National Security Personnel System anyone?

April 1, 2008 5:30 PM

So I've been converted from civil service in the U.S. (WG/GS etc.) to NSPS and need help writing Supervisory/Managerial Performance Objectives. This is a shot in the dark as the system is relatively new. Specifically, does anyone have examples other than the ones posted on the "official" websites? I actually love to write, but this is pretty formulated and it would be very helpful to see what others have done with it.

If you would like to share stuff and not have it posted here, please use the e-mail in my profile.

If you have any comments about or experiences (love/hate) with the new system that's appreciated too.

Thanks, folks and wish me luck!

posted by snsranch to work & money (2 comments total)

I recently left an NSPS position (spiral 1.1 - we switched in Jan 2007). I'll dig around to see if I can track down my performance objectives and send you a copy (probably over the weekend). The key really seems to be coming up with measurable numerical standards (the trainers seemed fixated on "fewer than 5% errors" which was completely irrelevant to my job). And, no this has almost nothing to do with 'writing.'

As a supervisor, if you don't have any real problem employees, you're task will be much easier (and less risky).

Some thoughts:

The success of NSPS will depend heavily on your organization, the size and composition of your pay pool, and the individuals on your pay pool panel. I did well financially under the system, but was generally disappointed with the system (it was a minor contributing factor to my leaving the position). Leave it to the federal government to take a promising idea like merit pay and screw it up in astounding new ways...

I was part of a small agency that was a pay pool unto itself, which was a good thing, as we weren't being compared to groups with a very different mission.

The opaqueness of the pay pool panel process was a huge negative. The system is designed such that your rating official can be told by the panel to rewrite his/her review of you to fit the panel's ratings. And, with the non-disclosure rules, you will never know if your reviewer's evaluation has been altered to fit the panel's demands. Feedback was lacking -- they can't tell you very much by design.

After comparing notes, many of my coworkers and I realized that it was likely that the pay pool panel made overall judgments and set rating scores to ensure that employees ended up where the panel felt they should be. Looking at final scores, we saw that nobody had a borderline score (one that could lead to a different number of shares) -- something statistically unlikely if they were rating each objective and letting the chips fall where they may.

The sheer amount of work that goes into the whole objectives/rating process is not merited (no pun intended). In the end, if you are a good, productive employee with no enemies, you'll do fine. You may get a bit more or less than under the old system. I knew some bad employees who did worse under the new system (one of the goals of NSPS), but also a couple of good employees who got screwed. The amount of panic and confusion over the process was another downside.

Depending on what happens in the election, this may all be moot in a couple of years...

[Also, you may have heard that in this past year, the average NSPS payout was higher than the average GS payout. That isn't because NSPS is any better or worse. NSPS agencies were funded at higher levels to blunt criticism of the system.]
posted by i love cheese at 6:45 PM on April 1

i love cheese, thank you for the insightful comments. Admittedly, I posted this question out of panic and confusion. Most of my organization is comprised of grizzled and salty military vets, so when they start losing it over minutiae it's pretty disconcerting. But, I feel better now! Thank you.
posted by snsranch at 4:10 PM on April 3