Government Performance Logic Model

Common Complaints by Government Managers and their Staff

•“Congress is politicizing my program and doesn’t ‘get’ the reality of the challenges I face.”

•“Politicals are here for 18 months; my job is to minimize the potential damage they can do.”

•“Another cut…5% across the board.”

•“I can’t fire the problem employees.”

•“The SES performance plans are shams.”

•“Another A-76 Study? That will do wonders for employee relations!”

•“These measures are draining valuable resources and are a data burden.”


	How do government managers and their staff members view performance-based government? As the comments shown here indicate, they are pretty cynical.
	They complain that budget cuts are administered across the board, without regard to which programs are or are not producing the intended results. SES performance plans are viewed as shams because they are in paragraph form and do not provide specific guidelines for the measurement of individual performance. A-76 studies take too long. By the time they are released, they are not useful. Performance measurement systems contain too many indicators, burdening managers with extra work without being helpful. Congress appears to be “out of touch,” and politicals are viewed negatively.
	I understand these concerns. In most cases, past approaches to performance-based government have missed the mark, leaving line managers frustrated with a broken system. And they are the most important players in management reform. We need to listen to what they have to say and focus on the removal of obstacles to good performance. We need to think about what tools we can give them to make them better performers.
	Despite these criticisms, there is hope. There is a push for a different type of government, focused on achieving results and holding employees accountable for the delivery of quality services to the American public.