| Comment Number: | OL-10511513 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 3:51:12 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:
Performance Management – Subpart D “The current performance management system is burdensome because of it its actual and/or perceived inflexibility and strict adherence to written elements and standards established at the beginning of a rating cycle. Supervisors feel restricted in making any mid-course corrections or modifications to a performance plan, resulting in a final assessment that does not meet their needs. These static standards make it difficult for managers to adjust performance requirements and expectations in response to the Departments rapidly changing work environment, hold individual employees accountable for those general and/or assignment-specific work requirements and expectations, and make meaningful distinctions in employee performance as they accomplish those assignements.” While the world is definitely changing, to pass on the notion that Departments have such rapidly changing work environments is at best a botched characterization. I can’t think of a single example in my agency where the problem could ever be boiled down to this. The current performance management system would work for anyone that really wants to make it work. It is not fun, nobody enjoys it, and few managers put the effort into it that it warrants. However, to blame the system as being static, and thinking that some problem will go away if we could just readjust the standards more frequently is pure foolishness. This, along with other similar inaccuracies leads anyone who thinks critically to ask, what is the real reason for this sweeping change?