| Comment Number: | OL-10508114 |
| Received: | 3/14/2005 6:08:17 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:
The NSPS has both good and bad aspects to it from what I can observe. As a U.S. citizen, though, I think we are trying to cure cancer with a band aid. For the good, I agree very much that flexibility is needed in for hiring. However, as a U.S. citizen, I would prefer that good security checks are not rushed, just to hire somebody quickly. I also agree very much that performance should be a factor in a rating system, but we must also reward loyalty as well. I would hate to think that someone who has been been serving me deligently as a loyal public servant for 35 years could be replaced by a rookie. Yes, the regulations say good performance will be rewarded, but I highly question how it would be applied. The regulations seem to be very vague in many areas. Are you saying a civil servant could have 33 great years, and then maybe have two "off" years, and on the verge of 5 more "great" years, but still be replaced by a rookie who came in and had two good years? With all the information we have on the value of experience, I would hope you truly reconsider your formula. I agree very much with Dr. W. Edwards Deming and his TQL (Total Quality Leadership) (formerly TQM - Total Quality Management) concept that seniority is a fairer gauge to determine pay scales. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that someone who has had 35 bad years should not be replaced. I am merely saying your formula should be looking more at the big picture. I also noticed you want to use this system to replace an existing system. Why do you want to change the entire system when only portions seem to be broken? I have noticed that in many cases, it starts at the top and flows down. I would highly suggest that you consider a total change in the way military officers are moved about. I say this because I feel a lot of taxpayer's dollars are wasted in many ways with this system. First, the tangible cost of all the moving and ceremonies. But more importantly, the lack of good leadership. How many times have you moved officers around and put them in charge of something they know nothing about? Whether they are a good leader or not doesn't matter if they don't know the process and thus lead their people down the wrong path. So what does that have to do with NSPS? I would have to think that if the leadership does not know the inner workings of an organization they've been assigned to lead, the expected outcome can only be corruption, promotions using the "good 'ol boys" system, etc. Why do I say this? I look to Microsoft corportation. I highly respect the fact that Bill Gates knows his business. He is a world-class computer expert. And he is leading his company. Just look at the results. I'm sure it would be very difficult for anyone to "pull the wool over his eyes". Yet, in an organization where someone is tossed into a position of leadership, without being an expert in the field, the expected result can only be disaster. I would dare to say, that with misguided leadership (and please don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying they are bad leaders), I am sure supervisors and other leaders within an organization like that could easily be promoted with a huge lack of expertise in their field. (Once again, I'm not saying they are bad leaders, but probably misguided.) So my final point comes to this, how could a supervisor who does not know the job evaluate a person working the job? How could a supervisor write a job description about a job they have never worked? I am not saying all supervisors are lacking ability, but I do have reservations about the huge potential for this to exist with the constant moving of leadership. I feel this style of moving leaders around may have worked in the old days when things were much more consistent. But in a day of rapidly changing technology, I would feel more comfortable with leaders who started at the bottom and worked their way up and were experts in their fields.