Recently, both federal administrations in Canada and the U.S. have reintroduced plans to implement merit-based pay systems in the public service. Every few years, discussions about the introduction of a more performance-based pay system for public servants surface. This year is no different. From past experiences the problem is that, for the non-executive groups in particular, the implementation of such pay systems doesn’t work very well — if at all!
In the U.S., the Partnership for Public Service has proposed a plan to introduce a federal pay system that would compensate workers at a level on par with their cohorts in the private sector, with extra pay for only those who perform above expectations. Federal-worker unions have opposed the plan, saying the current pay system has served the nation well. The government has experimented with pay-for-performance programs in the past, particularly with the Defense Department’s National Security Personnel System, which Congress canceled in 2009. According to unions and other federal-worker groups, that program failed in part because employees did not trust that it would work fairly.
In Canada, the federal Treasury Board, which oversees pay structures for federal departments, recently introduced pay-for-performance programs for the non-executive categories of public servants. However, federal unions are challenging the Conservative government’s new performance management regime, touted as a “new beginning”. The government claims it will make Canada’s public servants more productive and efficient while weeding out poor performers. The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada has filed a policy grievance on behalf of 17 unions against key provisions of employees’ new mandatory performance agreements, saying these violate collective agreements. The unions are also concerned that the performance appraisal approach is unfair, biased and flawed, often depending on the personal relationship between managers and departmental staff.
Proposing performance-based compensation systems to bring the public sector into line with private sector approaches is like comparing eggs and apples. So much of what the public service does is in immediate response to the policies and politics of the government of the day. This more-or-less precludes any reference to a genuine “bottom line” when assessing results and achievements in meeting organizational objectives. This leaves managers with a need to simply assess employees’ contributions to meeting daily operational activities and their ability to effectively adjust to the whims of one’s political masters. Even measuring short-term efficiencies can be tricky, if not impossible, under such circumstances. Measuring long-term effectiveness is even more difficult given the ever present winds of political change.
Setting up a valid and legitimate merit-based appraisal system is the first and foremost ingredient for any potential success. Ensuring that managers are adequately trained in order to respect and maintain such a system on a continuing basis is the next most important requirement. Finally, the system’s development and implementation has to involve consultations with those employees who are directly affected, otherwise there can be no employee buy-in. Without these three key elements, any performance-based approach will result in an inequitable and fraudulent compensation system. What the stressed-out pubic service doesn’t need right now is another claim to disrepute!
FROLITICKS 
Leave a comment