Performance-Based Pay

Amelia Gruber at Government Executive writes about a new report from the National Academy of Public Administration that endorses the implementation of a performance-based pay system for intelligence employees at the Defense Department. The current program - the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System - is soundly designed and shows no evidence that it contributes to problems with diversity, NAPA noted in the report to Congress and the Defense secretary.

Still, NAPA cautioned that officials overlooked some management practices critical to the success of the system, in part by rushing to place employees at nine intelligence components under uniform policies linking pay to job performance rather than tenure. Leaders also showed uneven levels of commitment and failed to communicate to employees how performance-based pay fit with the intelligence mission, NAPA found.

Last April, I wrote about the implementation of a pay-for-performance system across the intelligence community. John Allison, then-deputy director for human capital at the Defense Intelligence Agency, touted the progress of DCIPS in helping make meaningful distinctions in employee performance and clearing the way for the intelligence community's joint duty program, which requires all intelligence employees to complete at least one assignment outside their home agency to be eligible for promotion to the senior ranks.

An initial version of the fiscal 2011 Defense authorization bill would extend a moratorium on DCIPS, but the Obama administration has expressed opposition to the freeze, noting that it would prevent the Pentagon from taking meaningful action based on NAPA's findings. The Defense secretary has until August to respond to the report.

What do you think? Is implementing performance-based pay critical to the mission of the intelligence community, or does it represent another flawed attempt to overhaul the federal pay system?