Consumer needs for postal services are changing quickly resulting in the U. S. Postal Service developing a plan to right size the workforce. New Postmaster General and CEO Pat Donahoe announced on March 24 that the Postal Service plans to enact the Reduction in Force (RIF) and Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) processes with the goal of eliminating 7,500 administrative, supervisory, and postmaster positions. Additionally, the Postal Service will cut the number of vice president level officers by 16 percent and eliminate the senior vice president position. Since 2007, the Postal Service has sponsored a number of recruitment and retention initiatives. One initiative identified critical needs in finance, supply management and engineering. Other efforts included the revamping of the Corporate Succession Planning process and the formation of a Leadership Development and Talent Management group in Human Resources. As the Postal Service continues to right size, one question remains: How can it develop a strategy to retain needed talents and attract new ones for its future, especially in a time when it is focusing on cost cutting? What does the Postal Service need to do to retain, develop, and attract future workers? Let us know what you think!
on Apr 4th, 2011
| 13 comments
on Feb 22nd, 2011
| 35 comments
[dropcap style="font-size: 60px; color: #9b9b9b;"] A [/dropcap]sk postal employees about the Postal Service’s Pay-for-Performance (PFP) program and you’ll hear a wide range of opinions as to why they think the program is not working. Many believe the program is unfair and can be subject to manipulation, The IBM Center for The Business of Government, Dr. Carl DeMaio, president of the Performance Institute, Dr. David Norton, president of the Palladium Group and co-founder of the Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, and organizational performance guru Jay Schuster cited the Postal Service’s PFP program as a model because it links individual contributions to organizational success. According to Postal Service officials, the PFP program’s foundation is a balanced scorecard of objective, independently verifiable measures of service, employee engagement, and financial performance. Performance indicators are measured at national, district, business unit, and individual levels. In its 2010 Comprehensive Statement of Postal Operations and Annual Report, the Postal Service stated the PFP program continued to drive organizational achievement as measured by a 2.2 percent increase in Total Factor Productivity (TFP) in 2010 compared to 2009.This marked the ninth year of positive TFP growth since 2000. The current PFP program evolved over a 12-year period and became the only basis for annual salary increases and lump sum awards for executive and administrative employees beginning in 2004. In implementing its PFP program, the Postal Service joined the ranks of many private sector firms where pay for performance is a standard feature for management and executives. In September 2010, many readers commented on our blog about the Postal Service’s PFP program. Comments expressed various opinions and perspectives about the program. Some said the PFP program is “broken” because it’s easy for postal management to manipulate. Others say PFP would be a great thing if the goals were reasonable and within the control of the manager. Many suggested scrapping the program altogether for a variety of reasons. For example, some said established goals are unrealistic and are changed often throughout the year so you end up chasing a moving target; others that the reporting system has no accountability factor and results are falsified; and still others that the ratings are changed or manipulated even when goals are achieved so that you get less of a raise. The OIG plans to initiate a review of the Postal Service’s PFP program. We would like to hear more about your thoughts on the subject. This topic is hosted by the OIG’s Human Resources and Security Audit Team.
on Sep 6th, 2010
| 99 comments
What’s the best way to encourage good performance? Employers have always struggled with this question. One answer is to pay employees based on how well they perform their jobs. Many private sector employers have adopted pay-for-performance (PFP) programs, and several federal agencies have also experimented with PFP. Some federal PFP programs have operated successfully for many years; others have been more controversial. Last year, Congress terminated a PFP program at the Defense Department. Employees complained that the program was arbitrary and lacked transparency. Clearly, designing a successful PFP program is not always easy. The Postal Service adopted an annual PFP program in 2003. PFP is the only source of annual pay adjustments for Postal Service non-bargaining employees. Employees and their managers review targets and expectations at the beginning of the year. During the year, managers provide feedback to employees through mid-year performance reviews. Then, at the end of the year, employees receive a rating. For most employees, the rating is based on a combination of their individual accomplishments and how well certain targets have been met by the unit, district, area, or the Postal Service as a whole. The employee’s position determines the choice of targets included. For example, the rating for a postmaster of a small Post Office would be based on factors such as how well Post Offices in his or her group met revenue and expense targets and how well the district met delivery performance goals. The Postal Service’s PFP program has won awards and been cited by other organizations as a model to emulate, but there have been some criticisms. Some of the factors on which an employee is evaluated may be outside the employee’s immediate control. Given the Postal Service’s current financial condition and the drop in mail volume, it can be difficult for even high-performing employees to receive an increase. What do you think? What makes for a good system of rewarding performance? This topic is hosted by the OIG’s Risk Analysis Research Center (RARC). Please remember we do not post comments that contain vulgar language or include the names of individuals. See our Comment Policy for further information.