What's In A Name?
American Federation of Government Employees President John Gage doesn't like the phrase "pay-for-performance," says he's asked the Obama administration not to use it, and that they've largely complied. As a reporter, my question to, and challenge for, folks who dislike the term "pay-for-performance" is this: what would be better?
As a phrase, "pay-for-performance" is the most efficient, precise way to describe systems that link job performance and compensation. It's a lot more words to say it any other way. It's not just a slogan, even though some people see it that way. I'd be curious to see actual research about what people think "pay-for-performance" means. If they think it means linking performance and compensation, that seems entirely reasonable. If they think it means linking performance and compensation and they're reacting negatively to that concept, that's another thing entirely. If they think "pay-for-performance" is code for any one of a number of concepts they view negatively, including efforts to hold down federal employee pay across the board, that's a separate issue, too. But in the absence of comprehensive research, it's hard for me to understand how the use of the phrase "pay-for-performance" actually affects the debate over compensation policy.
If there's a better, clearer, more accurate phrase to describe systems that link pay and compensation out there, and will describe what the administration is considering doing, I'll be interested to hear it. But as yet, I think there's no real replacement yet, and perhaps that's premature. I'll be interested to see how the rhetoric and language evolve as the administration's hopes for pay reform become more concrete.
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.
Its not the term Gage doesn't like the concept of CS having to earn their pay. As far as he's concerned the taxpayers have too much disposable cash and they want more of it
dan m ketter Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 4:11 PMI can't believe you don't understand this one. I'm not a union member and even I get it. If "pay for performance" was actually about getting paid in relation to performance, just about everyone would be for it. The problem is "pay for performance" is a code word just like "rightsizing," "re-engineering," or whatever buzzword de-jour you pick. Ask someone if being "re-engineered" is better than laid off or fired. It's not about the words used, but the meaning and intent behind them. Which is really sad, because I think the government does need a system that links pay to performance. But this name has left such a bad taste, that no one will trust anything that even sounds like PFP.
bmj Posted Friday, August 28, 2009 10:27 PMIf pay for performance paid for performance I would be for it. However when you are told 15% of the workforce is outstanding, 30% are excellent, 50% are successful, and 5% less than successful, that sounds (and works) like pay for percentage. Not pay for perforamnce.
me Posted Tuesday, September 1, 2009 7:32 AMI have observed the actions of "pay for performance" employees who take advantage of the system and use the significant tasks that there subordinates have accomplished in order to receive more of the "pay for performance". This name has only led to more gouging and the individual that is on the front lines rarely receive "pay for performance". With times such as they are now; the distates of this term(PFP) leaves some wondering when will the equality be seen.
Jackie L. Miller Posted Tuesday, September 1, 2009 10:17 AM