Comment Number: OL-10502509
Received: 3/2/2005 11:04:50 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:

I am in full agreement with performance tied to pay increases and bonuses; I am very concerned with the subjectivity involved with this process. Very little in the NSPS is mentioned on how to take the subjectivity of people (supervisors/managers) out of this process. A mention of training supervisors and managers is the extent of assurances that this won't be a problem. I have worked for the DoD for over 30 years and convinced it will be a problem. If there are no widgets to count for performance, then subjectivity will prevail. Not in every case, but in many cases, it will. Personality clashes, supervision/management styles, different backgrounds, common interests will dominate the perception of performance. If I golf with my supervisor on weekends or if we both have that in common, it spur's more personal association and we will likely bond more closely than the non-golfers. If I take smoke breaks with my supervisor several times daily, it's likely that my bond and personal relationship will prosper more than the non-smokers. If we attend the same church and have a common interest in the same religion, would it possibly affect his/her perception of me as a better person and consequently a better performer? Especially if there are no widgets to count and demonstrate, without a doubt, that performance is superior or sub par. What is to prevent the supervisor from allocating the more glamorous, high-visibility, or more meaningful work out to employees that are of the same race, sex, national origin or religion? With the NSPS proposal too much emphasis is on performance and too little allocated to insuring objectivity. That combination will setup a system destined to fail. With all the shortcomings of the present GS system, a fair and equal pay raise can be expected whether your supervisor likes you or not. Supervisors can still reward the superior performer or his/her drinking buddy with a performance pay bonus, quality step increase, etc., but not penalize him/her by withholding cost of living increases or locality pay. The new system allows the supervisor to easily give and take pay from subordinates each year. Those that have been in the federal workplace (or any workplace) for many years, with multiple changes in supervisors, have experienced different perceptions as to their value in the workplace. The same performance deemed as exceptional by one supervisor can seem to be average or even sub par by the next. The foundation of the NSPS proposal bases pay on performance. Little is mentioned about preventing the new DoD system from becoming a pay-for-popularity based system. Without a great deal more emphasis on removing subjectivity, the abuses will become common and without recourses for the victims. Taking the human factor out of this will be a challenge for this new personnel system, but will be disastrous if not fully addressed. Figure this out before implementation. It's critical for a performance-based pay system to succeed. Although I don't think it possible to remove all subjectivity from this system, a lot more effort could be put towards the problem it to lessen it. Currently, the emphasis is directed predominately towards (perceived) performance. Shallow and subdued mention that supervision/management training is all that is needed has me concerned about the wisdom in direction of this new personnel system. There is considerable thought on pay-for-performance and little emphasis on how to prevent abuse of this new found power supervisors/managers will enjoy. The DoD can become a textbook example of success and lead the way with the NSPS or an example of failure if this (single) item is not addressed fully and resolved before implementation. Thanks for the opportunity to cite my concern.