Lower Ratings Shake Morale at NIH

WASHINGTON--One day last fall NIH lost one-half of its "outstanding" scientist administrators. Nobody left, and there was no immediate drop in the amount or quality of work being performed on the Bethesda campus. The change was strictly on paper, a result of a 1986 decision by the Reagan administration to reduce the number of “outstanding” performance ratings given to senior executives throughout the government. But NIH Director James Wyngaarden and others feel the policy delivers a devastating blow to morale at an agency already struggling to staunch the flow of top scientists to universities and private industry. And a congressional oversight committee recently took top Health and Human Services Department officials to task for their "grotesquely unfair" actions and their "insensitivity" toward federal workers. NIH historically has given the highest possible performance rating to a large proportion "as much as 80 percent"of its top administrators and scientists. Two years ago the Office of Personnel Management, in a decision embraced by HHS Secretary Otis Bowen, issued new guidelines to reverse what Bowen has called "rapid grade creep" in the evaluation of federal workers. OPM decided that 35 percent was a more reasonable figure; any agency that planned to classify as outstanding a higher percentage of its senior administrators would need to justify its decision. The ratings are only one of several factors used to determine bonuses, raises and promotions. But their power as a symbol is strong. As one top NIH administrator remarked, "it represents what your boss thinks of your work. A less than-outstanding rating means that you’re not so great." NIH didn’t feel the full impact of the new policy until last fall, when Wyngaarden prepared to sign off on evaluations that rated 76 of NIH’s 90-person core of senior executives as outstanding. That 84 percent level triggered a stormy meeting September 28 between Wyngaarden and three top HHS officials—Thomas Burke, Bowen’s chief of staff Thomas McFee, assistant secretary for personnel; and Robert Windom, assistant secretary for health. Wyngaarden was told to bring the number of outstanding ratings in line with the 35 percent "benchmark" or lose his authority to approve them. Wyngaarden dutifully slashed the list in half, relegating 36 of his administrators to the second highest category of excellent. But the percentage of outstanding ratings was still too high for Burke; at a subsequent meeting, he told Wyngaarden that he was "six over" an acceptable level and offered to split the difference. Wyngaarden agreed—"I was wearied by the process," he testified, and the result was 37 outstanding ratings "41 percent of the total." This heavy-handed approach inflamed Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the oversight subcommittee of the House Commerce and Energy Committee. At a March 31 hearing Dingell lit into Burke for his “capricious” behavior and disclosed that two administrators have appealed their ratings to an independent board. "You really don’t understand why I’m outraged," Dingell scolded Burke. "I have no problem with your deciding to change the performance rating system, as long as it’s based on objective criteria.... But the fact is that you ordered NIH to get down to 35 percent. Suddenly 40 people on their list were no longer outstanding. And you didn’t have the vaguest idea whether they were jackasses or geniuses." Burke was not intimidated, however. In response to a question from Dingeil about whether the new policy had improved management at NIH, he replied: "If you get an 0 just for showing up, it’s a boil on the butt of the person who is really working hard." Another 70 senior scientists, 55 of whom were rated as outstanding, were not affected by the new policy. Burke said that was done because "science is an exact skill, and it’s not subject to sudden changes from external factors. We wanted to improve management, not science." However, Dingell and other committee members professed surprise that an exception had been made for the researchers, and they chided Burke and McFee for ignoring the fact that many of the administrators had themselves once been top-notch bench scientists. Bowen said that his department has tackled the larger question of retaining talent by proposing a Senior Biomedical Research Service that would offer higher pay to top scientists. The plan has been "resting quietly" since last fall at the Office of Management and Budget, he said, pending the completion in June of a study by the National Academy of Sciences on privatization and related administrative issues at NIH. Wyngaarden acknowledged that salaries are the major factor in an employee’s decision to leave, but said that a positive working environment is also important. And he warned that disrupting the performance evaluation system can have a lasting effect on staff. "I had to downgrade a very brilliant, hardworking guy," recalled one senior NIH administrator. "Now when I see him I’m too embarrassed to even talk to him, and he feels the same way. It’s been traumatic for everybody." Mervis is on the staff of THE SCIENTIST.

Lower Ratings Shake Morale at NIH

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of