This first appeared as an ASPANET On-Line column in December 2001.

Results-Oriented Performance Agreements:
A Key Tool for Setting Clear Expectations

 By John Kamensky 

The Secretaries of Treasury, Transportation, and Health and Human Services are reinstituting a tool pioneered nearly a decade ago - results-oriented performance agreements between themselves and their political and careers senior leaders. They hope to use them as a way of setting clear expectations and rewarding good performance.

Results-oriented performance agreements were originally inspired by similar efforts in New Zealand and the United Kingdom to increase accountability. They were transplanted to the US in 1993 by the National Performance Review, which recommended the use of results-oriented performance agreements between the President and about two dozen top agency heads.

To overcome internal opposition from White House staff and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)- who were both concerned that direct links between the President and agency heads might weaken their own influence over agencies) - these original agreements were limited to one year, and made voluntary. About 10 agency heads actually crafted agreements signed by the President.

These initial performance agreements faced a number of challenges. Senior OMB staff thought it was politically naive for cabinet secretaries to publicly commit to measurable results and quietly discouraged their use. They eventually viewed the agreements as interim steps until the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was implemented in 1997. After 1997, OMB declared that the organizational commitments in agencies' GPRA plans took precedence and that as a result, personal performance agreements between the President and his top agency leaders were no longer necessary. In addition, senior advisors in some departments saw the agreements as a guide for the opposing party on how to successfully block and embarrass the incumbent party. For example, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services committed to new health care legislation, the opposing legislative party could embarrass the Secretary by blocking action. But more importantly, President Clinton never followed up with those who did sign agreements with him, so many of the Secretaries stopped investing the energy in getting them approved through the reluctant OMB and White House bureaucracies.

However, some Secretaries found that their personal agreements with the President were useful ways of creating clear expectations and galvanizing commitment within their own departments. While GPRA is comprehensive in its scope to ensure accountability for all activities in the agency, their personal agreements highlighted targeted priorities. These Secretaries also cascaded their commitments to the President down within their own organizations, having their assistant secretaries agree to performance commitments; they in turn cascaded their commitments to career executives. The departments that made the most use of cascaded performance agreements were Energy and Transportation.

Since then, the use of results-oriented performance agreements has spread, albeit sporadically and at levels below the President and his Cabinet. For example, the heads of performance-based organizations (PBOs) have such agreements with their respective Cabinet Secretaries and a large chunk of their pay is linked to these agreements. PBOs include the Office of Student Financial Assistance and the Patent and Trademark Office. Selected other agencies have chosen to use this approach as well, such as the Veterans Health Administration, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Postal Service. Part of the incentive to use them is the increasing pressures GPRA to connect day-to-day activities in an organization to its overall performance commitments.

GAO assessed the use of results-oriented performance agreements in an October 2000 report and concluded that "such agreements can become an increasingly vital part of overall efforts to improve programmatic performance and better achieve results." It also identified five “emerging benefits” from using results-oriented performance agreements:

• Use results-oriented performance agreements as a framework for communicating priorities and setting clear performance expectations. Start by defining up front the process for crafting, implementing, and making decisions on the results of the performance agreement. Use “line of sight” measures that link individual employees’ performance and priorities to their agency’s performance commitments described in their GPRA annual performance plans. The IRS does this well.

• The boss has to care –not just in crafting the agreements, but in follow through. For example, in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to sit down with her ministers one-on-one at least every six months to review progress.

• Limit the commitments in the performance agreement to 3-5 key items. Focus on those measures that mean the most to customers, stakeholders, and employees. The Office of Student Financial Assistance does this well.

• Get buy-in on key commitments from employees, peers, and stakeholders. Especially engage employees in the development and use of the measures. It helps ensure credibility and trains them in the use of the measures. The Public Building Service is an example of an agency that does this well.

• Make sure the data are current and available to everyone in the agency. Many agencies found that developing organization-wide measures did not create incentives for senior managers to develop improvement strategies; however, once the data were disaggregated to the unit level and widely shared, managers began acting on the results. The Bureau of Land Management is a good example of an agency doing this well.

• Use simple measures that can be clearly communicated and connect them to clear incentives. Make sure the performance metrics are actionable and focus as much as possible on outcomes, rather than outputs. Connect them to bonuses and awards up front, not after the performance year is over. The Patent and Trademark Office is a good example of an agency that does this well.

• Designate an on-staff champion who is the keeper of the data. Integrate the performance management system into the regular management information system as much as possible. For example, the Department of Energy created a quarterly tracking system.