Thank you Mr. Chairman. I too welcome our witnesses. As you noted, today’s hearing offers another opportunity to review the challenges associated with moving to a pay for performance system and to show agencies, like the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, what works and what doesn’t work.
This Administration is pushing to replace the current personnel system with pay for performance. Such an obvious pocketbook issue makes it imperative that should any changes occur they start at the senior levels first. However, senior executives and managers must have trust in a new system and have confidence that the processes by which their performance is appraised and their compensation is determined are fair.
Last week, the Senior Executives Association (SEA), the professional organization for the government’s Senior Executive Service (SES), released the results of its survey of members and non-members on the SES pay for performance system, which raise serious concerns.
The results are disturbing. Despite the Administration’s claims that the SES system is successful, the survey tells a different story.
Respondents say their new pay for performance system lacks transparency, fails to link pay with performance ratings, and serves no purpose other than lowering employee morale. I am especially troubled that over half, 53 percent, believe that quotas were used to determine bonuses last year, despite explicit regulations by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) prohibiting such practice.
Director Springer and I have met regarding the issue of quotas, and I believe her when she says quotas are unacceptable. However, if quotas are not being used, then there is a serious perception problem that must be addressed. I look forward to hearing what steps OPM is taking to resolve this problem.
Let’s be clear. The competitive selection process for members of the SES should ensure that the best people are leading the federal government. So when it comes to evaluating the performance of these highly qualified individuals, high performance ratings should be expected.
Agencies that lower ratings artificially to fit bell-shaped curves or institute arbitrary quotas are not rewarding performance. Rather, they are showing how pay for performance can be unfair and unobjective.
Director Springer, I want to thank you for committing to working with agencies to address the problems raised by the SEA survey. To me, the survey clearly demonstrates the need for more rigorous certification criteria, as well as more training and oversight by OPM. Right now only one agency has full certification and 25 have provisional certification. I wonder if we are giving agencies too much flexibility without meeting what Comptroller General Walker calls the "show-me" test.
If federal senior executives don’t have faith in the fairness and transparency of their pay system, I don’t see how rank and file employees would want to work under such a system.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
