Report - Government Executive

The first pertains to the impact of the new performance management system. There are concerns
about the amount of time it requires, the adequacy of the specific performance elements used,
and other system features. Nonetheless, there seems to be an understanding that it is the right
thing to do and that it is intended to be an important vehicle for driving performance.
A second related theme is the importance and potential positive impact of linking performance at
all levels to agency mission. Although there are concerns about how this may work in practice,
there is little disagreement about whether it should be done.
The third theme is the advantage of transparency and consistency that DCIPS is intended to
provide to intelligence components. These features are seen as helping to reduce job
classification disparities among agencies, providing a similar basis for assessing performance,
and providing a platform for future cooperation and collaboration. This is mitigated somewhat
by opinions that DCIPS’ predecessor system was in some ways more transparent, particularly
with regard to employee evaluations.
Fourth, there were strong statements that implementation is having a major negative impact on
the most critical level of management for this kind of transformation: front-line supervisors.
New performance management requirements have a disproportionate impact on this group. They
also expose weaknesses in the training provided in preparation for implementation and the
potential management skills deficits in this cadre of leaders.
Negative comments were especially strong concerning the alleged “forced distribution” of
ratings, i.e. the belief that ratings have been or will be forced into a normalized bell curve
distribution, regardless of actual results based on a straightforward assessment of employee
performance against established objectives. Many believe that there are limitations on the
percentage of employees who may receive above average ratings or to save money by limiting
the number who receive increases and bonuses.
The fifth DCIPS theme is the tension produced by a pay system focused heavily on individual
achievement yet applied to organizations that rely on employee coordination and collaboration to
produce mission-critical products. Component employees at all levels report that the focus on
individual performance alone produces negative consequences for collaboration and cooperation.
Mock Pay Pools
Mock pay pool exercises are used to determine meaningful distinctions in performance and
generate lessons learned for improving processes, ensuring consistency, and promoting fairness
in payout decisions. Their results are not recorded for compensation purposes, but they can help
refine business rules and processes for actual pay pool meetings at the end of the performance
year. Mock pay pools are mandatory under DCIPS in the first year that pay pools are conducted
for any intelligence component.
OUSD(I) conducted an analysis of DCIPS employees who were evaluated and had bonuses
determined following the FY2009 performance cycle. 163 NGA was the only component whose
163 Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System. 2009 Performance Evaluation and Payout Analysis. Hereafter
96