What is your e-mail address?
My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?
Forgot your password? Click here
close

Close

Congress poised to kill DOD's pay-for-performance system

Congress tells DOD to shut down NSPS program by 2012

Congress is closing the door on the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) in the conference report on the fiscal 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.

NSPS is the pay-for-performance compensation system used by several organizations in the Defense Department. The system consists of a performance management process used to evaluate employees, flexible job classifications and a pay system based on performance.

Labor unions have criticized the program, saying it weakens workplace rights of DOD civilian employees, including the right to collective bargaining.

Lawmakers want the program gone by Jan. 1, 2012, under the terms of the authorization bill. Civilian employees would move to existing personnel systems. About 205,000 of DOD's 865,000 civilian employees are in NSPS. Employees under NSPS will be shifted to the statutory pay system, although an employee’s salary won’t decrease if there is a difference between the pay levels, the report released Oct. 7 states.

However, the report by a conference committee still must clear some hurdles before it becomes law. Both houses of Congress must accept it, and President Barack Obama must sign it.

“By this action, the conferees have declared NSPS to be a failure,” said Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. “As long as NSPS was in place there was a danger that such flawed practices could be adopted throughout government.”

As NSPS is ended, the defense authorization bill requires DOD officials to develop more regulations related to performance management and workforce incentives as well as hiring practices and training of supervisors.

Officials from DOD and the Office of Personnel Management recently recommended that the government not abolish NSPS, but instead restructure it by addressing its flaws. They recommended redesigning the system with input from the workforce about how to change the system and how to implement those changes, according to a report released in August.

About the Author

Matthew Weigelt is acquisition editor for Federal Computer Week.

Reader comments

Thu, Oct 15, 2009 Jahn Fort Meade

Government cannot function without change agents. NSPS will not tolerate change agents. Under NSPS very good people are too easily marginalized.

Thu, Oct 15, 2009 Tim Heidelberg, Germany

The problem with NSPS is that there is a direct correlation between your job position in the organization and your rating - regardless of the job you do. Unless you directly impact the mission of an organization, you will not get higher than a "high 3." some MAY get a low 4, but high 4s and 5s are reserved exclusively for those in the high positions. So, if you are a worker bee, no matter how great a job you do in your area, or how well you improve, you have a high level person that knows nothing about your work reviewing your comments with respect to the limited number of 4s and 5s they can give out. That is why minorities have not done well with NSPS - who are a majority of GS15s and SESs in DoD? White men and some women - the report did not criticize ratings among the sexes. NSPS needs to be scraped because it is used very much in Army Civilian leadership to find civilian GS14/15 positions for retiring LTCs and COLs. Since Rumsfeld took away the waiting period for retiring military, the Army has almost exclusively reserved senior management positions in Europe to these retiring officers who bring nothing new to the table and unmotivates those working up the system. That is why there is no loyalty by Army civilians because the Army does not 'grown from within.' I suggest a 360 degree evaluation system - by your supervisor and your peers - supervisors get graded by their employees - top down only helps those they want to help. Also, reinstute the 2 year waiting period for retiring military. They bring nothing new to the table as managers.

Tue, Oct 13, 2009 Jim Savage Massachusetts

Ratings have never been fair to but a few. Supervisors outlie the truth to keep their normal people walking on water in order to be competitive. Honest ratings to substandard employees are a rarity. Sometimes a few can be identified as on the lower but not firing level. The vast majority who are rated superior are definitely not up to par. Anyone capable of speaking up learns to keep their big mouth shut and to go along with a system that ought to be eliminated. The best government is a very small government which will produce small failures. Big government guarantees a mass of failures. So ratings ought to be published for everyone to read. When some people can only do average work- there are still nice words that can say that without overpaying them. When people consistently fail, it is time to more readily retire them or give them a job that they can handle. If they become disabled and can no longer keep up, perhaps there are jobs that can still be found to give them dignity even though the pay is not as much- but if job related disability occurs, then they should receive a disability supplement. Supervisors tend to take care of their own the best that they can under the circumstances. An honest rating would bring revolution in our government.

Tue, Oct 13, 2009 Jay Jay Bangor, WA

This can't end soon enough for me. NSPS is a technical writting task and it was not supposed to be. You have people that do not know your field of work grading you in your pay pool so you have to be very detailed and technically proficient in writting in order to get a decent score to get a raise. It also takes weeks to get the proper words in the 2000 characters you are allowed which isn't a lot. It is only viable for white collar workers as blue collar workers don't have online access to computers in the production areas. It is a full time job understanding the compensation workbench tool, performance appraisal application, pay pool analysis tool, etc.

Tue, Oct 13, 2009

I've worked federal for 33 years, am currently under NSPS, and found my best efforts were under the GS system. There are weaknesses in both the NSPS and GS systems. A big difference is that more of the employees' money is at risk (such as COLA) under the NSPS system. It's been difficult for me under NSPS because I have a supervisor that doesn't have a 1-year plan against which I can build objectives and goals, and then we aren't allowed to modify them once they are approved even if the job changes. Very frustrating.

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

  • 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 Gregory T. Garcia, the nation's first presidentially-appointed Assistant Secretary for CyberSecurity and Communications with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2006-2008; and Jeffrey Carr, cyber strategies consultant and author of Inside Cyber Warfare, 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

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