| Comment Number: | OL-10500034 |
| Received: | 2/14/2005 4:44:23 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:
Document Title: Requirements Document for NSPS Section: 5.4.1 High Performing Workforce & Management Comment: There is a need to define the minimum allowable size of a supervisory pool that an employee can be grouped with. The lack of this requirement is the one obvious flaw with the Demo System we've been using at SPAWAR since the early 1990's. For example, when a supervisor is provided with a pool of employees, and he/she is allotted approximately 2 points (I.E. money) per employee. That Supervisor is then allowed to distribute those points to employees based on performance. Thus, when the Supervisor has a large pool of Employees to draw from, a nice Bell-Curve or distribution falls out between over-average performers and under-average performers. In practice we've found that this equal distribution does not start to form unless a Supervisor manages a group of 12 or more employees. Obvously, the larger the group the better. Unfortunatly, what has happened at SPAWAR Headquarters is that groups of 3-4 engineers are grouped under a single supervisor. Thus the distribution curve is easily slanted in one direction or another. Usually, when all 3-4 engineers are high performers, the Demo system does not reward these high performers! Instead it rates them all as average performers. In fact, the supervisor isn't even going to be able to award any of them an Outstanding performance rating. On the other hand, its frustrating when there can be another lower-performing employee siting right next to this high performer, who earns more points simply because he's an average worker working within another larger supervisory group that includes a nice distribution of mediocre employees. In my own situation, when I worked in a group of 30 employees at the SPAWAR Laboratory where they have larger pools of engineers working together, I averaged 3-4 points every year. Now, however, that I'm working at SPAWAR Headquarters, where they have very small pools under each supervisor (3-4 employees), I'm working harder than I've ever before, but average only 2 points. The worst part, is that supervisors have no insight into the performance of workers within other groups. Thus, if a supervisor has a group of 4 losers (compared to workers outside his division), then his top loser becomes a winner and may earn 3-4 points and an Outstanding! While, on the other hand, a supervisor next door may have a group of 4 superstars, who will all earn 2 points because his hands are tied and his point pool is limited. Bottom Line: Without specifying a minimum supervisory pool of employees of say 10 or more, then the system falls miserably apart and employees become demoralized when less performers receive more points. This is definitely a show-stopper in my book.