Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Connected Government
- Consolidating Mission-critical Systems
- Constituent Servicing
- Continuous Monitoring: Tools and Techniques for Trustworthy Government IT
- The Data Privacy Imperative: Safeguarding Sensitive Data
- Eliminating the Pitfalls: Steps to Virtualization in Government
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- Government Cloud Brokerage: Who, What, When, Where, Why?
- Government Mobility
- Mission-critical Apps in the Cloud
- Mobile Device Management
- The Modern Federal Threat Landscape
- The Path from Legacy Systems
- Understanding the Intersection of Customer Service and Security in the Cloud
Shows & Panels
Panel: NSPS lessons and future of pay-for-performance
Friday - 1/27/2012, 10:50am EST
(From left to right): Bob Tobias, former member of the Defense Business Board task group that studied NSPS; Patrick Nealon, Director of Deloitte Consulting LLP's Federal Total Rewards practice; Tom Temin, host; Pat Tamburrino, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy (Photo by Michael O'Connell/Federal News Radio)
As DoD turns its attention to developing a system to succeed NSPS, The Federal Drive with Tom Temin spoke with a panel of experts about the lessons learned from NSPS and the future of pay-for-performance in the federal government.
- Pat Tamburrino, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy
- Patrick Nealon, Director of Deloitte Consulting LLP's Federal Total Rewards practice
- Bob Tobias, former member of the Defense Business Board task group that studied NSPS
DoD will release details of the successor of NSPS to Congress next month, Tamburrino said, but declined to provide specifics. However, the fundamental idea of effective performance management will remain in place.
The Defense Business Board found the performance management portion of NSPS was "excellent," Tobias said. But the board added that the pay-for-performance portion should be "significantly restructured."
The system was a "one-size-fits all" system, Nealon said. "For a performance management system, that often doesn't work, especially when you're looking at large populations like we had with the Defense Department."
Nealon said there was a disconnect between how first-level supervisors were implementing pay-for-performance and how NSPS required them to manage workers.
Managers must think about performance and communication differently. "It's not about the 365th day," Tobias said. Supervisors need to have "real-time engagement and not a perfunctory conversation that occurs once a year," he said.
In the past year, DoD has had an increased focus on supervisor training, Tamburrino said. Specifically, new supervisors must now go through a mandatory protocol training and then refresher training, which includes how to be a mentor and have "difficult" conversations when they are warranted.
"Supervision is an art," Tamburrino said. He added that the forthcoming report will put a greater emphasis on the selection of supervisors.
The Pentagon also made efforts to include all stakeholders in the development of the system.
DoD used three labor management design teams consisting of more than 100 individuals, Tamburrino said. They worked for about 18 months, and nearly seven months full-time, to design the system, he said.
"What the Department of Defense will give to the Congress is the report of the three labor management design teams," Tamburrino said. "And that's their report. That will not be edited by Department of Defense leadership."
Tobias said the collaboration with stakeholders will be evident in how the system is implemented. With NSPS, DoD had attempted to roll out the system too fast and "drove off a cliff." The new system, to be rolled out in February, was developed slowly with agreement across stakeholders, he said.
"Based on that agreement, there will be a very, very fast implementation," Tobias said.