| Comment Number: | EM-023120 |
| Received: | 3/15/2005 2:44:45 PM |
| 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:
March 15, 2005 DoD NSPS Comments , DoD NSPS Comments: PERFORMANCE 1. Adding conduct into performance is probably good. How someone interacts and perfroms their job is often just as important as the total number of output one produces. 2. The proposed rules talk about clear expectations and goals and ongoing feedback to produce agreeable performance results. With the emphasis on reducing supervisor/employee ratios (and adding non-supervisory team leaders) in the past decade, this is somewhat unrealistic, particularly when pay is linked to performance. Reaching agreement on perceptions of performance will only be achieved with high performers. 3. No quotas for performance ratings. Every system of performance evaluation slowly moves away from distinct performance differences to one of leveling out performance ratings to some degree. Managers are not aware of what other managers are doing in their performance reviews of staff, so to make sure they are not the most restrictive, they become more lenient. If no constraint or review is made to assure a performance distribution of some type, managers will take the course of least resistance. NOTE: Bottomline, a manager does not get criticized by higher management or employees for being to lenient, but they will if they are too tough. If there is not a major incentive for managers to adequately distribute performance ratings, it will not happen to the extent desired. Sincerely,