EDITOR'S DESK—Commentary

Work to rule

A good friend of mine, a former labor reporter but also an unflinching conservative, likes to say that companies get the unions they deserve. What he means, of course, is that a company that values its workforce will succeed in partnership with its employees and their representatives. A company that doesn’t will invariably lock horns with the very people who determine its success.

Call it the physics of the workplace: For every management action there will be, by definition, an equal and opposite reaction on the part of employees.

So what are we to make of the demise of the National Security Personnel System, the Defense Department’s experiment with a salary system based on performance rather than rank and seniority? This was, after all, an earnest attempt by the federal government to reward its best employees with better pay — on the theory that higher pay will inspire better performance, and better performance will drive success in the mission.

What transpired instead was one of the most bitter and antagonistic episodes in the history of federal management/employee relations. Any news story we wrote on the subject received not only soaring Web traffic but also dozens of impassioned comments from readers.

And the bile was flowing on both sides of the debate. Rank-and-file employees had no trust in management’s ability to parcel out performance raises fairly and objectively. For their part, managers suspected employees of wanting only to put in their time on the clock and go home with a paycheck. It was a no-win situation from the beginning, leading Congress to pull the plug on NSPS after only three years.

But as senior editor John Stein Monroe reports in this week’s cover story, the problems posed by pay for performance in general and NSPS in particular aren’t so much in the idea as in the execution.

For one thing, he writes, linking pay to performance from the start forces managers to make judgments about an employee’s work — and pay — before any groundwork has been laid for performance criteria. That puts both manager and employee in a bind, breeding distrust on both sides.

Just as significantly, perhaps, the fiscal constraints of the federal government make it hard for management to deliver the goods. In the private sector, performance is supposed to drive revenue growth, from which management can presumably share the wealth. Not so with deficit-laden Uncle Sam.

So the question remains, how can the government get the workforce it deserves?

About the Author

David Rapp is editor-in-chief of Federal Computer Week and VP of content for 1105 Government Information Group.

Reader comments

Mon, Nov 2, 2009 Robert Dangredo D0D

The Federal government is getting exactly the civil Service Work Force that it deserves--and needs. There seems to this lingering outdated whisical view of a government employee who is sleeping at his desk, lethargical, and dumb. Lets update that view right now. Government Service employees are typically the top of their classes. Most have advanced degrees and graduated with honors. Many have one, two or three masters degrees. They are the most industrious and creative people on the face of the planet because in order to get the job done, they have to think of creative ways to do work that has at times thousands of guidelines. They are brilliant puzzle solvers, thinkers, and a more diverse and motivated workforce is unimaginable. The truth is that the government force should be rated high on the power curve, because it attracts the creme of the crop from all over the United States. If you want to make THIS force more invigorating, which is next to impossible, then how about treating them fairly. Don't let the military steal their jobs when they have been in positions serving their coutry for years. Don't steal their retirement a half a percent a year at a time. And don't threaten their jobs when they wake each day trying to serve the American taxpayer. Just say thanks for their thousand of sacrifices that you will never know about.

Fri, Oct 30, 2009

The problem with the government workforce lies with management. From my experience, 20 years as a federal DoD government employee, managers become managers because they want it. DoD doesn't focus on the development of a professional cadre of people with measured management skills. I agree with your friend, DoD gets the Unions they deserve. There was never any hope that NSPS could work with the existing management workforce. Private industry promotes those who perform according to the measure of their return on investment. Government employees are promoted based on the measure of spending their budget and obtaining a greater budget. DoD should have started by creating a new management model and then working on employee performance in my opinion.

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.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above