Performance pay: We know it works

NGA, among others, has demonstrated that pay for performance works in government

It’s almost ironic. On Oct. 28, President Barack Obama signed legislation that effectively killed the National Security Personnel System, the Defense Department’s pay-for-performance system. The next day, the new Senate Task Force on Government Performance held its first hearing. Jeff Zients, deputy director for management at the Office of Management Budget, testified about a plan to create a new performance system for federal agencies.

Zients told the task force he has “found that leadership, measurement and a motivated workforce create the foundation for good performance.” He did not refer to pay in his testimony, perhaps because it is a sensitive issue.

In a speech the following Monday, John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management, outlined his ideas for replacing the General Schedule system. One of his themes was financial rewards for outstanding performers. He is clearly on the same page as Obama and OMB Director Peter Orszag, who in a letter to a group of congressional leaders said, “The administration strongly endorses the concept of rewarding excellence with additional pay.”

The decision to end NSPS was fully justified. The system had design flaws and lacked the support to make it successful. Terminating the Homeland Security Department’s MaxHR also was the correct decision. OPM now has a clean slate to plan a governmentwide replacement system.

The interest in performance pay is consistent with workforce management practices across the United States. In the private sector, pay for performance is effectively universal. In state and local government, it’s more prevalent today than it was a decade or so ago. It is deeply entrenched in the history and cultural values of our country.

We know how to plan, implement and manage a successful performance pay system. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency has had a highly successful pay-for-performance program for a decade. Lawmakers recognized NGA’s pay system as a success by specifically allowing it to continue in the legislation that ended NSPS. Regular employee feedback confirms the acceptance of the program.

Looking back over the experience with pay for performance, the threads that run through the successful programs are clear. Employees need to know:

  • What they can expect and what’s expected of them.
  • Opportunities for rewards are consistent across the organization.
  • There is a review process to identify any problems that arise.

The NGA program was chosen as the model for the intelligence community’s new performance-based pay system, which could be a model for the rest of government. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence authorized an overall program framework with each intelligence agency expected to develop and manage its own pay system based on a set of common principles.

It would be useful at this stage for the government to spell out its workforce goals and priorities. Berry made it clear in his speech that he sees the replacement of the GS system as central to civil service reform.

Reader Comments

Sat, Dec 5, 2009 Chuck

This article joins many other that make the assertion that the NGA system works effectively. I have yet to find presentation of data to support this assertion. What is the measure of being used to demonstrate success or is everyone Does the awarding of money conform to the usual accepted distribution of competence or is it like so many other government systems where a high percentage are outstanding. What makes it so different in terms of results from the many demonstration programs that have been implemented in the DoD?

Fri, Dec 4, 2009

Individual Pay for Performance (P4P)really only works if there are objective performance criteria exclusive to the employee's span of control. Team pay for performance usually only works under the mantle of profit sharing. Those two constraints, individual control and profit, make P4P contradictory to what we consider "good" government function.

Thu, Dec 3, 2009 Mike DoD

Again, I am forced to wonder, have any of these “experts” ever actually read anything about the General Schedule program? I have to assume not, because it is, first and foremost, a pay for performance system. That is what it is – period. It has a bad reputation because no one in management has read it or uses it. I have yet to find a supervisor, manager, or director that could not be guilty of malfeasance in office for their abuse of the GS system.

No one in the GS system is supposed to get a step increase unless they are doing their job at an acceptable level. Every employee who is not performing is supposed to be identified by the supervisor and their step increase withheld. Top Performers are supposed to get rewarded. We have promotions, within grade step increases, cash incentives and we even have “on the spot” awards for single acts of a special nature. Employees who do not perform have a series of “get well” plans through which they are walked and, if not completed, they are walked out the door.

That is pay for performance. Now where are the leaders who are using it in that way? Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. We have a good one – start using it – get a backbone. It doesn’t matter what you invent if management is not willing to stand up to the challenge to follow the plan. Everything anyone has ever asked for is in the GS system – no one seems to have the guts to use it – and the same people won’t have the guts to use a new one.

The one thing management seems to want, that isn’t in the GS system is permission to fire people without cause and to reward friends without rewarding others doing the same job but not friends with the boss. Compensation and employment of a fair and equal basis seems to be undesirable.

Thu, Dec 3, 2009 Harry

No pay for performance system will work perfectly. NSPS certainly did not. At my command, top leaders hated NSPS and held no one accountable as to late development of objectives or assessments. Top leaders themselves were partly responsible for delays. In the years under NSPS, my supervisor had less to communicate to me than he did under the GS system. The GS system has more "fairness" built into it than people realize; and it had features to reward people. And, one of the most desired features, to fire someone more easily for not doing their job --- I can tell you, it did not work under NSPS. The human resources people blocked action that should have been taken. NSPS was unfair; supervisors didn't want to spend the time; leaders held no one accountable, even themselves, and some people got rewarded with maximum shares because they worked at the highest levels of the organization. Additionally, my pet peeve, is employees do not have any idea who got what. Why hide the fact that someone gets 6 shares (why? because that person works for the leader of the organization!)

Thu, Dec 3, 2009

OMG! NSPS is officially gone, please let it die in peace. We don't want it back in ANY FORM! Reality Check--The GS system does have incentives to perform better, it's management's lack of action to use those incentives and DoD's need to cut the budget that brought us to NSPS in the first place. The GS system is a great system, just remove some of the red tape that surrounds a few items and it will be brought up to date. It's those of you that were "favorites of the good ole boys" in NSPS that required an "instant pat on the back" that really do not like the GS system.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Highlights from the current issue

eSeminar

  • Where Cyberwarfare and Cybersecurity Meet

    We invite you to attend the third event in this three-part series on Cybersecurity. 1105 Government Information Group will present a panel of government and cybersecurity experts, including Jeffrey Carr, cyber strategies consultant and author of Inside Cyber Warfare; Dean Lindstrom, strategic cybersecurity architect and CEO of Cyberström LLC; and Dr. George Stein, director of the Cyberspace and Information Operations Study Center, Air War College, U.S. Air Force, in this editorial webcast on Tuesday, April 13 at 11 a.m., where they will discuss the cyberwarfare threat to both industry and government, as well as strategies to consolidate the wider cybersecurity mission. Read more