| Comment Number: | OL-10504895 |
| Received: | 3/10/2005 12:19:52 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:
I totally agree we need personnel management changes in government - too much top-heavy dead-weight and little or no incentive for performance improvements or change. The best performers (many at lower level positions) are consistently 'rewarded' by getting more and more work. After reading NSPS 14 Feb 05 Proposed Rules, I offer these comments: 'Performance-Based Pay, Performance and Behavior Accountability' -- the NSPS system can -only- be effective when supervisors and managers are -impartial- and objective in their review of personnel -- how is that going to occur? The good-old boy network is alive and living fat in government daily -- what supervisor/ manager 'training' will change that? Do you think a training session will change someone's long-standing attitute, bias, or personality? And, how do you remove or re-train --personal-- bias related to job performance review? One supervisor admires a 'Can Do' attitude, but another admonishes incentive, by saying, 'It's Not Your Job!" The new regs speak of 'actions, attitude, conduct...' being a performance issue. How subjective is that? Many aspects of the new regs are very subjective and vulnerable to favoritism. That human element will inevitably prevail and we will lose the best people because of it! Among the staff I have talked to, there is very real concern (fear) about job security, income, and potential retirement impact in relation to management control stated within NSPS regs. These are good hard-working employees who should have no concern about their job performance, but they do. This 'fear' will ultimately translate to poor employee morale and all which that involves. Further, with the -many- cutbacks, downsizing, re-engineering, BRACs, streamlining, A-76s, PBD-712s, etc., etc., where on earth are supervisors supposed to find the -time- to put into action and practice every item listed on the 54 page-NSPS rules to reflect a comprehenive and thorough performance review for -every- employee? And what about budget issues? The idea is that there shouldn't be 'quotas' with the new system. How do you avoid that if the bottom line is money, which is projected/limited ahead of time? Pay for Performance = $$ Based on the above and my understanding of the anticipated outcomes stated for the new NSPS system, I do not believe NSPS will be affective and may, in fact, produce contrary results.