DHS Forced to Kill Pay-for-Performance (and Accountability)
Reflecting our government’s inability to progress toward 21st century human capital management practices, the Department of Homeland Security was forced to announce the untimely death of pay-for-performance Wednesday afternoon. In his memo to employees, DHS Chief Human Capital Officer Thomas Cairns described the cause:
“The reason for this change is due to the Department’s appropriations act for fiscal year 2009, which prohibits spending funds to operate our new DHS human resources management system.”
Tim Kaufman of the Federal Times offered a fuller explanation in his article yesterday:
“The final nail in the coffin came Tuesday, when President Bush signed into law a 2009 spending bill for federal agencies that prohibits the department from spending money on the new system. Homeland Security had sought $5 million in fiscal 2009 to fund its performance management system and had hoped to extend the system to 70,000 employees, virtually its entire nonbargaining work force, in the coming year.”
No one denies that competition for key talent and retention of high-performing personnel have been significant obstacles for Federal agencies over the past several years. With the death of this initiative, the disparity between the antiquated system of Federal pay and modern commercial best practices will grow. I predict that DHS will continue to lose the people they desperately need, keep the low performers they don’t, and further alienate those who could offer tremendous value to their government and country.
It’s a simple question of motivation and market parity. As a result of this action, the public/private divide continues. In a time calling for increased personal and professional accountability, taking another step backward should not be an option. Let’s see if the next administration can overhaul the system and keep the conversation going.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:26 am
You’re joking right? Anyone who takes a closer look at the so called pay-for-performance will see that is not quite what it is supposed to be. If attracting talent and good employees is really the key, then the system should help you get rewarded in the long run. That’s simply not the case. It may look good at first sight, but one will have to work hard, kiss up, write well just to keep up with the GS system. So for this to work, maybe all in the gov would have to be converted, or people under the pay-per-performance system may end up with less compensation in the long run, even if they work hard.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am
@Ben I agree that for this to be an effective system, ALL government employees need to be converted. Otherwise, those who move in and out from GS to P-F-P and back again would be significantly disadvantaged. But to your point, a system poorly defined, designed, implemented and managed helps no one.
The problem I have here Ben is that this change needs to start somewhere. If you agree GS is the right way to go, I’m not going to convince you otherwise. But if you believe the GS must be overhauled, a large agency needs to both adopt, promote, sustain and PROVE that the model is both effective and equitable. This takes time and participation, for those “new” employees/recruits who come from the commercial sector are used to a system where hard work is rewarded. Thanks for your comment.