02.01.2015 Views

Report - Government Executive

Report - Government Executive

Report - Government Executive

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

• Partisan politics could play an increasing role in the bureaucracy, which could have a<br />

potential impact on the “neutral competence” of the public service;<br />

• Giving managers additional flexibility to set pay can aggravate existing biases in the<br />

system;<br />

• The GS pay system can accomplish all of the goals of performance-based compensation<br />

without the disruption; and<br />

• Most (performance-based compensation) plans share two attributes: They absorb vast<br />

amounts of management time and resources, and they make everybody unhappy. 23<br />

On balance, both sides of the argument for and against performance-based compensation have<br />

merit. In any event, the Panel believes that a decision to implement such a system must be<br />

weighed very carefully, and a decision to move forward must be made in the context of what is<br />

most appropriate for the mission and environment of the agency.<br />

National Security Personnel System<br />

Attempts to implement performance-based personnel systems at the Department of Homeland<br />

Security, and more recently, at the DoD itself, have met with little success. At the time of<br />

writing, Congress had terminated DoD efforts to adopt a performance-based compensation<br />

system, the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), which would have applied to<br />

employees of non-intelligence components. 24 It is in this environment that DCIPS<br />

implementation is taking place, and as such, the Panel has examined the key similarities and<br />

differences between DCIPS and NSPS. Although these two systems share some features, they<br />

differ significantly, as discussed in Chapter 3.<br />

Congress provided authority for DoD to develop the system and implementation began in 2006;<br />

NSPS replaced the GS grade and step system with a pay band system intended to provide a more<br />

flexible, mission-based approach that linked individual performance to mission and<br />

organizational goals. NSPS created new policies for establishing pay levels, tenure, hiring,<br />

reassignment, promotion, collective bargaining, pay, performance measurement, and recognition.<br />

The 2003 legislation authorizing NSPS included highly controversial provisions dealing with<br />

labor management issues that resulted in federal litigation. The courts eventually decided in<br />

favor of DoD which, over unions’ objections, continued with its implementation plans.<br />

By 2009, some 211,000 DoD non-intelligence employees were covered under this new system.<br />

Union opposition remained strong, however, and Congress reversed the labor management<br />

decisions in 2008. By then, the relationship between DoD and its labor unions was characterized<br />

by one union official as follows:<br />

23 William Mercer, Leader to Leader, Winter 1997, p. 611.<br />

24 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84, section 1114, 2009.<br />

15

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!