The advocacy group Federally Employed Women has said two out of three of its members are not happy with current pay for performance personnel systems.
After surveying its members it released a position paper endorsing some principles of pay for performance such as rewarding employees for work rather than longevity, but also citing a number of problems stemming from supervisors’ shortcomings and inadequate definition and measurement of duties.
A common refrain was that too much discretion is given to managers that have not been trained well enough on how to remain objective during the review process. Members said managers often rate employees as average because they aren’t familiar enough with how to document differing levels.
The organization plans to present its findings to Congress and OPM, and it argues that any pay for performance plans will have to address the issue of who becomes or remains a supervisor in a newly formed pay for performance system after conversion. Too often employees are elevated to supervisory jobs because that’s the only avenue open to advancement – whether they are cut out for supervision or not — and that practice should not carry over, FEW said.
As many workforce surveys have indicated, FEW’s survey found a problem with favoritism, with many members feeling that good ratings too often depend on whether the employee is well-liked. The group called for stronger justification of ratings with examples to back it up.
Additional recommendations include required training for supervisors and managers on performance evaluation, tracking employees based on race and gender to determine which ones are getting raises, bonuses and higher salaries, and giving employees performance plans that are individualized by using a brief addendum.
