| Comment Number: | OL-10504222 |
| Received: | 3/8/2005 6:04:25 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:
It seems to me that the whole concept of Pay for Performance for the entire DOD is wrong. If all we did was make widgets, it would probably make sense: if you make 5% more widgets than required, you get a small pay raise; if you make 10% more, you get a bigger pay raise. Unfortunately, a lot of the work we do is unquantifiable. Therefore any notion of performance is subjective, based on your supervisor's impression of how you did. Instead of cooperating with the rest of the team to get the mission accomplished, I now would have to concentrate on impressing my supervisor with what I personally can do. Since the raises would be a zero-sum game, I would be more inclined to do things that make me look good and others look bad. After all, there's a limited amount of money and we can't all get raises. Somebody has to lose and it won't be me. By contrast, in the current system, I don't have to worry about my next pay raise. Pay isn't based on how well my boss does or doesn't like me. I can help my other team members to improve because it won't affect my pay raise if they do well. In fact, I might even get an award for being a team player! The bottom line is I do not want to trade an annual pay raise, a locality adjustment, and any step or grade increases for which I am eligible just so my supervisor can make an arbitrary decision every year on whether and by how much my salary will be adjusted.