Trust and pay

On Wednesday, President Bush and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge met with several thousand federal workers in Washington to assure them that the new Department of Homeland Security would be designed to help them do their jobs better. Part of the Bush administration's proposal for the new department would be a personnel system that gave managers wide-ranging authority over employees' pay and benefits. The current federal personnel system limits managers' authority over employee pay. With that in mind, Pay and Benefits Watch asked readers the following question two weeks ago: Do you trust your manager to evaluate your performance objectively and then make decisions about your pay based on his or her evaluation? Responses were all over the board. Some workers would never trust any manager to make performance-based pay decisions. Others would trust some managers, but certainly not their current manager. Still others trust their current manager, but don't trust managers in general. Employees expressed a wide range of fears about granting more power to managers to set pay rates. Many pointed out that the current system exists to prevent cronyism and favoritism-and said that even under the current, rigid system bad managers find a way to reward the people they like and know over the people that are the best employees. Other employees said that performance evaluation systems for many government jobs are simply too subjective to generate meaningful ratings that could then be tied to pay raises. Federal managers, too, said they have misgivings about having more discretion over pay. They also worry about not having objective criteria by which to rate employees. Managers worry that using pay to differentiate performance leads to a few happy employees and a lot of unhappy ones-who then file grievances and complaints against the managers. Other employees and managers, however, said they trust their supervisors and would appreciate a more flexible system. Here's a representative sample of the responses Pay and Benefits Watch received:

• "Do I trust my supervisor to decide my pay? Hell, no. And I resent Republicans, the Bush administration in particular, for wanting to destroy what little freedoms we now have against politicizing our jobs."
• "I believe that managers are in a much better position to determine my worth to the organization than some personnel regulation that doesn't see me, my work, or especially my worth. Some managers will discriminate based on personal views, etc., but the far majority of them will get it right. The system doesn't get in right. It just views everyone the same even when we are not."
• "My current supervisor is a very nice person, considerate and ethical and all that stuff. But I wouldn't trust her as far as I can throw her to set my pay. I have had numerous supervisors during my turn as a federal employee, and I have never had a supervisor that knew anything about supervision or evaluation."
• "The one and only answer is 'Yes.' If I did not trust my immediate supervisor, I'd leave. There are too many good jobs available for a talented employee for me to work for someone who is less than honest or capable.... I say 'Vote with your feet' for supervisors who are dishonest or incompetent. If everyone did likewise, the poor performing managers would eventually be removed. It is easier, quicker, more efficient, and more effective to leave."
• "From a supervisor's perspective, if I paid the folks that did the most and best contribution what they deserved, and [gave] less productive employees less funding, I would expect to be accused of favoritism, inadequate job performance, etc. I would anticipate being sued or at least having to provide documentation to support the agency in litigation. I would expect more 'teamwork' and 'morale' problems. I would predict my 'pedigree' being called into question about discrimination, favoritism etc."
• "As a senior mid-level manager in government I supervise other managers and supervisors. My worst problem with first-line supervisors is getting them to give proper ratings to their employees. Most supervisors don't want the grief that comes from giving accurate ratings. Additionally, most Performance Work Plans (which are used to rate employees) contain rating criteria that are difficult to measure."
• "This is an uncomfortable issue... but the fact is, if my manager isn't happy with my work, he/she should be able to use pay (and other tools) to reflect that displeasure."
• "When your supervisor is 240 miles away there isn't any way that you are going to get a realistic write-up. Most supervisors do not have the tools or the time to do a good job on evaluations and distance does not help. I supervise 26 people and over half of them are over 50 miles from my home office. We are now on the pass/fail system and that really works for me."
• "I've seen employees promoted because they were the fair-haired child of the moment. I've had managers tell me someone isn't performing but go ahead and authorize the career ladder promotion. I'm not confident that a new system will make new managers."
• "Exhaustive rules were needed because management was not trustworthy in the past. Has morality and fairness improved since these rules were created??? NO!!!!"
• "If managers were given the power to determine the size of your paycheck, employees would be in competition with one another to obtain the biggest paycheck. This would pit employee against employee, and there would be much backstabbing. People would be constantly telling their managers how great they are, while putting down the performance of their co-workers."
• "I am satisfied with the present pay system and see no reason for any change. There is an old government adage: 'Fix it until it is broke.' Well, we do not need any repair in this case. Ms. Kay Cole James needs to leave things alone, serve her time and go back to wherever she came from."
• "It depends on the situation. In my current position with my current boss, I would be fine with it. However, I have had situations in the past where I believe the pay provision would have been used against me."
• "If the new system is going to work, then unions must be given the opportunity to negotiate pay and benefits, therefore it might create a more balance and fair approach to changing the federal pay system."
• "With this proposed pay system, salaries rates will become very fuzzy. Rates would vary from supervisor to supervisor, from office to office, from agency to agency, and certainly from department to department. The politicals [appointees] would set the stage for the rates and it would be colored by their anti-government spiel."