Merit-system advocate troubled by SES pay problems

“If we can’t get this thing going in the SES, the chances of its cascading [governmentwide] are out,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia.

For Voinovich, emerging questions about the SES pay system are “really disturbing.” “I want this thing to be perfection,” he said. “I want it to work.”

In a recent hearing before Voinovich’s subcommittee, representatives of the Office of Personnel Management, the Government Accountability Office and the Senior Executives Association testified about difficulties with the SES pay-for-performance system.

"A performance-based pay system “is a lot of work. I did it when I was mayor. It was tough. But if somebody is doing a good job, they like to be recognized." —Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

SEA had earlier released the results of a survey of members and nonmembers about the SES pay-for-performance system, titled “Lost in Translation.” According to the survey, the SES’ experience with pay for performance was troubled from the start. Obstacles included the use of quotas to meet performance goals, a disconnect between ratings and rewards, negative morale, and a lack of communication and system transparency.

In the hearing, Voinovich asked OPM director Linda M. Springer about her agency’s response to the survey—the results of which seemed to surprise OPM officials.

“We haven’t before heard [negative] things to the degree that we’ve heard in this survey,” she said. She said the agency had met with SEA and will study the survey further.

Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), the subcommittee’s ranking member, found the results of the survey “disturbing,” particularly the findings on the use of quotas. “I am especially troubled that over half, 53 percent, believe that quotas were used to determine bonuses last year, despite explicit regulations by OPM prohibiting such practice,” he said.

Voinovich, a keen advocate of pay for performance, was clearly rankled about SES pay problems. He told Springer that he has “invested an enormous amount of time” in the area of performance-based pay.

“A year from now, I want this straightened out,” he said.

Carol Bonosaro, SEA president, cited examples before the committee of inequities in the current pay-for-performance system. In one case, a Presidential Distinguished Rank awardee in the SES recently received nothing—no raise, no bonus—after getting an outstanding rating, she said. In fact, 5 percent of SES members who earned outstanding ratings received no raises or bonuses.

Voinovich acknowledged some of the problems inherent in developing a pay-for-performance system. A performance-based pay system “is a lot of work,” he said. “I did it when I was [Cleveland] mayor. It was tough. But if somebody is doing a good job, they like to be recognized.”

The SES is not a bell curve, Bonosaro said. “We expect these people to be high performers.” But there’s a perception in agencies that the way to receive SES pay system certification from OPM is to “keep lowering the levels of executives receiving the highest ratings,” she said. Bonosaro suggested that training might be the missing link. Thus far, only one department, Labor, has received full certification from OPM for its SES pay system.

Brenda Farrell, GAO’s acting director for strategic issues, presented testimony about the criteria agencies must meet to achieve certification for their SES pay system. To receive a full two-year certification, an agency must show that its senior executive performance management system meets nine criteria: alignment, consultation, results, balance, assessments and guidelines, oversight, accountability, performance differentiation and pay differentiation.

Farrell suggested that agencies need to do a better job of sharing best practices. Agencies “are hungry” to learn about them. She mentioned the Chief Human Capital Officers Council as one such venue.

Voinovich cited comptroller general David Walker as an example of someone who led a successful pay-for-performance initiative. At GAO, Walker used training, communication and commitment from top management to make sure the system was fair and worked.