Federal policymakers are constantly looking for ways to improve the performance of government programs and employees in those programs. Yet a new paper questions this approach altogether, saying this strategy does little to affect management and allocation decisions.
The paper, “Do Performance Reforms Change How Federal Managers Manage?”, by Donald Moynihan and Stéphane Lavertu, suggest that quarterly performance reviews can help make the best use of performance information. The authors believe the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 is a step in the right direction since it seeks to institutionalize leadership commitment to performance by requiring leaders to publicly commit to certain high-priority goals.
In contrast, the paper criticizes many efforts to improve employee performance, noting that management typically sees these reforms as just an administrative requirement. Effectively changing employee performance and morale requires a committment to dynamic, engaged performance reviews and dialogue between federal managers and employees.
It’s a scenario well-known to many in government, who see annual performance reviews take on the role of a ‘check-the-block’ activity, with many federal mangers openly admitting they simply give all of their staff midline ratings, without even counseling or discussing the results with the employee.
The authors criticized previous efforts of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the Bush administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Both acts sought to encourage federal agency personnel to take a performance-oriented approach in managing their programs.
The authors found that the involvement of federal managers that used the processes from these programs generally had little direct effect on “purposeful performance information use”, or using data to improve management and allocation decisions. The managers typically oriented their programs simply as procedural requirements, not as a tool to improve employee performance.
“The findings reflect the limits of government-wide reform efforts that depend upon bureaucratic behavior that is difficult for reformers to control and observe,” the authors wrote.
Howard Risher, a consultant and writer on federal pay and performance issues, suggests the federal government should adopt an incentive-based rewards program, much like the private sector has. He points to Canada, where government executives are eligible for three separately calculated cash payments: one based on the achievement of individual or team performance objectives; the second, introduced in 2011, is based on the achievement of “corporate commitment” department or agency goals; and the third awardable only for exceptional achievements accorded the highest rating.
