GovernmentExecutive.com

More than 90 percent of senior federal executives think their pay should be based on job performance, and that they are being held accountable for achieving results, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The number of executives who reported that they were happy with their level of compensation has dropped significantly in the past two years, however. In the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey, 73 percent of senior executives said they were satisfied with their pay. Only 61 percent reported satisfaction in the new survey of the Senior Executive Service, which was conducted by the Office of Personnel Management.

The survey found that 67 percent of executives were satisfied with the recognition they receive for doing a good job. Nearly three quarters of SES members said they thought their performance ratings were based to a great or very great extent on individual performance, and 68 percent said the same about how organizational performance factored into ratings.

But at three agencies - the Small Business Administration, Agency for International Development and the Office of Management and Budget - more than 20 percent of executives said those factors were not taken into account to at least a moderate extent. And at seven agencies, more than 30 percent of executives said that customer perspective was taken into account to only a limited extent, or not at all in assessing executives.

"The results of the survey show the SES is a committed and qualified group of people dedicated to their work on behalf of the American people," said OPM Director Linda M. Springer. "It also points out that the federal government has work to do in order to continue to develop and attract a highly qualified executive workforce."

The survey was mailed to 6,745 career, non-career and term-appointed members of the SES between Jan. 17 and Feb. 8, 2008. More than 4,300 completed it, for a response rate of 65 percent.

COMMENTS

• Will made some very excellent points; and while Skeeter’s ears should be burning, his attitude and those points are also applicable to the current administration. Bad attitudes are preludes to prejudice; and while prejudice is bad enough, it is often just the prelude to morally corrupt and, sometimes, illegal actions. While NSPS, the PATRIOT Act, and FISA are obviously not illegal; some could make a case for moral bankruptcy considering their effects versus their intent. Looking at some of these comments it seems at least one pattern can be discerned: some folks blame the SES, if only partially, for the implementation of NSPS and wish them the same; the same feeling of insecurity, the same financial loss in retirement, and the same lack of appeal rights in an confused and obfuscated evaluation plan. There may be a basis for this thought as the SES make their relatively exorbitant salaries implementing the directives and philosophies of what many see as the least worker-friendly administration ever. Perhaps this attitude of the masses is the reason for a lack of sympathy for such middle management. That lack is exasperated by compensations reserved for the elite such as higher carry-over leave balances, leave cash-out policies, and bonuses higher than the proletariat by a factor of ten. These exceptions only make those who actually do the work envious; not a good feeling to have for one’s boss. And attitudes like these are contagious. This administration seems to have done everything in its power to make Civil Service undesirable to current employees, robbed current budgets to provide fiscal hiring incentives for its sycophants, funnel limited and vital resources to its contractor friends, and drive a huge wedge between the Civil Service and the SES. How can you lead the common folk when you are treated as above the system? It is difficult to identify with and therefore motivate. I keep seeing their rules loosened to their benefit and ours tightened around our throats. Yep, you guessed it; even I have an attitude and I wish the SES knew the life and trials of their employees. See you in November. Tip off Posted May 16, 2008 9:22 AM
• "What's wrong with the old system pay for attendance, annual raises just for being there and promotions every 2 years because its your turn..." One can see that true sarcasm is alive and over flowing from the bowels of at least one highly enlightened individual. Perhaps a bit of narcissism prevails within the personality of such an all knowing being....that is IF this person truly exist. So, are we to judge from this sarcastic commentary that a system which likely is prone to breed favoritism, cronyism, dissatisfaction, and low morale is a better answer? Perhaps the writer would prefer pay for antagonism where he would likely receive the top mark. Over all, the writer's comments impugn the integrity of all civil servants. His implication is that those civil servants who perished in the Trade Towers, Oklahoma City or the Pentagon were just sitting and waiting for their next pay check. This is deplorable. Such commentary serves the purpose of fostering stereotypes... negative stereotypes. Stereotyping is a form of discrimination. Perhaps the writer is aware of this and uses bitter sarcasm to cover a bitter personality. will Posted May 14, 2008 11:46 PM
• In a perfect world filled with perfect people, pay for performance would work well; hower, this is not the case. While most supervisors tend to try to do what is right, there others who have climbed up the ladder on others backs, with degree mill diplomas, and through deception and lies. Unfortunately these people surround themselves with other self-serving individuals and guess who will get the annual performance increases? Not those hard working people under them, no, their brown-nosed buddies. In the military we had a saying "The 10 percenters", if ten percent of the federal supervisors and managers are incompetent, suckups or just evil then why would we want a pay system which would result in 10 % of the dedicated workforce serving under these suckups to receive no raises while incompetents would receive a bonus. Until it can be assured that no dedicated, hard working individuals will be denied a raise by an incompetent or self-serving supervisor, NSP{S should be put on hold. John W Posted May 14, 2008 6:42 PM