Report - Government Executive

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GAO found positive views about the concept of pay for performance but believed that DCIPS was being implemented too quickly with many questions unanswered. 35 In its final report, GAO recommended that DoD institutionalize a process for employee involvement in future design and implementation changes to DCIPS. Among its recommendations: • Issue guidance on the analysis of finalized ratings that explains how demographic analysis for ratings will be conducted to ensure equity, fairness, and non-discrimination in ratings; • Finalize and execute a DCIPS evaluation plan with metrics to assess the system, to include internal safeguards, and help ensure the department evaluates the impact of DCIPS; and • Expeditiously implement processes to accurately identify and measure employee perceptions, and ensure those mechanisms include questions regarding certain safeguards, such as the internal grievance process and employee acceptance of DCIPS. 36 DoD accepted these recommendations and is implementing them. Federally Employed Women 37 As noted earlier in the discussions of the DoD NSPS and DHS MAX HR experiences, organizations that represent federal employees have been less that enthusiastic regarding alternative pay systems. In another example, a 2009 survey conducted by Federally Employed Women (FEW) of its members who were working under performance-based compensation systems found that, by a two to one ratio, respondents did not support these systems. 38 FEW members did, however, cite some benefits of performance-based compensation systems, including the requirement that employees and supervisors meet annually to discuss performance, mutually setting objectives that allow employees to know exactly how their job fits into mission accomplishments, and more directly rewarding employees for their work rather than their longevity on the job. Objections in the survey focused on implementation issues, not the principle of linking pay to the work performed. These included a lack of training and instructions for managers, pay pool panels with no connections to the workers whose salaries they determine, and an emphasis on writing rather than presentation skills in supervisory evaluations of their staff. Improvement. GAO-10-134, Dec. 17, 2009. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Federally Employed Women (FEW) is a private membership organization working as an advocacy group for women employed by the federal government and the District of Columbia Government. 38 Pay for Performance Position Paper from Federally Employed Women. January 7, 2010. 18
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010 The strong level of Executive and Legislative Branch support for creation of performance-based compensation systems has weakened since 2003. Both MAX HR and NSPS were controversial from their inception and the targets of litigation from employee unions. Reacting to the resistance of their federal employee constituents to performance-based compensation design and implementation, Members of Congress initiated agency inquiries and frequent committee hearings. As a further sign of the flagging political support for such systems, now-President Barack Obama wrote to the President of the American Federation of Government Employees during the closing weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign to express his priorities on federal workforce issues: ….DoD has stated that it will implement final regulations on…(NSPS) in October. I agree with you that it is inappropriate and unwise for DoD to implement such a highly contentious, ill-conceived program so late in this administration, particularly following the vast revisions to the program included in the FY08…(NDAA). It is clear to me that the intention of Congress was to reinstate collective bargaining. Yet DoD is still moving forward with a personnel system that prohibits most collective bargaining. Based on my conversations with DoD civilian employees, I have several concerns about the NSPS pay system, including the aforementioned restrictions on bargaining rights, the disconnection between pay and performance despite what employees have been told, the requirement that performance ratings be pushed into a forced distribution, or bell curve, the suppression of wages by permitting bonuses to be paid instead of base salary increases, and the virtual elimination of merit consideration in the promotion process. Further, the class action lawsuits alleging race, gender, and age bias by employees placed under pay systems similar to NSPS in other agencies should give us pause. I cannot and will not support a pay system which discriminates against employees, and I cannot and will not support a pay system which ultimately is designed to suppress wages for civilian DoD employees over time. In March 2009, DoD suspended conversion of new DoD elements into NSPS pending the Defense Business Board review described earlier. In April, eight House chairmen and subcommittee chairmen sent a letter to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget urging the Obama Administration to suspend any further government-wide implementation of performancebased compensation. Subsequently, the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) “repeal(ed) the authority for the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and require(d) the transition of NSPS employees to previously existing civilian personnel systems…” 19
Page 1 and 2: A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL
Page 3 and 4: FOREWORD The terrorist attacks of S
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.........
Page 7 and 8: Governance ........................
Page 9 and 10: ACRONYMS Academy CWB DCIPS DIA DIHR
Page 11 and 12: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The terrorist att
Page 13 and 14: • It is too soon to draw conclusi
Page 15 and 16: CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND, METHODOLOGY A
Page 17 and 18: • The adequacy of the training, p
Page 19 and 20: • Chapter 6: The Way Forward for
Page 21 and 22: CHAPTER 2 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT FO
Page 23 and 24: National intelligence is still orga
Page 25 and 26: ewarded longevity over performance
Page 27 and 28: OTHERS FACTORS THAT IMPACTED DCIPS
Page 29 and 30: • Partisan politics could play an
Page 31: Administration (TSA), which operate
Page 35 and 36: CHAPTER 3 ASSESSING DCIPS’ DESIGN
Page 37 and 38: FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DCIPS’ DE
Page 39 and 40: Figure 3-1. Objectives of the NICCP
Page 41 and 42: PRINCIPLE The system is transparent
Page 43 and 44: The Defense Intelligence Enterprise
Page 45 and 46: discourage teamwork…to the organi
Page 47 and 48: Figure 3-2. DCIPS 2010 Pay Band Str
Page 49 and 50: enable managers and supervisors to
Page 51 and 52: they achieve their goals. Given the
Page 53 and 54: Element Definition Supervisory/Mana
Page 55 and 56: cooperation with ODNI. The review w
Page 57 and 58: Source: OUSD(I) Human Capital Manag
Page 59 and 60: eplaces the current government-wide
Page 61 and 62: esults, but the final DCIPS evaluat
Page 63 and 64: The Panel believes that adequate fu
Page 65 and 66: HOW DCIPS COMPARES TO THE GS/GG SYS
Page 67 and 68: Table 3-7. Comparison of DCIPS and
Page 69 and 70: Design Feature DCIPS NSPS quality s
Page 71 and 72: Recommendation 4. To ensure equitab
Page 73 and 74: CHAPTER 4 ASSESSING DCIPS’ IMPLEM
Page 75 and 76: Table 4-1. Overview of the OPM Obje
Page 77 and 78: In the DCIPS context, “leaders”
Page 79 and 80: intelligence component would do so.
Page 81 and 82: • Credible, timely, and original
Page 83 and 84:
Finding 4-5 The DCIPS website and R
Page 85 and 86:
Finding 4-6 The lack of a communica
Page 87 and 88:
No training needs assessments have
Page 89 and 90:
pay pool exercises to be helpful an
Page 91 and 92:
• The Commerce Department used fo
Page 93 and 94:
3. Implementing DCIPS; 4. Evaluatin
Page 95 and 96:
created a separate document for som
Page 97 and 98:
lack of an overall change strategy
Page 99 and 100:
changed and by whom. 149 This appea
Page 101 and 102:
How pay pools are constructed and w
Page 103 and 104:
DCIPS survey results indicate that
Page 105 and 106:
CONCLUSIONS The Panel finds that a
Page 107 and 108:
CHAPTER 5 ASSESSING DCIPS’ IMPACT
Page 109 and 110:
• Disincentives to become a super
Page 111 and 112:
employees received performance rati
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 5-1. DCIPS Interim Array of
Page 115 and 116:
Table 5-1. NGA Indices and Comparat
Page 117 and 118:
of implementation. Nonetheless, OUS
Page 119 and 120:
CHAPTER 6 THE WAY FORWARD FOR DCIPS
Page 121 and 122:
OUSD(I) has advised the Panel that
Page 123 and 124:
CHAPTER 7 PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS Bas
Page 125 and 126:
• Clarify and strengthen its guid
Page 127 and 128:
Recommendation 23. OUSD(I) should d
Page 129 and 130:
APPENDIX B APPENDIX A PANEL AND STA
Page 131 and 132:
APPENDIX B Committee on U.S. Nation
Page 133 and 134:
APPENDIX B PARTICIPATING INDIVIDUAL
Page 135 and 136:
Michael Jackson*—President and Fo
Page 137 and 138:
Defense Intelligence Agency Kendrea
Page 139 and 140:
APPENDIX C APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY
Page 141 and 142:
APPENDIX C Langbein, L. “The impa
Page 143 and 144:
APPENDIX D APPENDIX D MERIT SYSTEMS
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX D (10) Discriminating agai
Page 147 and 148:
APPENDIX E APPENDIX E DCIPS PERFORM
Page 149 and 150:
APPENDIX E EMPLOYEE NAME: _________
Page 151 and 152:
APPENDIX E EMPLOYEE NAME: _________
Page 153 and 154:
APPENDIX F APPENDIX F OPEN FORUM LO
Page 155 and 156:
APPENDIX G APPENDIX G MITRE’S PER
show all

Report - Government Executive

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?