GovernmentExecutive.com

It's no secret that the National Security Personnel System is far from universally popular. The consensus that the system is flawed is reflected in an appeal filed by the American Federation of Government Employees with the Supreme Court on Monday, Congress' efforts to prevent the Defense Department from suspending collective bargaining rights for its employees, and the comments section on GovernmentExecutive.com.

Regardless of your feelings about NSPS, my colleague Brittany Ballenstedt's January cover story on how the system is changing the way managers supervise their employees and what that means for performance ratings and pay is a must-read.

The opening section is particularly revealing.

"Performance reviews were of no value to the employee because they were done without any conscience," before NSPS, Pat Tamburrino, an assistant deputy chief in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, told Ballenstedt. "Managers didn't spend a lot of time setting objectives, and [employees] didn't get a lot of feedback from their bosses during the course of the year."

That's a pretty bald statement, and it summarizes both the danger of moving to pay for performance too quickly and the potential of NSPS. If employees aren't given honest evaluations of their performance, the management support they need to improve, and a sense that they're part of a system that wants and needs them to succeed, then paying them based on their performance will be as haphazard as ... well, as tying everyone to a pay raise determined by Congress.

That portrait of a breakdown in the manager-employee relationship is one that's appeared in this column before. Back in October 2007, I wrote about the challenges that outside analysts saw in training NSPS managers how to evaluate their employees and give them motivating raises within the constraints of the federal budget. Jason Kovacs, a compensation expert with the nonprofit organization WorldatWork, said that he thought managers frequently didn't feel confident rating the people they supervised, and employees lost confidence in ratings systems as a result.

Ballenstedt's story goes further in explaining how managers are coping with those challenges. Some solutions are simple. Tamburrino said he is working to change expectations of how much time managers should spend working to improve each employee's performance in a given year, and how much time managers should spend on supervisory activities each day.

Other challenges are more psychological. Tamburrino told Ballenstedt that it's hard to strike a balance between helping employees write self-evaluations that will win them the recognition they deserve and helping them to evaluate their performance in the context of a given year and their fellow employees' performance so they can understand when they've gone above and beyond the norm.

Mary Lacey, Defense's program executive officer for NSPS, has shown a willingness to invest in training managers on basic communications and coaching skills, Ballenstedt writes. That investment may not yield an immediate payoff, but it's an important indication that Lacey and others are serious about helping managers do their jobs properly.

Lacey also has recognized that pay for performance or not, management isn't the logical career destination for all upwardly mobile employees. She's working to develop nonsupervisory tracks for senior employees, which will help guarantee that future managers will be the employees who are best-suited to overseeing the performance and development of their co-workers.

All these steps sound straightforward and logical on their own, but Ballenstedt's article illustrates how difficult it is to get them all right and working together, particularly when congressional budgeting and high-stakes fights over labor relations issues are thrown into the mix.

COMMENTS

• A cautionary tale while working in DoD some years ago that I'm sure has been repeated many times. 1) Most people got rated a "3" because lower than that was grieveable and managers didn't want to be bothered defending an adverse decision. In fact, they typically avoided the midterm review but asked the employee to back date and sign the PARS review form at the yearly appraisal. 2) Typically one or two favorites have a locked on the coveted outstanding rating even before the rating period starts. Don't even try. 3) One year a supervisor thought three of his people were outstanding. He was told he had to cut 1 of them down to "sat". He refused and they cut all three. He then told one of the "cutees" what happened. The "cutee" files a grievance. The management blamed the manager and forced him to take a step down. Years later, this now ex-manager is collecting GS-13 pay and doing the message run every day. He was glad to take an early retirement in his late forties just to get away from the place. Good for him. So much for honesty being the best policy. jc Posted February 20, 2008 1:30 PM
• My supervisor has 20 years of Federal service, is a GS 12, and can not manage and counsel employees correctly, and therefore making this NSPS system a joke. Management by Objective (MBO) will give supervisors the tools needed to affect day - day operations, which affects outcome in performance, before moving into NSPS. This plan of action would give anyone who is evaluating this system an up front view of why employees will not get a fair shake, based on management objectives. NSPS system will only be as good as the managers that perform their duties. I have been a GS employee for 6 months and management (GS12 supervisor) has failed their initial job by not properly counseling by going over the counseling check list. This only can lead down the wrong road and these leaders need to be looked at first before subjecting an employee into a system wear management needs to be discipline or released from their duties before they continue to do an injustice to the NSPS system and the employees' that they evaluate. First line supervisors should provide the counseling and status of point value but I would have each supervisor submit what qualifies different levels of rating. Knowing that all objectives need to be quantified and qualified before an evaluation can take place. Counseling (initial, mid-term, and annual) and other counseling and training should be documented when needed along with career progression and what it will take to meet these objectives and what educational and training goals are need to be accomplishing for advancement. If only the top leaders are earning all bonuses in the pay band than I would suggest that there is something wrong with the system because there are workers below these individuals that are actually performing the work. This system will be corrupt as long as managers are not truly managing and performing the HR tasks in the role of the supervisor and leader to build a better organization of workers that understand what is expected and given all the ability to succeed. What we can take from the military is a job book of task that needs to be checked off and signed by employee and supervisor. This let the supervisor know what training is needed and what needs more improvement, and will lessen the hard ache of counseling and telling the truth before an evaluation. just learning Posted February 12, 2008 12:49 PM
• Interesting. Alyssa, I've read a number of Ms. Ballenstedt's articles, many of which I enjoyed immensely, but this is the first time I've read an article from GovExec that sounded like a justification and/or explanation of another article. Was your intent to justify or validate her original article? I have always appreciated GovExec's articles but must question any submitted with such Pie-In-The-Sky optimism on a subject the readership takes so vehemently. She really should have known that lambaste from her readership was coming. We, the vast majority, really do think NSPS ... stinks. Any future article on this topic really should consider the previous acceptance OR rejection of this system so that the author can cover it with the readership in mind. Good luck to both of you and your organization. Tip off Posted January 31, 2008 2:09 PM