Federal Agencies Should Use Good Measures of Performance To Hold Managers Accountable
FPCD-78-26: Published: Nov 22, 1978. Publicly Released: Nov 22, 1978.
- Full Report:
Congress, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), and others have expressed concern about the need to hold federal government managers accountable for the efficient use of people and other resources. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was enacted to make broad improvements in the civil service system, but the act cannot be fully effective unless agencies implement it with performance measurement systems.
A major problem is the lack of reliable data on performance. Quantified data from work measurement, productivity, and cost systems need to be developed to compare performance with established goals as a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of managers. Most agencies either have not developed such systems or have not effectively used them. The Forest Service and the Small Business Administration had no work measurement systems; the Department of Veterans Benefits of the Veterans Administration had a system, but it was not used to assess managers' accountability for efficiency; and the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Postal Service had weaknesses in their work measurement systems that prevented full realization of potential benefits. The following institutional barriers must be overcome: (1) an arbitrary personnel ceiling process; (2) managers' perceptions that penalties rather than rewards tend to result from more efficient performance; (3) problems with the civil service personnel management systems; and (4) political actions which frustrate efforts to improve productivity.
Recommendation for Executive Action
Comments: Please call 202/512-6100 for additional information.
Recommendation: The Chairman, CSC, and his successor, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, should implement the Civil Service Reform Act by preparing guidance for agencies to measure managers' and other employees' performance with objective quantified data. The guidance should stress: (1) minimum data needed for appraisals; (2) costs of collecting this data by various methods of differing reliability and benefit; (3) the need to avoid duplication of other systems; and (4) the assurance of privacy in collecting data on individuals. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should revise OMB Circular A-11 to place greater insistence on the use of unit costs, work load measures, and productivity standards for staff requests.