| Comment Number: | OL-10502450 |
| Received: | 3/2/2005 8:31:08 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:
This comment addresses Pay for Performance. As Manpower Analysts, our jobs are built on the foundation of objectivity, the "Honest Broker." A potentially adverse affect that happens to be the nature of the career field is telling a commander/management they can't do certain things that violates organizational principals. It comes down to that commander/management doing what he/she believes is the best thing to accomplish the mission and the honest broker seen as a hinder even though that analyst performed his job objectively and correctly. I don't believe all jobs should be based on contributions to the mission--some jobs contribute more to the DoD, or Air Force (in this case) mission more than the local base. Two career fields come to mind--Comptroller -- keeper of monetary resources, and Manpower--oversight of human resource spaces. There are several examples in the manpower area where the mission is to prevent abuse of resources, i.e., keeping the government from paying twice for the same work. In summmary, the honest broker type career fields mission is to support and help local units successfully meet their missions. This has never been a highly embraced career field. Loved by the folks you help to legally gain additional human resources and hated by those that standards prevent added resources.