GovernmentExecutive.com

During a recent trip to China, I visited a Tsinghua University classroom in Beijing to observe some graduate students in the school's international development program. But soon after settling into my seat at the back of the room, the students turned the tables and began asking me questions.

Specifically, they wanted to know how the U.S. government handles performance management. Most of the students are from Asian and African countries that look to China as a key driver of economic growth. But it was the United States they were interested in when it came to measuring the effectiveness of government.

I was obliged to tell them that, for all the combined efforts of public and private sector leaders, a library's-worth of studies and measurement tools, and many attempts to measure performance and to base compensation on those results, the U.S. government is still pretty bollixed up when it comes to evaluating itself and its employees.

A quick review of a few weeks' worth of stories from Government Executive illustrated how endemic the confusion over performance measurement is. For instance, in the past two weeks, advocates debated the role of politics in setting priorities and the grappling with budgets, Transportation Security Administrator Kip Hawley acknowledged that the agency's pay-for-performance system was sinking under the weight of its own complexity, and workforce planners and union leaders discussed whether inspiring extra effort or ensuring fairness should be the primary goal of a performance review and pay system.

The announcement last week that the National Nuclear Security Administration will launch pay for performance will do precisely nothing to help government leaders out of this compensation quagmire. If the program at NNSA succeeds, other agencies and departments likely will argue that the small agency's approach isn't scalable, or that the workforce profile is unique. If it fails, there will be a wide range of explanations for that failure. What is certain in any debate over performance measurement is there are no easy answers or simple blueprints.

None of this should come as a surprise to readers of this column. The National Security Personnel System alone provides a lifetime of cautionary tales about the difficulty of getting measurement and reward right, and the effect on employee morale and trust in managers when those programs fail.

But the Tsinghua students' questions were a reminder of how surprising -- and problematic -- it is that no one has really figured out how to measure government performance.

Government effectiveness isn't the only thing at stake. As one African student said, having a government that works lends credibility to other sectors of society. Until governments in developing countries can prove that their regulatory systems are strong and fair, the student pointed out, international investors may not -- and should not -- trust the businesses that they regulate.

The students couldn't come up with a solution either. I listened in on a group exercise to design a performance measurement system for a community center. Students tossed around ideas, including devising a customer service satisfaction survey, tracking the popularity of items in the center's food bank, and monitoring electricity records to see which facilities received the greatest use. None of the participants suggested evaluating the center's employees or surveying them on job satisfaction.

Perhaps in spite of its flawed programs, opposition and a lack of information, the U.S. government is ahead of the curve after all when it comes to performance management. No one may know precisely how to measure federal employees' job performance, but at least workforce planners and agency heads in this country know that it's a central issue.

COMMENTS

• So Dan the military is the only federal organization with metrics. Like the ones in place in Iraq? Funny, yesterday during Gen Petraeus’ testimony to Congress he made no mention of metrics. When asked repeatedly what 'conditions' he is looking for to begin substantial U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq he replied that ‘he will know them when he sees them’. Since no metrics were discussed, let me offer a few metrics for success. (1) The cost of Sunni Insurgents on the US payroll. (2) The amount of fuel consumed during monthly military operations. (3) The cost for replacing worn out military equipment. (4) The amount of recruitment and re-enlistment bonuses to induce the all volunteer force to stay in Iraq. (5) The VA cost for rehabilitation for injured military members. All of these items can be reduced down to money. . . . how much the federal government spends on Iraq. At about $2B a month, I would say it is a very successful program. With regards to General Sanchez being canned, he wasn’t. He just didn’t earn another star so he quietly retired. His effective General Casey received a promotion to be the US Army commander. With regards to Civil Service in another post you expressed glee that retiring civilians where kept waiting up to a year before their retirement pay was sorted out. This past weekend Paul Converse and Mazin Zwayne, both brave dedicated US Civil Service employees were killed in mortar attacks in the Green Zone. No doubt in your twisted mind you would probably welcome shabby treatment for their families in administering the settlement their estates by the DoD. Such is the America that you live in: praise for military, acceptance of contractors, and bile for Civil Service. In case you missed it, DoD policy is to have military, civilian, and contractors to work interchangeability in accomplishing the mission at hand. Clearly you haven’t gotten the message yet. Bob Wilbanks Posted April 9, 2008 7:29 PM
• Bob, fortunately the military is the only activity in the fed gov that has metrics. They have established them in Iraq and there are good days and bad days. Remember Gen Sanchez he was canned cause he couldn't meet the proformance criteria in Iraq. Can you name a career civil servant that has ever been caned??? Because I sure can't Dan ketter Posted April 8, 2008 5:12 PM
• Dan, based upon your football analogy, are you saying that we should just walk away from Iraq now, and that the only accurate metric for measuring success in this war is how much money the government can waste? Bob Wilbanks Posted April 7, 2008 7:37 PM