| Comment Number: | OL-10504210 |
| Received: | 3/8/2005 5:15:08 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:
You might consider adding a specific search engine for existing entries. Will the number of "Top Performers" (ALL-STARS) be limited based on theoritical extractions of the infamous Bell Curve ? Streamlined Hiring is a Great Concept ... as long as it avoids the common historical pitfalls of nepotism & sinecure !! Loyalty and Longevity are like siblings ... Thus some compensation for faithfulness is appropriate. The question is thus one of degree or percentage weighting . It has been stated that one of the driving motivations for some of these changes is to hire & reward Highly Qualified People. What research is available to establish what percentages of people a) Have not been hired under current policy and practices ? b) Have not been rewarded under current incentives ? Point Being: are we attempting massive & expensive overhauls just to eke out a small percentage of change & improvement ? Granted, some fixes are long overdue ... but will be hitting the bull's eye with these changes ? Lastly, one of my biggest concerns (pet peeves, axes-to-grind) has been that performance review is principally done by managment, rather than by "customers", "closest" co-workers", & management ... which I feel should be 50%, 30%, & 20% respectively !!! No matter how hard management tries or basically honest they are, they, like parents, tend to be aribtrary and capricious, under the immense pressures to perform. Implementing such a tri-lateral approach to evaluation has its own unique set of problems, but is much more likely to be, on average, accurate !!!!! KwC A.K.A. Computer Cowboy Computer & Financial Systems Analyst