What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close

    As NSPS ends, employees wait for what's next

    Details about how DOD's pay-for-performance system will end—and what will replace it—are still being worked out, experts say

    Defense Department employees who are participants in the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) can do only one thing now—wait—after President Obama signed the fiscal 2010 National Defense Authorization Act on Oct. 28. The law includes a provision to end NSPS, a controversial system that links pay to a DOD employee's performance.

    More than 200,000 DOD employees under the NSPS could revert to the more broadly used federal General Schedule (GS) system by 2012 under the law. The law requires DOD to start by next April on the orderly conversion of NSPS employees to another statutory pay system.

    “The details are still to be worked out” on how the system will end and what exactly will come next, said John Palguta, vice president of policy at the Partnership for Public Service. “Frankly, that’s not spelled out in the law.” Meanwhile, the NSPS employees can wait in peace. “No one’s going to be hurt” as NSPS shuts down, Palguta said.

    And some employees may even wait expectantly. An employee whose NSPS pay is between two GS levels, will move up to the higher level, Palguta said. “They may come out a little ahead,” he said.

    Although employees may not lose money immediately, Darryl Perkinson, president of the Federal Managers Association, said it may not work out so well for all NSPS employees, especially those at the top of their GS pay scale. If an employee exceeds the overall pay scale, their regular pay raises may be stalled — partially or in full—until the whole GS pay increases to that amount, he said.

    Officials need to have a serious discussion on how to properly pay people who did a good job in the NSPS system and earned their pay with good performance, he added.

    As DOD ends its pay-for-performance system, experts also say the GS system also has problems. Employees who worked extra hard get the same pay increase as employees who do an average job, they say.

    “The automatic system doesn’t get much favor either,” Perkinson said.

    However, the law also offers a chance for DOD and the Office of Personnel Management to develop new regulations for the civilian workforce that includes “fair, credible and transparent methods for hiring and assigning personnel and for appraising employee performance.”

    As DOD officials begin working out their strategy for moving ahead, the law also allows them to develop a new system in lieu of transitioning employees to the GS system. Any new system “would be required to guarantee collective bargaining rights and would not be permitted to cover prevailing wage employees,” the law states.

    However, if DOD officials do develop a new system, they will likely need to get it approved by OPM, said William Bransford, general counsel for the Senior Executives Association. Simply transitioning back to the GS system also has problems, he added.

    “Then what they have to do is find a job classification and grade level that is close to what an employee’s actual job is,” he said. “Some of these jobs have gotten away from the rigid GS classification system, so that could be a challenge.”

    As DOD officials begin planning their next step, Palguta said employees should look to their service branch for the specific details on how those plans will be carried out. “They’re going to want to know,” Palguta said.

    Despite its ultimate demise, lessons can be gleaned from NSPS, Bransford said. Getting input from all the stakeholders before the system was implemented would have helped, Bransford said.

    “And another lesson is to not do these kinds of reforms piecemeal, like what was done with NSPS,” Bransford said. “These reforms should be done within the context of the entire civil service, not by individual agencies creating their own personnel systems.”

    Reader comments

    Wed, Nov 18, 2009 Mac

    Neither the GS or NSPS represent success stories. It is not the systems that are at fault, however. Many of our organizations simply lack the leadership, management, and supervisory integrity necessary to make either of these systems, or any other personnel system for that matter, work properly. Personnel systems are just tools. Systems do not create a core of professional mid-level managers committed to best practice HR management in an organization. Senior leaders do. Systems don’t assure that good supervision is the rule, and not the exception in an agency. Managers do. No system of job classifications, incentive rules, and requirements for documentation create specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timed performance objectives, and then use documented performance against those standards as an objective basis for evaluations and awards. Good supervisors do that. The problem is not the personnel system, it is the personnel. The problem is us. We are experiencing a crisis of integrity and character in the Government. As a rule, most of the people I see in my Agency are clearly engaged in self service, not public service. As managers we expand our staff, increase our scope of control, protect our turf, and get our next promotion through any means necessary - including ‘spoofing’ the personnel system with inaccurate job descriptions, incorrect job series, inflated grades, and nonsense performance plans. Is it any wonder, then, that we also actively resist any attempt to shine the light of accountability on our operations through the proper use of formal personnel management systems? As employees, we revel in our mistrust of management to the point of refusing to cooperate with any attempt, no matter how fair and equitable, to assign specific accountability to us in our performance plans. Then, with no way to objectively demonstrate our self-perceived ‘excellence’ we whine and complain about lost incentives, while our unemployed neighbors envy our basic salaries, job security, benefits, and paid time off. To think that the personnel systems available to us are the source of our problems is the height of self-delusion. The perceived need for NSPS surfaced because of failures in leadership and accountability throughout the Government. It is those underlying failures that we must address, or they will simply surface again in the next (post NSPS) system. Corporately and individually we are without excuse. We have all the tools we need. Its time to get to work.

    Wed, Nov 18, 2009 YC-3 Pentagon

    Appreciate the good discussion. I'm ret military and also had a brief time under a corporate system. (Entered under the GS system & coverted several years ago to NSPS) I agree with the benefits of a 'pay for performance' (NSPS-like) system. I've found as an NSPS supervisor it was quite similar to my corporate system that I found both easy to reward our top performers. Especially top performers (e.g, GS-14's) that had frozen pay after bumping up to the GS pay limits. I found it easier to reward & hire talent and conversely in not recommending extra shares to employees that only met objectives, (i.e., punching their clock) which I found increased their likelihood to transfer~ if they so desired.

    Tue, Nov 17, 2009 David Greene

    Before converting to NSPS I was a GS 12 step 5. In NSPS, I am a YC-02 in the GS12-14 pay band. Since I convertd to NSPS my pay has exceeded the GS-12 Step 10 pay chart, and I am now actually equivalent to a GS-13 Step 6 in regards to pay. I am curious to know what will happen to me when we go back to GS? Will I be placed at the GS-12 End step or will I be placed as a GS-13. If I am placed as a GS 12 end step, this means I will not recieve any type of raise other than the general adjustment which comes every January for the foreseeable future until I get promoted to another position. I don't think this is fair game for someone who worked hard and was rewarded under their hard work under the NSPS system.

    Sat, Nov 14, 2009 James Atkinson

    (continued from previous post) -

    The reality to both the claims by both sides is that it is politics, not performance that is rewarded most often. Pay pool panels that send their recommendations to commanding officers, or individual supervisors who send their employees’ ratings to commanding officers, both NSPS and GS are just as subject to political whims as any system outside of government.

    Basically neither system lives up to its advertised purpose or potential.

    Both are subject to exactly the same forces; opinion & good will of the supervisor.

    Both are subject to widely diverse job descriptions & evaluation standards for the same work series and levels (i.e., a GS-11 in one organization does exactly the same job as a GS-13 in say Washington, DC).

    Both are subject to favoritism and abuse (i.e., GS step increases or NSPS command directed pay increases depend entirely on the opinions of the people in charge and how they want to use the system; not impartial standard performance measures.

    Both have a small minority that do better than the average worker, because they know how to, and actively work the political connections, and/or EEO, diversity, and other special rules.

    The point is, for the top jobs and best pay-outs, it is, in and out of government, about who, not what is knows about the job. That is why the majority of the job openings do not offer moving expenses, relocation expenses, or any incentives, and supervisors use various ruses to get around such things as Priority Placement, Veterans Preference, and the like to hire the person they know rather than the person who is the best for the job.

    In the end, whether one argues for or against NSPS or GS, the reality is that none of the proposed pay for performance systems will actually do anything to change the system, because those at the top have a vested interested in maintaining their hold on choosing who gets to the top. And, it is not about who is the best, but who those at the top feel is the best fit to maintain the status quo.

    JEAtkinson, US Navy (ret)
    MScIS, MBA, DBA(ABD)

    Sat, Nov 14, 2009 James Atkinson

    (continued from previous post) -

    The number one argument by GS that GS offers for performance is that GS allows supervisors to offer new hires any step in the grade level if the supervisor so chooses. Like the argument by the pro-NSPS side of the house, the problem with this argument by the pro-GS group is that the rules which allow this are very narrow in scope and the personnel offices rarely back up the supervisor’s decision to hire at a higher step. What is more, more often than not, the people in the different personnel offices do not know the rules, and when asked will put out wrong information more often than not. Further, as anyone who has been around the system for a while knows, if you argue with the person putting out the wrong information, the level of service support coming out of that office decreases in direct proportion to the grade of the person and length of time that person has been in their office. The ultimate result is that, just as in NSPS, few hires are made at advanced levels.

    The number two argument by GS that GS offers for performance is that GS allows supervisors to give quality step increases based on performance, on-the-spot-awards, and performance awards (just like NSPS). This argument is similar to one by the pro-NSPS regarding performance-based pay increases. It is true that supervisors can give pay raises. Yet, as the statistics show, in reality very few supervisors do it Oh sure, a lot of ‘verbal promises’ are made, and, even more often, supervisors verbally imply that if a worker does everything that is asked of them, pay raises, bonuses, and the like will be given. Yet, amazingly enough, such verbal promises are never put in writing, and, again more often than not, in reality very few of the verbal promises/implied promises are ever acknowledged or followed through on by supervisors in either the NSPS or GS system (or any of the other systems in place as well). (continued in the next post)

    JEAtkinson, US Navy (ret)
    MScIS, MBA, DBA(ABD)

    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

    eSeminar

    • Technology success through the stimulus Karen Jackson

      FCW will present Karen Jackson, deputy secretary of technology for the Commonwealth of Virginia, at 11 a.m. Wed, Dec. 9, in an eSeminar where she will discuss technology acquisition through the stimulus. Read more

    Federal Computer Week eNewsletters

    • Subscribe to Newsletters Subscribe

      Federal Computer Week's eNewsletters deliver the latest policy and management news to your inbox.

    Highlights from the current issue