not embracement & acceptance. Does anyone in OPM get that?
US Posted Friday, May 29, 2009 10:32 AM