Coalition for Effective Change :: Publications

Sharpening Performance Management Tools October 2003

The following paper, "Sharpening Performance Management in the Federal Government," was sent to members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and to members of the House Government Reform Committee. Created as a means to continue the discussion on federal performance management systems, the paper explores how agencies currently deal with poor performers and it discusses the linkage of employee and agency performance. The paper concludes with a list of eight recommendations on how the government should approach the development of performance management systems.

I. INTRODUCTION

This paper is the latest in a series developed by the Coalition for Effective Change (CEC) on the subject of performance management in the federal sector. The basic thrust of these papers has been to support more flexible, streamlined and effective approaches to federal performance management systems, recognizing that:

The federal government is not a monolith, and there is no "right" system for accomplishing the goals of performance management which will meet the needs of all federal agencies; and
While safeguards must be in place to ensure due process for federal employees involved in employment disputes, expeditious third party review and resolution of differences best serve the interests of all parties.

This paper aims to contribute informed views and suggestions to the continuing public and congressional dialog surrounding the subject of federal performance management. It reflects real-world experience under existing law and regulation, and seeks to anticipate how best to satisfy the evolving needs of an effective and responsive federal government. It addresses two issues that evoke emotional as well as intellectual responses--dealing with poor performers and more closely linking employee compensation to individual and organizational performance.

Even short of statutory changes, considerable progress has been made with regard to the issue of flexibility. Changes in regulations have enabled agencies, with the active involvement of employees and employee unions to explore a variety of approaches to performance management and performance appraisal systems. There has been less success with regard to streamlining appeals processes.

II. PRINCIPLES/PHILOSOPHY

In making recommendations, we are guided by a number of ideas which we believe are essential to the success of any process in the federal sector, including:

Agencies must continuously improve on their results in defining mission-linked performance expectations and dealing with unsuccessful performers, but must also balance organizational efficiency against merit system requirements.
The federal environment is unique, and while there are lessons to be learned in examining practices in other workplace sectors, approaches must be designed which reflect the realities of the federal workplace and the factors that motivate federal employees in a public service environment.
Just as federal agencies differ from other sectors, so do they differ from each other, so that one-size-fits-all solutions will ultimately fail.

III. ISSUES

1. Dealing with Poor Performers: Considering federal agencies' experience with a variety of performance management systems, and assessing the wide array of approaches used in the private sector, it is clear that failure to deal effectively with poor performers is less a function of the particular performance system employed (e.g. pass/fail vs. multiple levels) than it is a reflection of the incentives (or lack thereof) for supervisors/managers to take on the difficult and time-consuming process of constructively confronting employees who cannot or will not do their jobs. In addition to the emotional toll involved, current law and regulation affords federal employees multiple protections and appeal rights that require patience, determination and careful attention to detail on the part of supervisors.

This is not to suggest that poorly performing federal employees are immune from corrective action. While the relatively low number of federal employees removed from their positions is often cited as evidence that poor performers are not being dealt with, a number of factors make this misleading, including the following:

Because federal supervisors must first try to correct and improve deficient performance, many employees are helped to raise their performance to an acceptable level. In addition to being a more enlightened approach than acting summarily to "get rid of" poor performers, rehabilitating employees, when possible, may be less disruptive to the organization, and more cost-effective, than having to recruit and train new employees.
Since the federal workforce is highly skilled and educated, and is subject to a systematic, merit-based selection process (including a one-year probationary period), performance problems should not be widespread. In fact, research from both the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) finds that less than 4 percent of federal employees fall into the poor performer category. If, indeed, over 96 percent of federal employees are performing at an acceptable or better level, one would not expect to find large numbers of removal actions.
When needed, the federal removal process consists of several stages, starting with counseling and progressing ultimately to a formal written notice of proposed removal (and an opportunity to respond) prior to the actual removal. This creates opportunities for employees to find another position for which they are better suited or they may resign or retire in lieu of removal. The end result is the same-a poorly performing employee is no longer in the position-but it is typically not counted as a removal action.
Finally, federal employee removal actions can be processed under two different chapters of title 5 of the U.S. Code and this can lead to the reporting of an artificially low number of removals. Actions taken based solely or primarily on unacceptable performance are processed under the requirements of chapter 43 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. Removal actions taken for conduct related reasons (e.g., a series of unexcused absences or inappropriate workplace behavior) or a combination of conduct and poor performance are taken under the requirements of Chapter 75 of title 5 of the U.S. Code. The large majority of removal actions in the federal government are taken under Chapter 75 procedures. Reporting only the number of removal actions taken under Chapter 43, as sometimes happens, provides an incomplete picture.

It is clear, therefore, that many poor-performing federal employees can and are being dealt with in some manner. For many of these employees, their performance either improves or they are removed from or voluntarily leave their positions.

To provide a balanced picture, however, it is also important to note that there is little doubt that the effort required to take a removal action is daunting enough to some supervisors that they choose to tolerate sub-par performance. Indeed, both OPM and MSPB have confirmed that "outside" factors, including a perceived lack of higher level management support, a fear of retaliation in the form of unfounded discrimination complaints, and the amount of time required to successfully take a removal action to conclusion deter managers from taking those actions.

While this is troubling, it is important to consider the reasons that the federal government does not use an "employment at will" approach to federal employment in which employee serve at the sole discretion of career or political managers. The federal career employment system is based in law and regulation, and founded on a set of statutory merit principles designed to protect employees from arbitrary or improper decisions, including those stemming from partisan politics. The current procedural safeguards were developed to protect not just employees but indirectly the public served by those employees from abuses of hierarchical or partisan political power. The legal and procedural safeguards, therefore, need revision, not elimination.

What then to do about the perception of many observers, including a majority of federal employees themselves, that too many poor performers in the federal sector are not being dealt with effectively? In our recommendations at the end of this paper, we attempt to strike a balance between the need to ensure that poor performers are dealt with quickly and effectively, and the need to ensure proper safeguards for federal employees.

2. Linking Individual and Organizational Performance: In an ideal world, every individual's performance plan would contain measurable elements and standards for outcomes that trace directly from agency missions and strategic plans. This is no easy task. Even organizations which have profit and loss as the final arbiter of their success often find it necessary to measure outputs vs. outcomes, particularly for support and non direct-mission jobs. Within the federal sector, agencies are struggling to define outcomes, but success has been elusive.

It also must be recognized that many agencies do not have missions about which there is a political or societal consensus. Even for those agencies which are non-controversial, differences exist among the members of their "Board of Directors" (i.e. Congress) with regard to how and where they should direct their efforts. Federal agencies do not have the entrepreneurial discretion to establish budgets and target markets, and their success is very much in the eyes of a variety of beholders.

That in itself is not a bad thing in a democratic, pluralistic society. However, without clear and measurable definitions of organizational success, it is unrealistic to expect that measures of individual performance will be as objective and unambiguous as would be desirable. Although not an easy task, the more success an agency has at defining measurable outcomes and outputs--and cascading these down from organizational to individual plans--the more productive they are likely to be.

As with the issue of poor performers, effective linkage between organizational goals and individual performance is not inherently tied to a particular performance system or approach. Rather, it requires that, at each level of the organization, raters try conscientiously to communicate specific, measurable work expectations which help workers understand their roles within the "big picture" of their agencies' operations. Below are several recommendations intended to improve federal performance management.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Federal agencies should be allowed to develop and implement approaches to performance management which meet the needs of their particular environments. Any proposed changes to existing law or regulation should avoid overly prescriptive, "one size fits all" solutions. Employees at all levels (and their representatives) should be involved in designing, implementing and evaluating the effectiveness of each agency's performance management system.

2. Agency performance management systems should have clearly established policies and approaches to ensure that managers/supervisors communicate to individuals how their jobs and specific work objectives relate to agency missions and goals.

3. Agency performance management systems should require that documentation supporting monetary or other recognition of effective job performance must clearly reflect how the performance supported accomplishment of agency mission and goals.

4. Agencies should periodically assess the effectiveness of the training they provide to their managers, supervisors and non-supervisory employees to ensure that there is common understanding and agreement regarding how best to use the performance management system to establish and meet work objectives.

5. Agencies should periodically review the training, assistance and tools available to managers and supervisors for dealing with poor performers, to ensure that sufficient support is available.

6. Agencies should also use their internal evaluation programs to assess the overall effectiveness of their performance management systems, and report findings and recommendations for improvement to the head of the agency.

7. OPM should continue to monitor the issue of poor performance and disseminate information about the size and nature of the problems, as well as suggestions for agency (or congressional) action to remedy the problems.

8. In order to reduce the complexity, improve the timeliness, and increase the effectiveness of the removal process for the small number of federal employees who cannot or will not maintain an acceptable level of performance, the current statutory framework should be modified to:

a. Require that agency-initiated personnel actions that are currently appealable to both the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (e.g. a proposed removal action that the affected employee believes is motivated by unlawful discrimination) be appealed only to MSPB.

b. Merge the statutory procedures for removing a federal employee currently contained in Chapter 43 and Chapter 75 of title 5 U.S.C. into one procedure that contains the best provisions of each. That one procedure should adopt much (but not all) of the current Chapter 75 provisions since they are the ones most often used, by a large proportion, in removal and disciplinary actions.

c. Modify the reduction-in-force procedures to place any employee with two or more performance ratings below fully successful (or the equivalent) within the last three years on a separate and lower retention register from other career employees with higher ratings.

d. Consider other amendments to the statutes providing federal employees with appeal or complaint channels (including those for discrimination complaints under title 7 of the U.S. Code) that would allow the responsible authority to more expeditiously screen for frivolous complaints and/or allow different levels of review based on the alleged degree of harm (e.g. an employment termination would receive more rigorous scrutiny than a complaint of unequal workload distribution due to alleged discrimination.).

e. Require specific "retention standards" only when an individual's performance is not meeting expectations. Freeing supervisors from having to document minimum requirements for the majority of employees will allow them to spend more time dealing with those who need greater attention.

f. Establishment of a clear one year period during which a second failure to meet a retention standard can be the basis for removal without another opportunity to improve. This will help supervisors deal with employees who do "just enough" to avoid adverse action.

Provided by:

Coalition for Effective Change
3642 Upton Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20008
www.effective-change.org
Rosslyn S. Kleeman, Chair

back to publications