Old-timers, such as myself, recall federal government pay (along with states and localities) based on pre-defined levels. The feds had the well-known GS system of 15 pay grades and 10 "longevity" steps within each grade.

At the federal level, this system still exists for the majority of employees, but a move has been afoot for years, under the moniker of "pay for performance," to change pay and destroy the rigidity — and predictably — of pay under the existing decades-old approach. 

The theory is reported to be intended to reward high performers.  I believe it’s also targeted to address low performers as well.  Of course, not as much is mentioned about them because they are sticky wickets.  It’s hard to demote or remove civil servants.  Reams of documentation are required, so much so that many supervisors feel they can’t fulfill their officewide responsibilities if they must monitor every moment and move of the offending gold-bricker.  Perhaps it’s easier to merely cut the pay.  That way the employee would leave on her or his own.

The departments of defense and homeland security are in the midst of this mess now.  Their new pay for performance systems are not progressing as quickly, as well, or on as large a scale as many had hoped by now.

This Washington Post article by Stephen Barr (06/08/06) assesses today’s pay picture.

Are the principles behind these new proposals flawed?  Or are people fearful, with good reason, that the objectivity, talent, and decency don’t exist in the federal workplace to implement this properly?

Fred Apelquist, contributing editor

Comment RSS - Trackback URI