| Comment Number: | OL-10511995 |
| Received: | 3/16/2005 7:25:19 PM |
| Subject: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| Title: | National Security Personnel System |
| CFR Citation: | 5 CFR Chapter XCIX and Part 9901 |
| Attachment: | DRLarsen Attachment.doc Download Adobe Reader |
Comments:
As the Director of an AF Organizational Health and Development office, I have been researching and developing systems to improve morale and productivity for years. After a review of the literature and consultation with experts at 3 universities. I have both praise and concerns (see attachment) as well as a few suggestions. This Pay for productivity proposal is a great concept, and should help to rid us of the unproductive incorrigibles. However, this places an inordinate amount of responsibility and power in the hands of supervisors, some of whom, I fear, will not be able to handle it wisely. I believe we need a few more checks and balances. As I see it my suggestions relate primarily to § 9901.405 Performance management system requirements. (c) … supervisors and managers are responsible for (2) Making meaningful distinctions among employees based on performance and contribution. § 9901.409 Rating and rewarding performance. (b) and (c). Under § 9901.405 Performance management, it’s noted that “DoD will issue implementing issuances” regarding the performance rating system. The nature of that issuance will be crucial. If it is similar to the current system it will not be aligned with the stated NSPS vision and values. In developing that, DoD should consider: 1. Ideally a simple pass/fail type appraisal like: 'meets expectations' or 'unsatisfactory' would likely be best. Then the details are in the fine print where the supervisor describes in common language what the supervisor and the employee believe is going well and what needs to be different. The point is to drive a discussion about real issues not get into a situation where you have to try to explain to an employee what proficient vs exceptional means or what a 3 is verses a 5 . 2. Periodic performance feedback should not be tied to salary. But if you do tie performance ratings to salary or promotions, it is best if the appraisal is ONLY ONE factor among several used in determining increases. For instance, moving an employee in the range who is behind in the range could be another factor. But you should not use the information in salary review that one gains through a review and discussion of what's going well and what needs to be done differently. That creates all kinds of counter-productive dynamics and would not be very smart. Other data that could be used may include key outputs--ideas submitted--improvements made--training completed--significant personal and team achievements as well as unit and customer savings. 3. The point is that this once a year appraisal time becomes too important when it is seen as a do or die event. We want our people to feel appreciated and to be learning, stretching, and growing and connected to a commanding organizational purpose that generates involvement and hard work. Note: for employees who are not performing and need a wake-up call, the unsatisfactory rating should be used sooner rather than later, with a clear description of what must be done different including why, by when, etc. 4. Salary should depend more on team performance and achievements than individual performance. That would bring various social forces into play that would help promote cooperation and mutual encouragement to greater productivity (I can’t get ahead unless I help you progress -- If I cause you to be less productive, it hurts me too. Too much emphasis on subjective individual ratings will create a divisive influence. 6. Time spent addressing positive rather than negative outputs pays the biggest dividends. (see appreciative inquiry research: http://centerforappreciativeinquiry.net/ The primary efforts then should be on, recognizing and rewarding initiative and productive behavior, and those need not be monetary rewards 7. The supervisor’s pay should also be tied to her team’s performance. This would encourage the development of effective leadership and motivation skills, as well as full individual and team utilization and developem