Comment Number: OL-10508687
Received: 3/15/2005 10:03:29 AM
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:

Section; Hiring. This is probably the area the Government does worst in. I suggest having a commercial personnel company review the job advertising and announcements process we use. They will laugh! Our announcements are incomprehensible gov-speak, were derived from badly written job descriptions and communicate nothing about what work and expertise is actually needed. I am a Government employee and I can't decipher them; and we're trying to recruit off the street? We also provide no information on the actual workplace we are recruiting for. When you submit a resume, there is NEVER, NEVER any feedback or response. When a contractor submits a proposal to the Government in response to a solcitation and is unsuccessful, we are obligated to peform a debrief of his proposal to enable him to imporve his proposals. Shouldn't we do this for a Government employee trying to obtain a better job? You never know why you weren't selected! This is a "broke" process. Section; performance. I've worked under a version of this system in Korea. The major downside was that within the Government, we promote managers for technical ability, not for "management" expertise. This system requires the supervision of professionally trained "managers", not as a side function for a highly graded "technical expert". It can work well if there is sufficient managerial "objectivity, but unfortunately can be very subject to organizational politics. Also, it is hard to show you're "contribution to the mission" if you're relating to a badly written, out-of-date job description. There are also some jobs that just "have to be done" and have no opportunity for innovation or improved "contribution" and thus do not compare well with other jobs where there are more opportunities to excell. Thank you.