Report - Government Executive

• Disincentives to become a supervisor because DCIPS imposes additional work
requirements with no increase in compensation;
• The extent and nature of employees’ negative reaction to DCIPS. One manager said,
“We are intelligence officers and we were surprised at how the workforce reacted. We
aren’t supposed to be surprised”; and
• Concern that administrative positions in pay bands 1 and 2—which have a higher
percentage of women and minorities than pay bands 3, 4, and 5—tend to receive lower
average performance ratings than those in higher bands because the work is not so clearly
linked to the mission.
Online Dialogue Participants
Participants in the Academy’s online dialogue identified several areas of concern:
• A belief that DCIPS reduces promotion opportunities and career progression. Both
DCIPS’ complexities and the elimination of the GS grades and steps have resulted in the
impression that career and salary progression are now harder to achieve. By design,
DCIPS provides for fewer promotions and it is entirely possible for employees to spend
most or all of their careers in a single pay band. Although salary progression may equal
or exceed what the GS system provides for most employees, the reduced number of
“milestone events,” such as promotions to the next grade, seems to promote a negative
view;
• Concern that DCIPS inhibits collaboration among employees. Although the performance
elements on which all employees will be rated include an element on cooperation and
collaboration, the emphasis on individual achievement and reward is seen as working
against collaborative efforts: “DCIPS forces employees into contests for claiming credit.
This is not good for teambuilding or productivity”;
• A perception that morale is suffering. Said one, “The appraisal system associated with
DCIPS is not a good motivator, and can be demoralizing.” This perception has been
compounded by the confusion resulting from the interim policies and procedures
necessitated by the NDAA pause; and
• The amount of time spent on performance management is seen as excessive. Both
managers and subordinate staff made this observation. One remarked, “As a first line
supervisor, I had to conduct write-ups on 22 civilians—both performance objectives (4
on each employee) and elements (6 on each employee). Doing a total of 220 write-ups in
two weeks was a nightmare!! Plus, I had to do my own assessment. I simply don’t
understand what this is supposed to accomplish.”
Open Forum Participants
The perspectives of intelligence component employees vary broadly. However, several
consistent themes emerged during the Academy open forums.
95