Comment Number: OL-10509006
Received: 3/15/2005 11:59:41 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:

Let me get this right. You've got a bunch of managers who you say can't do their jobs because their hands are tied. They are unable to reward, discipline, hire, or fire employees. So you're creating a whole new system that will be easier for them to operate. And you think you'll just train those same supervisors that have been unable to work within the existing regulations to function within the new guidelines? Here are my thoughts based on the NSPS Design and Implementation webpage description of the "highlights:" Simplified pay banding structure, allowing flexibility in assigning work. At first glance this seems an exciting feature, but the flexibility of assigned work is already covered by the "other duties as assigned" clause in most job descriptions. As for not providing an unacceptable performer a pay increase, why is an unacceptable performer being retained in the first place? Even with the so-called gridlock of the current system, an unacceptable performer can, and should, be removed. Pay increases based on performance, rather than longevity. You are talking about the same managers that are unable to control the current system. Allowing some managers to directly control pay just screams, "abuse me." A performance management system that requires supervisors to set clear expectations (linked to DoD's goals and objectives) and employees to be accountable. Excuse me, but I thought that's what the existing system was designed to do. If these supervisors are so trainable, why aren't they able to use the existing performance appraisal system? I can't respond to the proposed hiring and firing highlights other than venture a guess that, just as with the evaluation system, the same ineffectiveness experienced today will continue to the detriment of the employees (or future employees). As for the importance of training, this is no more important today than in the past. The people that neglected training in the past will be the same ones that don't have time to attend any new training. If you must spend training dollars, why not invest in upgraded training for the current system and save the costs of implementing an untried system? I feel the proposed system is flawed and provides little benefit to manager or employee. Just call me an optimistic pessimist but in the end, it won't matter because the good managers will continue to function well and the the poor managers will still find ways to work around the system. As Irene Peter said, "Just because everything is different doesn't mean anything has changed."