| Comment Number: | OL-10506245 |
| Received: | 3/11/2005 1:09:55 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:
Due to my workload, I don't have time to figure which section my comments apply to. A 20 year military career taught me that span of control is key to fair performance evaluations. As an upper level supervisor, unless I got out to the areas where work was actually accomplished, I had no way of knowing who actually did the best work, most work, ,etc. I could only judge the end result. In order to write my poirtion of an performance evaluation, I had to get feedback from the lower level supervisor who actually watched workers performing theirs jobs. In our particular organization, due to A-76 cutbacks, we do not have an onsite supervisor. Due to their workload, we do not see our supervisor on a regular basis, and he/she can only evalute our performance as an aggregate. Therefore, good workers can't distinguish themseles from the poor ones. Pay banding looks good on paper, but if supervisors can't reliably determine who is actually deserving of a pay increase and who isn't , then the stystem will decrease morale, as employee's will be tempted to say "why work harder, when my boss dosen't know who actually did the best work". In a case like ours, performace could be based on who the supervior thought was a better worker based on appearence, age or other some other non-performance based criteria. Unless the organizational structure is changed to allow supervisors to actually obsere their subordinates work, this new pay system will drive morale lower then it already is.