Performance Appraisals at State

Josh Rogin at the Cable, reading through an analysis of the financial units of the State Department, makes a good--if sobering--catch:

The 100-plus page document, the annual Agency Financial Report, is meant to give a snapshot of how all financial aspects of the State Department are faring, but includes an interesting aside. Only 63 percent of employees' performance ratings in fiscal 2009 were deemed to be "on or above target" and 38 percent were judged "below target or improved but not yet met." Ouch.

That's down from a 69 percent positive performance rating in fiscal 2008 and 86 percent in fiscal 2007.

But wait. The numbers don't tell the whole story. Apparently, the measures for grading performance changed somewhat for 2009, meaning that the numbers don't represent a genuine apples-to-apples comparison.

"Marked by increasing rigor and intensive engagement at multiple levels of the organization, the process for developing and selecting performance indicators changed significantly in FY 2009," the report states. (Is the implication here that the previous administration wasn't "rigorous" in measuring performance?)

I think it's entirely possible that State is implying "that the previous administration wasn't 'rigorous' in measuring performance." Indeed, it seems to me that a significant tenet of the Obama administration's human capital policy is going to be the argument that they can recognize and reward performance more effectively than the Bush administration did because they hold federal employees in higher regard in the first place. If they can firmly establish that attitude, they might have a better shot selling pay reform and performance management to federal employee unions--ultimately, beating the Bush administration at a game it started.