GovernmentExecutive.com

The fledgling system to pay federal executives based on quantifiable performance measures is a flop, according to most of the executives who responded to an unscientific survey released Monday.

Eighty-six percent of respondents said the 2-year-old pay-for-performance system in the Senior Executive Service had no impact on their job performance. Another 5 percent said the system actually had a negative effect on their performance. Less than 10 percent said the system made a positive difference.

The survey was created by the Senior Executives Association in partnership with Avue Technologies, and 846 members of the SES voluntarily completed it. Because it was not based on a random sample -- and so, for example, disgruntled employees may have been more inclined to fill it out -- the findings are not scientific.

"There is significant pressure on reviewers to distinguish between executives in ratings in a somewhat artificial manner so as to show a range of results," an executive at the National Institutes of Health said in a response to the survey. "The system does not improve performance in any important way and has negative impacts that far exceed any usefulness."

More than 50 percent of respondents said their agencies used quotas - which are banned in the system - to forcibly limit the number of outstanding ratings awarded last year. Another 30 percent said they were not sure if their agency used quotas and 18 percent said there were no quotas.

"This year, my supervisors directed me to lower the rating of an SES subordinate for whom I had proposed an outstanding rating, and to lower the rating on any element I chose for him because it just wasn't his 'turn' to get an outstanding," one executive from the Agriculture Department said in completing the survey. "Needless to say, I am very cynical about it all."

The ranks of the 6,000 or so SES employees across government were abolished in favor of a broad pay band in January 2004 that gives managers more flexibility to compensate high-achieving employees, and a higher overall pay cap. Executives were placed under the system first, with the intent that it would serve as a base for further legislation to extend pay-for-performance to the rank-and-file later.

SEA president Carol Bonosaro said her organization supported the pay-for-performance system at first, but "the survey results demonstrate that something has been lost in translation as the system has been implemented."

Bonosaro and her SEA team met Monday with Office of Personnel Management Director Linda Springer and several Capitol Hill staff members to discuss the results. Next week, Bonosaro will testify on the results before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee overseeing the federal workforce.

For her part, Springer said she is examining the results but stands by the system.

"OPM strongly believes that the Senior Executive Service pay-for-performance system is in the best interest of both the federal workforce and American citizens," Springer said in a statement. "To the extent that some managers may not be executing the new system properly, OPM and federal agencies must work to improve their performance."

SEA has long advocated for better pay raises for executives, who it says are starting to earn less than employees on the highest rungs of the government's General Schedule. The association is now promoting legislation, based in part on these survey results, to require minimum raises for executives who rate fully successful or higher, a stronger prohibition on the use of quotas, and distinct funding pools for SES raises.

COMMENTS

• You don't understand. Linda Springer is an accountant and has a deep analytical work style. The program should work because the equation says it should work. What is always missing in all these analyses and reports prepared by the accountants who call themselves CHCO is an understanding of that great big variable called human beings. Good HR personnel programs understand and are flexible enough to deal with the human side of the equation which is really, really messy. Poor human capital programs created by accountants just can't deal with this variable. My current boss, who is also deeply analytical, and not an HR professional, doesn't understand why people in my agency are so unhappy. I've spent years counseling employees and managers. There is a blind spot and weakness and discomfort for that messy side of the human equation that these deep analytical people work under. It can't be helped. I feel most bad for these people because they would be happier in other, less messy jobs. And their employees would be happier if they were in such jobs. But people take promotions in the federal sector for the wrong reasons. HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted September 22, 2006 8:08 AM
• If 14 percent of SES members are disgruntled enough to respond negatively to their pay for performance system, you can bet that there are at least that many more who are just as disgruntled but have come to realize that it just doesn't make any difference, anymore. Pay for performance is not about "performance." It's about reducing the cost of government by holding down pay; and, it's about reducing the size of government by dumbing down the civil service and driving the best and brightest from its ranks. Those in government leadership positions, elected and appointees, don't want a civil service that is effective and efficient. They want one that is compliant and complacent. In the end, they will wind up with one that is totally dysfunctional. Uh oh, did I just break the code, or what? That is "the plan." GovExec.com reader Posted September 25, 2006 1:58 AM
• The article states the reason for the negative feedback may be a result of “disgruntled employees may have been more inclined to fill it out.” I find this statement interesting since I’ve never read a positive government survey where they comment they are skeptical due to satisfied employees being more inclined to fill it out. Presently at the VA, bonuses are provided but it is usually only upper management and “smoothers” who ever see any. The bonus program is a big secret and I have been told it comes out of overtime pay. This may be the reason they don’t want to authorize any overtime. To resolve performance issues the government needs to accomplish the following: 1. Eliminate quotas. 2. Hire independent hiring agencies/contractors to advertise and select positions. Strict ethical guidelines prohibiting contact between the government agency and the hiring firm would be required. Severe penalties for violations would also be required. This system would assure only the most qualified personnel were hired. 3. A Position Evaluation Board would be established which would consist of an equal number of management and labor employees. These board members could only serve two years. The board would evaluate job descriptions before they were sent to the hiring agency to assure accuracy and proper grade/salary. They would also investigate and evaluate recommendations for performance pay, assuring the monies were divided fairly. GovExec.com reader Posted September 28, 2006 7:51 AM