Comment Number: 05-02582-EREG-44-d7391-c31976
Received: 2/24/2005 8:00:00 AM
Subject: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment
Title: National Security Personnel System
CFR Citation: 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901
No Attachments

Comments:

Regarding 'Performance Payouts' in Part 9901, Subpart C, Section 9901.342: I worked in such a system in a Demonstration Project at Naval Ocean Systems Center in Kaneohe, Hawaii from 1985 to 1987, and it was hellish. It only served to pit co-workers against each other. It did not serve to accomplish the main mission, and in fact detracted from it. The employees who wanted more pay (about half, the strictly self-serving ones) would not do anything to help the other guy because they didn't want to run the risk of making the other guy look good to their boss. It destroyed cooperation and espirit de corp, and was an enormous distraction. Rather than leading people to approach their work in the manner of accomplishing it safely,efficiently, and timely, they approached it in the manner most suitable to turning it to their own personal advantage. Such a system may be okay in a for-profit enterprise where the predominant interest is the bottom line, but it is not suitable in the life-or-death business of national defense. In addition, the first-line managers responsible for determining performance payouts are already up to their eyeballs in accomplishing their main mission as well as meeting their numerous administrative duties. In no way do they have the additional time and energy to come anywhere near administering a performance payout system fairly. Where I work (the Nuclear Refueling Division at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard) the first-line supervisors are already so busy trying to meet the demands of upper management and meeting their heavy responsibility of safely and flawlessly refueling the reactors in nuclear submarines, they have essentially no time to obtain an accurate picture of their subordinate's performance. Thus, the subordinates, who also share that heavy responsibility, will naturally be inclined to devote a large portion of their time to putting on a show for their supervisors to the detriment of accomplishing their main mission. I believe almost everyone in DoD is in the same situation. Having said this, I also want to say that I appreciate the underlying philosophy of pay-for-performance; that people need incentives to extend themselves. But dangling money in front of people's noses so they can buy the latest electronic toy is the worst possible carrot and only brings out the worst in people - greed. A much more effective incentive, and a correction to DoD's most chronic weakness, would be for DoD to provide their workers with leaders that workers would follow anywhere. In my experience in DoD (25 years) this has always been the one thing lacking. It has been the case that management, with rare exceptions, is looking for the 'silver bullet,' the one true 'system' of management that will extract the most work from subordinates, rather than leading the charge and saying in effect 'follow me boys!' and bringing out the invaluable best in people - courage, honor, and devotion to the best country on the face of the earth. In my 25 years in DoD, I could count the number of supervisors like that on the fingers of one hand. Real leadership is hard, but there is no substitute. The technocratic substitutes for leadership in NSPS, in particular pay-for-performance, are only another mythical magic wand. Grubbing for money may be okay for some people, but DoD management should consider that their workers might have a higher calling.