OPM director: Performance pay system for all

[OBGibby]

OPM director: Performance pay system for all
By STEPHEN LOSEY
May 27, 2009
FederalTimes.com

The Obama administration wants to institute a pay-for-performance system for all federal employees, the new Office of Personnel Management director said Wednesday.

John Berry told reporters that the effort would take several years, though he did not put a deadline on it.

“The president has made it clear to me that there will be no overall reform unless pay for performance is part of the deal,” Berry said. “He’s made it clear that it’s worth a try, and he’s willing to spend political capital to do it.”

The current federal pay system is “straining and ... balkanized to the point that it risks failure,” Berry said, and must be replaced with a governmentwide system that takes employees’ performance into account when compensating them.

Berry said OPM will work with labor unions, management organizations, lawmakers, academics and other interested parties to “design a pay system that will last for another 50 years.” He said the system will require training for managers at all levels and needs a performance appraisal system that doesn’t allow cronyism, that rewards hard workers and that “weeds out the deadwood.”

The Defense Department’s National Security Personnel System has been criticized by unions and others who say it is unfair. It is now being reviewed by a panel to find out whether it should be improved. Berry said that review could help OPM craft a governmentwide system.

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=4110390

[OBGibby]

Administration will push for governmentwide pay for performance
By Alyssa Rosenberg
May 27, 2009
GovExec.com

Calling the federal pay system "balkanized to the point of a risk of failure," Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry said on Wednesday that he will pursue a significant reform of the civil service system within the next two years, with the goal of establishing a governmentwide pay-for-performance system.

"About every 50 years or so, someone tries to take on Title 5 reform...I think it's time again," Berry said at a meeting with reporters.

"So we are going to [work] with all partners...and build a pay system that will last for another 50 years."

Berry said President Obama has asked him to prepare a three-pronged strategy to reform the law on federal employee pay: create a fair and credible performance appraisal and accountability system; develop training that would prepare employees for promotion and support them throughout their careers; and establish genuine parity between federal and private-sector salaries for employees in comparable occupations.

"I believe if we can deliver the first two [items], and they are serious and true, and will be understandable to employees, managers and the public, that we can convince the public that an adjustment on comparability is in order," Berry said, acknowledging that it would be difficult to establish pay comparability immediately during a recession.

He said he hoped that the administration and Congress, with help from employee groups and academics, could create a pay-for-performance system that would cover a large majority of federal employees.

Berry said the new system should include large raises for a small group of truly outstanding performers, not just salary adjustments to account for the cost of living. He also noted that poor performers should be given a period of time in which to improve their work, or risk losing their jobs.

Berry acknowledged that designing a rigorous and sound system was a significant challenge, and doubted that any private sector company would dare hold itself up as a model for performance-based pay.

But Berry said that during meetings with employee and managers' groups, even those organizations that opposed pay for performance during the Bush administration were willing to at least explore reforms.

"If we have good communication and open and honest negotiations, we can get there," Berry said. "No one has foreclosed this as an option, said, 'You're crazy, you're not going to get there, [or] I'm not going to participate.'"

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said that she looks forward to working with Berry on pay reform and appreciated a more collaborative approach.

"Director Berry knows that NTEU's mission is to ensure that the federal workforce is treated fairly," she said. "The previous administration's proposals did not, in our view, meet that objective."

Berry laid out an ambitious agenda in other areas as well. He has assigned teams drawn from multiple divisions at OPM to find ways to simplify the hiring process, design more ambitious work-life balance programs, and improve veterans' preference programs.

Berry said he hoped to make progress on all three of those priorities by June 2010. On hiring in particular, he wants to create mandates rather than recommendations. As an initial goal, he suggested eliminating Knowledge, Skills and Abilities statements in favor of resumes, and requiring agencies to use simplified descriptions in job postings.

"OPM has basically tried the nice way, which has been recommendations and sweetly asking" agencies to change, Berry said.

"I don't see this effort as an attempt to build another set of nice options that people have a choice to use. It will be mandated in the federal government, and we will use the power of the president to make sure it's implemented in every agency."

Berry also said that the 10 extra points veterans receive on civil service exams was not sufficient. He said his goal was to make OPM "a modern headhunting firm for veterans," providing individual career counseling and placement services for veterans who have returned to the United States and hope to find work in civilian agencies.

In addition to reforming the pay system, Berry said his longer-term goals include increasing the diversity of the federal workforce and moving aggressively to control costs in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He will appoint Christine Griffin, the former Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner, to head the agency's diversity reform efforts once she is confirmed as OPM deputy, Berry said.

www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42814&dcn=todaysnews (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42814&dcn=todaysnews)

[James48843]

???

He doesn't have a clue as to the problems inherent in pay for performance systems.

Way too much room for favoritism, old-boy hijinx, and lack of ability to compare to private sector work-

You tell me- how do you rate the pay increases of a TSA worker at the airport gate? And properly compare to private sector?? Sure, those private contractor airport screeners, paid $7 a hour, sure were efficient on Sept 11th, weren't they?

[OBGibby]

A follow-up article from FederalTimes.com on the original article from last week...

Performance pay for all feds
By STEPHEN LOSEY
June 01, 2009

The Obama administration wants to institute a pay-for-performance system for all federal employees, the new Office of Personnel Management director said May 27.

“The president has made it clear to me that there will be no overall reform unless pay for performance is part of the deal,” John Berry told reporters.

“He’s made it clear that it’s worth a try, and he’s willing to spend political capital to do it.”

The current federal pay system is “straining and ... balkanized to the point that it risks failure,” Berry said, and must be replaced with a governmentwide system that takes employees’ performance into account when compensating them. Critics of the government’s main pay system, the 60-year-old General Schedule, say its regular step and grade increases only reward longevity and do not recognize employees’ performance.

Berry said the effort to replace the government’s multiple pay systems with a single, governmentwide system would take several years, though he did not put a deadline on it.

Pay for performance is one of six reform goals Berry outlined. He characterized three of those goals as long term: pay for performance, increased workforce diversity, and limits on health insurance premium increases. Three of the goals, he said, are short term: hiring and recruitment reforms, increased federal employment opportunities for veterans, and expanded programs to improve work-life balance.....

Full article continues at the link:

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=4114557

[OBGibby]

Unions react positively to OPM call for pay reform
Alex M. Parker
June 1, 2009
GovExec.com


Federal unions say they stand ready to work with the Office of Personnel Management director to reform the government's pay system, but they favor a conservative approach.

"We feel very confident that [OPM Director] John Berry understands the value of the General Schedule pay system," said Beth Moten, legislative and political director for the American Federation of Government Employees. "To the extent that he wants to work on performance appraisal systems, we're eager to talk to him about that, within the context of the General Schedule."

During a meeting with reporters (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42814&dcn=todays_most_popular) last week, Berry called the current system "balkanized to the point of a risk of failure," and said he would push for reform of the federal civil service system, with the goal of establishing governmentwide pay for performance. He said the pay system should be more flexible and reward good employees while holding poor performers more accountable.

Federal unions have opposed pay-for-performance plans put in place by the previous administration -- such as the Defense Department's National Security Personnel System -- out of concern that those plans could increase the risk of favoritism.

Richard Brown, national president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, said on Monday that he was confident Berry would not model any pay reforms on those designed by the Bush administration.

"Director Berry assured me that this is not an attempt by OPM to repackage what we feel are ill-conceived Bush-era pay schemes," Brown said. "He hopes to shape a new approach to performance management, not just a reward system for star performers."

But Moten said AFGE was still opposed to the idea of replacing the General Schedule system, pointing to NSPS as justification, which she called an "utter and complete disaster."

"We have some real problems with the wholesale replacement of the General Schedule," Moten said. "They'd have to go pretty far to convince us otherwise, and I don't think that would happen."

National Treasury Employees Union officials also have said they will work with Berry on reforms to the pay system.

"We anticipate a new, more collaborative approach from the new administration and welcome an exchange of ideas," Colleen Kelley said in a May 27 statement released after Berry's press briefing.

The Office of Personnel Management did not return calls for comment in time for publication.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=42858&dcn=todaysnews

[McDuck]

He doesn't have a clue

You Got That Right !

[XL-entLady]

???

He doesn't have a clue as to the problems inherent in pay for performance systems.

Way too much room for favoritism, old-boy hijinx, ...
Pay for Performance won't ever work in an employee pool this large unless the human judgment/favoritism factor was completely removed. Read "never." I always benefited from my ability to create positive contacts with management. But others with whom I am very familiar had very negative things happen because, although they were high performing and high producing employees, their personalities clashed with the Powers That Be.

Pay for Performance can never be implemented fairly.

Lady

[nnuut]

NSPS = A real PAIN!! Spend more time evaluating yourself than working!! I HATE IT!!!:nuts:

Not Simple Prejudicial SYSTEM

Anyone have more?:cool:

[Silverbird]

Supposedly "equal" basis for ratings doesn't work either.

Three years ago we were told by those on high what "factors" will be on our performance plans (whether they fit what you do or not), and limited on how many people per office can get more than an average rating (more than 30 people in the office and the number allowed can be counted on one hand)! Attempts to get around factors that didn't fit by weighing them at 5% of work was squelched, each has to be worth at least 15%.

If we went the next step to "pay for performance" no one would get anywhere. That includes most won't go down either: the paperwork you need to generate for someone with "below average" complete with plan and reporting guidelines to improve their rating nearly guarantees no one's gonna fall unless they truely are "needs to improve*.

[nnuut]

Pay was changed from GS to Pay Bands to hide promotions, who is what and how much they make is privileged information. Why, it's obvious to me!:nuts:

[Bullitt]

Pay by performance would be an unmitigated disaster. I don't even want to think about it.

Ahh, the rat race. It's the world we created.

X4OPFl2Kxhs

[edub10304]

Supposedly "equal" basis for ratings doesn't work either.

Three years ago we were told by those on high what "factors" will be on our performance plans (whether they fit what you do or not), and limited on how many people per office can get more than an average rating (more than 30 people in the office and the number allowed can be counted on one hand)! Attempts to get around factors that didn't fit by weighing them at 5% of work was squelched, each has to be worth at least 15%.

If we went the next step to "pay for performance" no one would get anywhere. That includes most won't go down either: the paperwork you need to generate for someone with "below average" complete with plan and reporting guidelines to improve their rating nearly guarantees no one's gonna fall unless they truely are "needs to improve*.



In the FAA we dont even get a rating. Its is a mess.

[peterson82]

They will never designate enough funds for everyone to receive full compensation... what happens when a department has too many people exceeding expectations? How can you tell someone they will have to earn less than they "should" be given?

[edub10304]

They will never designate enough funds for everyone to receive full compensation... what happens when a department has too many people exceeding expectations? How can you tell someone they will have to earn less than they "should" be given?

This is what we are dealing with. I know damn well with the job I had done and the evals I recieved I was in the top 65% but guess what. Boss said I hadnt been there that long even though I asked and was given a lot of responsibility and worked some high profile tasks. I asked her point plank, " so you are saying I am in the bottom 35% of the FAA?" Nothing she could say. The system is flawed horribly.



Increase
Level

Amount
Target
Distribution
No increase
None
Ineligible employees
OSI
General increase + 1.0%
35% of eligible employees
SCI-2
OSI + .6% of Base Salary
45% of eligible employees
SCI-1
OSI + 1.8% of Base Salary
20% of eligible employees