What's In A Name?

American Federation of Government Employees President John Gage doesn't like the phrase "pay-for-performance," says he's asked the Obama administration not to use it, and that they've largely complied. As a reporter, my question to, and challenge for, folks who dislike the term "pay-for-performance" is this: what would be better?

As a phrase, "pay-for-performance" is the most efficient, precise way to describe systems that link job performance and compensation. It's a lot more words to say it any other way. It's not just a slogan, even though some people see it that way. I'd be curious to see actual research about what people think "pay-for-performance" means. If they think it means linking performance and compensation, that seems entirely reasonable. If they think it means linking performance and compensation and they're reacting negatively to that concept, that's another thing entirely. If they think "pay-for-performance" is code for any one of a number of concepts they view negatively, including efforts to hold down federal employee pay across the board, that's a separate issue, too. But in the absence of comprehensive research, it's hard for me to understand how the use of the phrase "pay-for-performance" actually affects the debate over compensation policy.

If there's a better, clearer, more accurate phrase to describe systems that link pay and compensation out there, and will describe what the administration is considering doing, I'll be interested to hear it. But as yet, I think there's no real replacement yet, and perhaps that's premature. I'll be interested to see how the rhetoric and language evolve as the administration's hopes for pay reform become more concrete.