President's Message: Riding the Performance Accountability Wave

David A. Dye, Ph.D.

Take the following survey. Ask yourself, "to what extent are the following statements descriptive of my agency or department?"

Uses a competency-based system to recruit and select employees
Uses a pay-for-performance system for evaluating, rewarding, and developing employees
Uses Human Resources as a change agent and partner to improve agency performance
Has a performance-based budgeting process in place
Has a strategic plan that describes mission, vision, and core values to guide employees
Has an annual plan that tracks performance on a regular basis
Uses feedback from customers to improve services

While these statements are not meant to comprise a comprehensive or valid survey, there is a theme that is consistent throughout all of the questions. That theme is performance-based accountability. Simply stated, performance-based accountability refers to when someone or some entity is credited with meeting stated goals and objectives or when established performance levels are achieved. It is a step beyond mere performance in that the emphasis is on a goal-directed outcome or impact that is achieved from the act of performing. Today, organizations continue to institute more programs, policies, and procedures to make employees more accountable for achieving outcomes in the workplace. As these policies and procedures continue to evolve, our agencies and their work environments change from a focus on what we do to what gets done.

Performance-based Measurement in the Assessment Arena

Certainly, measuring performance is nothing new to our assessment field. Measuring performance and determining the best types of assessment tools to use is what we are all about. We also know that performance can take several shapes and forms. For example, we measure performance for all types of workers - employees, first-line supervisors, managers, and executives. We also measure performance at different levels in the organization - for example, performance at individual employee, team, and organizational levels.

We have been measuring performance forever -- it just seems that being accountable for achieving desired performance is becoming more ingrained and institutionalized in the workplace. In other words, the performance-based accountability wave is getting stronger and higher. Consider the following evidence:

There continues to be more focus on competency-based systems, and they are being used to address virtually all HR-related programs. It is no coincidence that IPMA recently developed an HR Competency Model and is now offering training workshops to help HR professionals understand and apply competencies needed to succeed.

Historically, assessment professionals have known that cognitive abilities are the best predictors of job performance, particularly for the "can do" side of performance. Attention over the last several years continues to be on how to improve prediction of the "will do" (AKA accountability) side of job performance.

Balanced scorecard measurement systems stress an integrated, comprehensive program of performance that provide a more complete view of how well an organization is doing from multiple perspectives (e.g., employee, customer, financial). In other words, we have to pay attention to more aspects in how we judge performance. Some of my own work in this area involves looking at how organizational improvements to HR-related programs lead to improvements in organizational effectiveness, efficiency, and customer service.

Probably the best example of performance accountability within the workplace is the introduction of 360° performance appraisal systems. Here no one can escape from being accountable -- everyone is accountable to everyone else!

For assessment professionals, our methods, tools, and systems for measuring performance must continue to evolve. Under the performance-based accountability theme, we become more accountable to our agencies as well. Not only must we measure performance -- we must make sure we can improve performance over time.

Accountability Falls Under the Reinvention Umbrella

Reinvention efforts are synonymous with ensuring performance-based accountability in the workplace.

Government agencies have been in a reinvention mode for some time. Certainly, The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and other similar initiatives got things moving in a big way. GPRA requires agencies to have strategic plans in place, to establish measures for achieving annual performance levels, for tracking progress over time, and to explain why performance levels have not been met.

Assuming that reinvention is a barometer of how well agencies are becoming more accountable, how are our agencies faring? Consider the following excerpts from the recently-released results of a government-wide survey of nearly 14,000 federal employees conducted by Vice President Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government Survey, in conjunction with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Where things are going well or fairly well

75% said there are service goals aimed at meeting customer expectations.
72% said that they rate the quality of work being done in their work group as "good or very good"
54% said that their immediate supervisor has organized their work group effectively to get the work done

Where improvement is needed

28% said corrective actions are taken when employees do not meet performance standards.
35% said their organization has made reinvention an important priority.
13% said that their organization has streamlined the process for hiring employees.
26% said they are clear about how "good performance" is defined in their organization

Source: Adapted from National Partnership for Reinventing Government Survey, August, 1998. For complete results, see http://www.npr.gov/

According to this evidence, there are some reasons to celebrate and other issues to address. In an effort to be "accountable" for acting on the results, Vice President Gore has called for the following:

Develop legislative proposals that more strongly link pay and performance by permitting more flexible pay systems to be more performance-oriented
Provide agencies with flexible policies for hiring and retaining a high quality workforce so they can recruit and retain the best and the brightest.
Find ways to deal with poor performers.
Improve labor/management relationships by rejuvenating partnership principles and implementation
Ask that 32 "high-impact" agencies that serve over 90% of the government's customers to participate in a government-wide customer satisfaction survey that will compare the quality of their services to the private sectors.

Are Assessment Professionals Up to the Challenge?

Given that we are expecting more of employees, of ourselves, and the organizations we serve, as assessment professionals, we should ask ourselves these questions:

How should performance-based accountability be measured (i.e., do we have good outcome measures)?
What kinds of assessment tools should we be developing and using to ensure that employees will be able to meet the increasing performance-based expectations? What are the best measures for assessing performance-based accountability - conscientiousness, emotional intelligence, biodata, others?
What relevance does performance-based measurement and accountability have to us as assessment professionals as we perform our own jobs? On this point, I am serving on IPMA's HR Certification Committee that is looking into the issue of certification for HR professionals. By the time you read this, I will have attended the first committee meeting in late January to begin exploring the issues.

What can you do? Get involved in the discussion... send me your ideas... put them on ECN...discuss them with colleagues...write an article to Assessment Council News...catch a ride on the performance accountability wave.. there's still time to catch it before it crests.

Bye for now - it seems as though someone on the TV is talking about a certain individual in Washington DC and whether he should be held accountable for his own actions.