Stephen Barr’s “Is the Annual Performance Review the Goof-Off’s Best Friend?” article is sure to raise hackles – and hallelujahs.
In his “Federal Dairy” column today (January 10, 2006) Barr quotes Robert D. Behn, a Harvard Kennedy School of Government lecturer and public policy analyst, who says that the government’s annual performance appraisal process unwittingly protects underperformers because managers eschew the enormous effort needed to remove them. Rather, they decide to focus as much as possible on other aspects of their jobs, like achieving mission.
Mr. Behn says the easiest course of action is to assign ‘satisfactory’ ratings and move on. As a federal manager or senior management official for the last 25 years, I agree with him. It’s sad to say, but times I tried to demote or remove employees for performance, it was nearly impossible. In fact, the process is so time-consuming, a reasonable person would conclude that it is not a sensible use of the managers’ time to forsake the rest of the office staff and jeopardize meeting program objectives.
We’re faced with the age-old questions. How competent are government employees? How fair are managers? Decades ago unions grew out of poor working conditions, low wages, and capricious treatment of employees. In fact, an entire body of labor law, for the public and private employment sectors, has developed. If the laws ensure fairness and balance, they are right on target. But if they hamstring and permit underperformers from being shown the door, then they are an overall detriment. I’m inclined to believe they are more reflective of the latter than the former.
On OPM’s web site (http://www.opm.gov/perform/articles/1999/apr99-3.asp) there are articles addressing this issue. One, “Dispelling Myths about Poor Performers,” cites an OPM study that concludes: “that 3.7 percent of the Federal workforce are poor performers and 1.5 percent are rehabilitated poor performers. The study examines the common perception that there are too many poor performers in the Federal Government. OPM Director Janice R. Lachance has observed that "this study explodes the myth that poor performers are the rule rather than the exception in the Federal Government."”
Does this study explode the myth or does it confirm what Robert Behn suggests? As a long-time, now retired, federal employee, I have nothing but the highest regard for government employees as a whole. Having said that however, I’m not blind and it would be folly of the highest order to suggest that the “Lake Wobegon” effect exists throughout the executive branch. All Lake Wobegon residents are said to be “above average.”
If a manager decides Suzie is too hard to demote or release based on performance (conduct or fitness for duty is another issue and is comparatively easy to address), then Mr. Behn suggests that a “fully satisfactory” appraisal rating will fly straight into her personnel folder. In that case, she certainly won’t appear as one of the 3.7 percent of poor performers of which the OPM Director speaks.
What do you think? What’s your experience been? Do you live in Lake Wobegon?
+++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 500 words.
© January 10, 2006