For the Federal managers and employees among you, here are some links about pay for performance. In my long musings on the sessions on change management at SAA, I mentioned that change often occurs in several areas simultaneously and in rapid succession and that agencies need to be prepared and plan for handling how change in one key area may affect another. They also need to consider how employees react to these changes. I specifically mentioned the reconciliation of projects requiring teamwork and colloboration with processes that may lead tinstead to increased competitiveness. Pay for performance (PFP) represents a huge change from the way Federal agencies have been administering pay and performance measurement. Also, the budget environment for most civil agencies is very tight right now. See http://www.governmentleader.com/issues/1_5/features/107-1.html Also see the analysis by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board at http://www.mspb.gov/studies/rpt_03_06_pay_for_performance/decision_points.htm which provides a thoughtful look at Pay for Peformance, organizational cultures, etc. Regarding funding, the report states:"It is important to note that reallocating existing funding sources as discussed so far creates a win-lose situation in the organization. A pay for performance system funded by money earmarked for the general increases and WGIs typically results in some employees obtaining more than they would have otherwise and others receiving less. This may create resistance among those who perceive that their incomes are falling behind and heighten competition among employees in a negative way. This discrepancy appears most problematic for the “good, solid employees” who may no longer receive regular, though modest, increases to recognize their contributions. An alternative strategy to relying upon the existing salary budget would be for agencies to increase the total amount available for performance-based pay increases by tapping other sources of funding. For example, the Human Capital Performance Fund (HCPF) provides managers with additional funds (not drawn from within their agency budgets) for rewarding outstanding performers. However, agencies must cover any future increases in personnel costs and benefits resulting from such rewards. It may also be possible for agencies to pursue other funding options, such as through a working capital fund or through a supplemental appropriation to support the implementation of a pay for performance plan. Greater budget creativity and advance planning will most likely be necessary to appropriately fund pay for performance systems because such systems represent a shift away from the predictable pay increases and salary budgets associated with the General Schedule pay plan." Also of interest in the MSPB analysis is the section on "forced distribution" of employee rankings. For more reading on PFP, see http://www.govexec.com/features/0204/0204s4.htm and www.gao.gov/new.items/d0483.pdf Maarja A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org. For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname *or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask] Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>