LEADER 03500nam 2200673Ia 450 001 9910220131503321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a1-281-43022-6 010 $a9786611430221 035 $a(CKB)1000000000712899 035 $a(EBL)345178 035 $a(OCoLC)437212079 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000204668 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11168586 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000204668 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10208871 035 $a(PQKB)11108783 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC345178 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL345178 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10227036 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL143022 035 $a(oapen)doab114710 035 $a(EXLCZ)991000000000712899 100 $a20071211d2007 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aModernizing the federal government $epaying for performance /$fSilvia Montoya, John D. Graham 205 $a1st ed. 210 $aSanta Monica, CA $cRAND$dc2007 215 $a1 online resource (55 p.) 225 1 $aOccasional paper / Rand Corporation 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 08$a0-8330-4323-4 311 08$a0-8330-4441-9 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references. 327 $aCover; Preface; Contents; Figure; Tables; Summary; Abbreviations; Part One - Introduction; Part Two - Pay for Performance: Social Science Perspective; Part Three - PFP: Different Forms; Part Four - The Appraisal System: A Source of Concern; Personal Characteristics; Rater Training; Part Five - PFP in the Public Sector: Evidence; Pay for Performance in the State Systems; Part Six - PFP in the U.S. Federal Government; The GS Structure; How Are Employees Evaluated?; Is Performance Evaluation Linked to Pay?; Measuring Substandard Performance in the Federal Government 327 $aIs It Necessary to Modify the GS System?Part Seven - Some Departures from the GS; The DoD PFP Demonstration Projects; What Is Broadband Pay?; The SES; FDIC and IRS; Part Eight - Proposals to Change the GS; Part Nine - Burgeoning Opposition to PFP; The TSA; Opposition to the DoD's PFP Scheme; References; Related Readings 330 $aEnhancing the performance of the civil service has been a central objective of the United States since the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 authorized a performance-based component to federal salary structures. In 2003, the National Commission on the Public Service, also known as the Volcker Commission, recommended that explicit pay-for-performance (PFP) systems be adopted more broadly throughout the federal government. The authors compare several proposals aimed at enhancing the role of PFP in the federal government: a White House proposal (the Working for America Act), which recommends that 410 0$aOccasional paper (Rand Corporation) 606 $aPersonnel management$zUnited States 606 $aEmployee motivation$zUnited States 606 $aMerit pay$zUnited States 607 $aUnited States$xOfficials and employees$xSalaries, etc 615 0$aPersonnel management 615 0$aEmployee motivation 615 0$aMerit pay 676 $a352.67 700 $aMontoya$b Silvia$0935294 701 $aGraham$b John D$g(John David),$f1956-$0935295 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910220131503321 996 $aModernizing the federal government$92106472 997 $aUNINA