GovernmentExecutive.com

That Mr. Risinger or anyone else at the top actually believes that NSPS is an "investment" says it all.

I received my job objectives the day after the rating period ended and was required to submit my self-assessments in less than 48 hours after that because my supervisor was going on leave. He never discussed anything with me and there is no way to ensure that he does. The entire organization has struggled to use the system. Keep in mind that those of us overseas don't always have access to cutting edge technology that allows us to use these systems as easily as those in the states.

Even though the pay pool is meeting as we speak, there are those who still have been unable to input their self assessments. And, given the corruption already present in the organization, no one is holding their breath that this system is any more fair than the GS.

The fact that they've split our annual general increase and put half of it into the pay pool also tells me that the powers that be can't be trusted with NSPS.

KAS  | Wednesday, October 31, 2007 |  06:39 AM

---

Just because a system needs improving (GS) doesn’t mean we should throw it out.
Eventually NSPS will run out of steam in this or the next congress.
Fortunately most Dems and Republicans are willing to de-fund this debacle.
Future generations of civil servants will thank us if we manage to save the GS system.
You should never underestimate the negative impact of reducing people to human capitol
One should always be vigilant against those who are outside a system being too eager to
Undermine what has worked for many years and still has value those of us who are
Stuck with NSPS will pay a price come retirement. The best bet at this point is for all of
Us to make sure our union representatives stay focused and if deemed necessary
Contact you congressional representatives and ask that they vote to eliminate NSPS and
Keep yourselves informed and up to date and keep the pressure on until NSPS is gone

Hans  | Monday, October 29, 2007 |  01:51 PM

---

I appreciate Jeffrey taking the time
to explain the "human capital" term, but
it still sounds too much like
human chattel to me. I hate it.
NSPS is the last straw for me also.
I'll be retiring mid 2008.

B Blount  | Monday, October 29, 2007 |  10:34 AM

---

This seems to be another example of someone trying to do something creative in terms of human resources management and people can't wait to jump all over it with criticism. If I read this correctly, Mr. Rissinger is NOT advocating keeping poor performers based solely on training investment, but IS trying to link inputs and outputs in terms of training resources and employee retention. As managers, we are going to have to get beyond this excuse that the reason we can't perform better is that we are stuck with all of these poor performers. Rather than cursing the existing system, maybe we should embrace some new approaches and if they aren't perfect, try to make them so.

Bruce Rodman  | Monday, October 29, 2007 |  08:35 AM

---

I think the previous comments are very good. The model that I referenced in my comments is referred to as the invested human capital model and it is only in a pilot stage. It does not simply track expenses for the purpose of retaining those employees who have had development investments. Rather it looks at the investment required for an employee to reach the full level of competence. It relies on the performance management system to provide feedback regarding the effectiveness of employee developemnt activities. Further, it also captures the speed at which an employee reaches full competency through on the job activities and looks at the difference between building talent from the entry level up and recruiting talent at the mid and senior levels.

Again, it is very early in the development of this concept and it has only been applied to one small office. I think the input that can be received through blogs like this can only make this model better and if anyone would like to see more details on the model, I would be happy to share those details. Simply e-mail me at DDRisinger@aol.com.

Also, for the individual who just retired from Norfork Naval Shipyard, I deeply apologize if anything I have said or done has been offensive to you. I do know that when more traditional terms like personnel and human resources are used, it is usually in the context of those resources being expenses that need to be minimized. Human capital management on the other hand, as I have seen it, refers to a set of management practices that attempts to view employees as people that you invest in continually. It is not an expense that you cut at the first opportunity. I am sure those of us doing this work have made mistakes but I can tell you it is my intention to go to work every day and try to make things a little bit better. I do appreciate the feedback on how this term has affected people.

Also, the article very generally stated that the panel suggested that political appointees be replaced with career civil servants. I for one do not agree with that general premise. My comments referred to the CFO Act as an example. The CFO Act attempts to bring balance to the workforce by having the CFO as a political appointee and a Deputy as a career civil servant. This approach addresses the continuity issue and in my comments, I suggested that it might be a helpful model to follow.

Jeffrey A. Risinger

Jeffrey Risinger  | Sunday, October 28, 2007 |  08:26 PM

---

On the training investment, the DOD has been struggling to get a better and qualified Acquisition Workforce. So ... this has resulted (at least in the Army) on a heavy emphasis on completing a checklist of courses offered by the Defense Acquisition University in order to be 'certified'.

The certification is based upon 1) training completed and 2) years of experience in a particular field.

It is far too difficult to come up with a department wide measurement of things like basic competence and good performance - but apparently we can measure how many classes someone has completed.

A well intentioned beaucracy gone wild.

Ron Miller  | Sunday, October 28, 2007 |  05:40 PM

---

While I wouldn't perpetuate the notion that only poor performers get (or should get) training, you make an interesting observation. It seems the SEC may be tracking the wrong thing: inputs, instead of outputs. In this case the outputs being improved performance, staff competency levels, etc., rather than simply per capita training expenditures.

Workforce planning isn't about counting beans: it's about continually monitoring and evaluating your collective capabilities against your current and projected future mission requirements, then taking informed, proactive steps to ensure the two match up. Training might be an initial or proxy indicator of potential competence (or "equity"), but it's no substitute for assessing whether or not your workforce actually has the capability to meet mission requirements.

The rhetoric about strategic human capital management still far outpaces any genuine understanding of how to do it, apparently...

Skepticus Personnelus  | Friday, October 26, 2007 |  05:04 PM

---

I retired Jan.3rd 2007 after 31.5 years at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. The coming of NSPS and what it will do to destroy workers rights was the final slap in the face. One thing I would like to say to Jeffrey Risinger is if there is anything I dislike "PERSONNEL PEOPLE" for is the act of referring to the labor force as "HUMAN CAPITAL", When they started that they spent their last two cents worth of respect I had for any of them.

W Jackson  | Friday, October 26, 2007 |  11:38 AM

---