| Comment Number: | OL-10502949 |
| Received: | 3/3/2005 2:05:12 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:
Comments pertaining to Section 9901.406 of title 5, USC, “Setting and Communicating Performance Expectations.” Supervisors and managers must be held accountability for the proper exercise of the authorities in NSPS. While training will be provided, it is also essential that standards be established. A common concern among government service employees regarding the NSPS is that favoritism will be a key factor in performance payouts. Expectations of employee performance must not only be clearly written, equitable and transparent; they must also be detailed and definitive. Getting all supervisors and managers to take the time to produce both a qualitative and quantitative performance expectation/evaluation product will require that they be held to comprehensive written standards, preferably supported by a common format. A pay for performance system must also take into account the perceived difference in the importance of an individual’s or team’s work based upon the core functions of their command. It would be inequitable for a high-performance employee to receive less compensation simply because he/she performs a supporting role to the unit’s mission. Functions such as administration, logistics, security and information systems support are sometimes seen as less important, if that is not the primary function of the command. For example, the job performed by a security specialist may be important to the DoD, but could seen as an inconvenience to an RDT and E command. Such an employee should not suffer simply because the command does not share OSD’s concern for protecting America’s technological edge from espionage, or personnel from terrorists.