Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Government Executive
January 1, 2008
Under the new Defense personnel system, the cost of liberty is high.
By Brittany Ballenstedt
When the Defense Department began moving its civilian workforce to a new personnel system almost two years ago, Pat Tamburrino knew managers would have their hands full. Many had little experience writing measurable job objectives or linking pay raises to performance.
Tamburrino was the executive director of one of the first organizations to convert to the National Security Personnel System - the Naval Sea Systems Command - which moved to NSPS in April 2006. Tamburrino expected that the new system would force him to spend much more time training and coaching employees. After all, it had been just two years since Congress had granted Defense the authority to create a brand new human resources system in the hope of empowering managers and enabling a more effective response to terrorism.
Under the old system, "performance reviews were of no value to the employee because they were done without any conscience," says Tamburrino, who is now an assistant deputy chief in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. "Managers didn't spend a lot of time setting objectives, and [employees] didn't get a lot of feedback from their bosses during the course of the year."
Recognizing such deficiencies, Defense has been moving employees into the system in waves, known as spirals, and training them and their bosses at every turn. So far, more than 110,000 white-collar civilian employees have transferred to NSPS; it's planned to eventually cover 700,000.
With a focus on flexibility, the system enables the department to link pay raises more closely to job performance and to move employees between jobs without competition or piles of paperwork. But above all, it seeks to increase managers' room to maneuver - a benefit that comes with significant cost.
Time and Training
So far, managers say, NSPS is requiring them to spend much more time coaching and rating employees. "It's not a simple system to implement," Tamburrino says. "You have to do a lot of training and coaching, and you have to invest a lot of time."
As a result, Tamburrino says he was telling first-line supervisors to anticipate spending 40 to 60 hours per employee in the first year of NSPS. But the amount of time devoted to managerial duties won't necessarily taper off once managers become more accustomed to the system. After all, if they are engaging in effective conversations with employees at least four times per year, he says, 40 to 60 hours is not unrealistic.
His assessment is consistent with Office of Personnel Management standards, which hold that all managers should spend at least 25 percent of their time performing supervisory duties. "That's two hours out of every eight coaching, mentoring, setting priorities and giving feedback," Tamburrino says. "It takes time."
According to Rachel Dondero, director of the Navy's executive personnel division, NSPS should be a large drain only for managers who weren't doing their duty before it. "We really are now doing what we should have been doing all along," she says.
Many managers agree that their greatest challenge is working with employees to craft performance objectives, keeping in mind that evaluations and pay increases hang on how well they meet those goals. Tamburrino says another challenge also comes into play during the rating process - many employees shy from boasting about their accomplishments.
"People don't like to brag about themselves, and as part of NSPS, when employees write their self-appraisals, they have to say 'I really did good stuff,' " Tamburrino says. "To get people to think about themselves like that is hard." Once employees grow accustomed to touting their work, managers must then disabuse them of the notion that high performance ratings will remain stellar from year to year. "Some years are boom years, and some are just normal years," Tamburrino says. "That's another thing we've had to convince people of; once you're [rated] a five, you're not always a five. That's a hard conversation to have with folks."
The managerial workload is heavy for high and low performers alike, says Darryl Perkinson, national president of the Federal Managers Association and a supervisory training specialist at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va.
Each employee requires the same amount of attention and review. "Documentation is key to supporting those people you feel should get a little above and beyond the average pay raise," says Perkinson, who will move to NSPS in February. "But to be consistent, you have to put that level of effort forth for everyone." He says he looks forward to setting mutual job objectives with those he manages: "Everyone will know what the game plan is and where we're going."
Elizabeth Waldron-Topp, president of FMA Chapter 104 in California, also is a fan of pay for performance. She came to her post as a transportation-logistics manager at Edwards Air Force Base under the Defense acquisition demonstration project, which began in 1998 as part of a series of endeavors testing pay and personnel flexibility. In early 2007, she moved to NSPS. "I know from a personal standpoint, if we weren't under a pay-for-performance system, I wouldn't be working for the government," Waldron-Topp says. "I work very hard, and I want to be rewarded for those efforts."
Other managers aren't as open to NSPS. Some contend that the extra work required to grant employees relatively small sums of money isn't worth it. "Through everything that I've seen in class and have done, I've realized that the only thing that NSPS is doing is saving the government money," says a manager who requested anonymity. "It generates more anger and frustration than any motivation." Some also complain that it's expecting too much to force them to manage under NSPS along with older personnel systems. "We have a portion of employees under NSPS and all of our wage-grade employees under the old system," says another manager who requested anonymity. "It's unjust for the department to put us through that."
Waldron-Topp, who manages employees under four different pay systems, says juggling all the rules is difficult, but it hasn't altered her favorable view of NSPS. "What makes it so difficult is you can't be an expert in all the systems," she says. "But if everyone comes under the same pay system, it's going to be awesome."
January 1, 2008
Under the new Defense personnel system, the cost of liberty is high.
By Brittany Ballenstedt
When the Defense Department began moving its civilian workforce to a new personnel system almost two years ago, Pat Tamburrino knew managers would have their hands full. Many had little experience writing measurable job objectives or linking pay raises to performance.
Tamburrino was the executive director of one of the first organizations to convert to the National Security Personnel System - the Naval Sea Systems Command - which moved to NSPS in April 2006. Tamburrino expected that the new system would force him to spend much more time training and coaching employees. After all, it had been just two years since Congress had granted Defense the authority to create a brand new human resources system in the hope of empowering managers and enabling a more effective response to terrorism.
Under the old system, "performance reviews were of no value to the employee because they were done without any conscience," says Tamburrino, who is now an assistant deputy chief in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. "Managers didn't spend a lot of time setting objectives, and [employees] didn't get a lot of feedback from their bosses during the course of the year."
Recognizing such deficiencies, Defense has been moving employees into the system in waves, known as spirals, and training them and their bosses at every turn. So far, more than 110,000 white-collar civilian employees have transferred to NSPS; it's planned to eventually cover 700,000.
With a focus on flexibility, the system enables the department to link pay raises more closely to job performance and to move employees between jobs without competition or piles of paperwork. But above all, it seeks to increase managers' room to maneuver - a benefit that comes with significant cost.
Time and Training
So far, managers say, NSPS is requiring them to spend much more time coaching and rating employees. "It's not a simple system to implement," Tamburrino says. "You have to do a lot of training and coaching, and you have to invest a lot of time."
As a result, Tamburrino says he was telling first-line supervisors to anticipate spending 40 to 60 hours per employee in the first year of NSPS. But the amount of time devoted to managerial duties won't necessarily taper off once managers become more accustomed to the system. After all, if they are engaging in effective conversations with employees at least four times per year, he says, 40 to 60 hours is not unrealistic.
His assessment is consistent with Office of Personnel Management standards, which hold that all managers should spend at least 25 percent of their time performing supervisory duties. "That's two hours out of every eight coaching, mentoring, setting priorities and giving feedback," Tamburrino says. "It takes time."
According to Rachel Dondero, director of the Navy's executive personnel division, NSPS should be a large drain only for managers who weren't doing their duty before it. "We really are now doing what we should have been doing all along," she says.
Many managers agree that their greatest challenge is working with employees to craft performance objectives, keeping in mind that evaluations and pay increases hang on how well they meet those goals. Tamburrino says another challenge also comes into play during the rating process - many employees shy from boasting about their accomplishments.
"People don't like to brag about themselves, and as part of NSPS, when employees write their self-appraisals, they have to say 'I really did good stuff,' " Tamburrino says. "To get people to think about themselves like that is hard." Once employees grow accustomed to touting their work, managers must then disabuse them of the notion that high performance ratings will remain stellar from year to year. "Some years are boom years, and some are just normal years," Tamburrino says. "That's another thing we've had to convince people of; once you're [rated] a five, you're not always a five. That's a hard conversation to have with folks."
The managerial workload is heavy for high and low performers alike, says Darryl Perkinson, national president of the Federal Managers Association and a supervisory training specialist at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va.
Each employee requires the same amount of attention and review. "Documentation is key to supporting those people you feel should get a little above and beyond the average pay raise," says Perkinson, who will move to NSPS in February. "But to be consistent, you have to put that level of effort forth for everyone." He says he looks forward to setting mutual job objectives with those he manages: "Everyone will know what the game plan is and where we're going."
Elizabeth Waldron-Topp, president of FMA Chapter 104 in California, also is a fan of pay for performance. She came to her post as a transportation-logistics manager at Edwards Air Force Base under the Defense acquisition demonstration project, which began in 1998 as part of a series of endeavors testing pay and personnel flexibility. In early 2007, she moved to NSPS. "I know from a personal standpoint, if we weren't under a pay-for-performance system, I wouldn't be working for the government," Waldron-Topp says. "I work very hard, and I want to be rewarded for those efforts."
Other managers aren't as open to NSPS. Some contend that the extra work required to grant employees relatively small sums of money isn't worth it. "Through everything that I've seen in class and have done, I've realized that the only thing that NSPS is doing is saving the government money," says a manager who requested anonymity. "It generates more anger and frustration than any motivation." Some also complain that it's expecting too much to force them to manage under NSPS along with older personnel systems. "We have a portion of employees under NSPS and all of our wage-grade employees under the old system," says another manager who requested anonymity. "It's unjust for the department to put us through that."
Waldron-Topp, who manages employees under four different pay systems, says juggling all the rules is difficult, but it hasn't altered her favorable view of NSPS. "What makes it so difficult is you can't be an expert in all the systems," she says. "But if everyone comes under the same pay system, it's going to be awesome."