| Comment Number: | OL-8900000 |
| Received: | 2/14/2005 1:08:25 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: Speaking as an individual with a Master's Degree in Human Resource Management, it is unrealistic to believe the proposed method for performance management can be successfully applied to every office and every position in DoD. It may sound good on paper, but in order to be successful, a pay strategy must match corporate/unit strategy. The two primary types of corporate strategy are prospector and defender. These strategies must be determined based on the nature and design of a business mission. Organizations established under a prospector's strategy may apply pay-for-performance very successfully, while applying this same pay system to a defender strategy is usually disastrous. If DoD wishes to successfully adopt a prospector's pay strategy, they must first re-create their corporate strategy in all defender areas, determine quantifiable goals, and empower employees to reach these goals. In addition, if rewards for accomplishing goals are bound by bureaucratic restrictions on limitations, you can expect many truly outstanding employees to leave government service. Below is an explanation of each strategy: PROSPECTORS: Encourage innovation, risk-taking. Employees are given a well defined mission, work without direct supervision, and have complete control over the process. Progress is tracked accordingly and results can be weighed in actual numbers. One example of this may be a car salesman who meets his quota by selling X number of cars each month or someone who builds/creates a tangible product producing X number. Under a prospector's strategy, pay for performance is excellent because the result is mathematically concrete and not subject to individual opinion. This pay structure is designed to increase production....literally. Employee rewards are not bound by quota limit restrictions, since everyone who meets or exceeds the goal is compensated fairly. DEFENDERS: The defender's corporate strategy is different and so is the mission. Employees usually work under a set of guidelines and rules that must be obeyed and the tasks they perform may even be monotonous. Employees have very little, if any control over the final outcome of the projects they may be assigned or the number to be accomplished each year. They do not generate an actual tangible product, but most often perform a basic service instead. Performance isn't quantifiable in mathematical numbers and is subject to personal opinion. The few things that are truly quantifiable, of which the employee is given complete control over, are the number of years dedicated to service. In terms of performance, weighing negative aspects are clearer to define than positive aspects. This may include the number of unexcused absences accumulated, the number of meetings or deadlines missed, or the number of negative feedback actions. A negative comparison and tracking is not considered a motivator, but it would be one of the only objective measures available. For these reasons, and more, the payment plan that strategically matches this corporate strategy is a pre-determined salary established and priced based on specific taskings and promotions based on seniority and zero negative actions. RECOMMENDATION: Review all the different organizations and the corporate strategy applied in each area. Under prospector-type positions, clearly outline and define the goals to be accomplished. One area may be an employee working in an instructional technology department who may be tasked to produce a minimum of five modules per year. Employees who accomplish this goal are awarded a 3% bonus/raise while employees who do not accomplish this goal are not. Employees who produce above the minimum are awarded an additional 1% increase for each additional module up-to, but not exceeding 15%. This is a true pay-for-performance system! For defender areas where quantifiable non-subjective goals and measurements cannot clearly be determined, a seniority-based pay system must remain.