DTIC ADA494083: National Security Personnel System: Successfully Designed for Failure

0.3 MB·English

by  Defense Technical Information Center

t
c
e
NATIONAL SECURITY
j
o PERSONNEL SYSTEM:
r SUCCESSFULLY DESIGNED
P
FOR FAILURE
h
BY
c
THERESA M. MURRAY
r
Department of Army Civilian
a
e
s
e
R
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
ApprovedforPublicRelease.
y DistributionisUnlimited.
g
e USAWC CLASS OF 2009
t
a
ThisSRPissubmittedinpartialfulfillmentofthe
requirementsoftheMasterofStrategicStudiesDegree.
r
Theviewsexpressedinthisstudentacademicresearch
paperarethoseoftheauthoranddonotreflectthe
t
officialpolicyorpositionoftheDepartmentofthe
S Army,DepartmentofDefense,ortheU.S.Government.
U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5050
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it

does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED
30 MAR 2009 Strategy Research Project 00-00-2008 to 00-00-2009
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
National Security Personnel System: Successfully Designed for Failure
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
Theresa Murray
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
U.S. Army War College ,122 Forbes Ave.,Carlisle,PA,17013-5220 REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
see attached
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 34
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
TheU.S.ArmyWarCollegeisaccreditedbytheCommissiononHigherEducationoftheMiddleStateAssociation
ofCollegesandSchools,3624MarketStreet,Philadelphia,PA19104,[phone].TheCommissionon
HigherEducationisaninstitutionalaccreditingagencyrecognizedbytheU.S.SecretaryofEducationandthe
CouncilforHigherEducationAccreditation.
FormApproved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
OMBNo.0704-0188
Publicreportingburdenforthiscollectionofinformationisestimatedtoaverage1hourperresponse,includingthetimeforreviewinginstructions,searchingexistingdatasources,gatheringandmaintainingthe
dataneeded,andcompletingandreviewingthiscollectionofinformation. Sendcommentsregardingthisburdenestimateoranyotheraspectofthiscollectionofinformation,includingsuggestionsforreducing
thisburdentoDepartmentofDefense,WashingtonHeadquartersServices,DirectorateforInformationOperationsandReports(0704-0188),1215JeffersonDavisHighway,Suite1204,Arlington,VA 22202-
4302. Respondentsshouldbeawarethatnotwithstandinganyotherprovisionoflaw,nopersonshallbesubjecttoanypenaltyforfailingtocomplywithacollectionofinformationifitdoesnotdisplayacurrently
validOMBcontrolnumber. PLEASEDONOTRETURNYOURFORMTOTHEABOVEADDRESS.
1.REPORTDATE(DD-MM-YYYY) 2.REPORTTYPE 3.DATESCOVERED(From-To)
28-01-2009 StrategyResearchProject
4.TITLEANDSUBTITLE 5a.CONTRACTNUMBER
NationalSecurityPersonnelSystem:SuccessfullyDesignedforFailure
5b.GRANTNUMBER
5c.PROGRAMELEMENTNUMBER
6.AUTHOR(S) 5d.PROJECTNUMBER
TheresaM.Murray
5e.TASKNUMBER
5f.WORKUNITNUMBER
7.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES) 8.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONREPORT
Dr.SaraMorgan NUMBER
DepartmentofCommand,Leadership,andManagement(DCLM)
9.SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCYNAME(S)ANDADDRESS(ES) 10.SPONSOR/MONITOR’SACRONYM(S)
U.S.ArmyWarCollege
122ForbesAvenue
Carlisle,PA 17013 11.SPONSOR/MONITOR’SREPORT
NUMBER(S)
12.DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITYSTATEMENT
DistributionA:Unlimited
13.SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES
14.ABSTRACT
Thisstrategicresearchprojectcomparedcharacteristicsoforganizationswherepayforperformanceconceptsworkedwell
overtimewiththatoftheDepartmentofDefense(DoD)NationalSecurityPersonnelSystem(NSPS)toidentifywhetherthose
samecharacteristicswerepresentintoday’sfederalenvironment.Theresultsofthecomparisonofcharacteristicswas
complimentedwithempiricalframeworksof(a)thehistoryofDoDpayforperformanceconcepts,specificallytheCivilService
ReformAct,(b)employeeperceptionsofNSPS,and(c)otherconsiderationsasfurtherlegitimacytotheideologythatNSPSis
successfullydesignedforfailure.TheliteraturereviewconfirmedthataDoDculturalshiftshouldoccurtoenactsuccessof a
civilianpayforperformancesystem.ReplicatingtheNSPStheorywithculturaldiversityandactionincludes(a)championing
fromthetop,(b)improvingcurrentfoundationsofthepaypoolfunds,(c)replacingfive-tieredratingscaleswiththree-tiered
ratingscales,(d)prescribingsimpleandconsistentpayincreasesforrolemodels thatare2.5timeshigherthantheaverage
valuedperformer,(e)institutingfasterpromotions,higherbonusawards,andqualityrecognitionof rolemodels,and(f)
affordingleadershipresourcestoconductswiftandcertainpoorperformerterminations.
15.SUBJECTTERMS
Leadership,Pay-for-Performance,CivilServiceAppraisal,CulturalDiversity,MeritPay,Championing
16.SECURITYCLASSIFICATIONOF: 17.LIMITATION 18.NUMBER 19a.NAMEOFRESPONSIBLEPERSON
OFABSTRACT OFPAGES
a.REPORT b.ABSTRACT c.THISPAGE 34 19b.TELEPHONENUMBER(includearea
UNCLASSIFED UNCLASSIFED UNCLASSIFED UNLIMITED code)
StandardForm298(Rev.8-98)
PrescribedbyANSIStd.Z39.18

USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM: SUCCESSFULLY DESIGNED FOR
FAILURE
by
Theresa M. Murray
Department of Army Civilian
Dr. Sara Morgan
Project Adviser
This SRP is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic
Studies Degree. The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on
Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, [phone]. The Commission on Higher
Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of
Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author
and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army,
Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
U.S. ArmyWar College
CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013

ABSTRACT
AUTHOR: Theresa M. Murray
TITLE: National Security Personnel System: SuccessfullyDesigned for
Failure
FORMAT: Strategy Research Project
DATE: 28 January 2009 WORD COUNT: 6,039 PAGES: 34
KEY TERMS: Leadership, Pay-for-Performance, Civil Service Appraisal, Cultural
Diversity, Merit Pay, Championing
CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified
This strategic research project compared characteristics of organizations where
pay for performance concepts worked well over time with that of the Department of
Defense (DoD) National Security Personnel System (NSPS) to identify whether those
same characteristics were present in today’s federal environment. The results of the
comparison of characteristics was complimented with empirical frameworks of (a) the
history of DoD pay for performance concepts, specifically the Civil Service Reform Act,
(b) employee perceptions of NSPS, and (c) other considerations as further legitimacy to
the ideology that NSPS is successfully designed for failure. The literature review
confirmed that a DoD cultural shift should occur to enact success of a civilian pay for
performance system. Replicating the NSPS theory with cultural diversity and action
includes (a) championing from the top, (b) improving current foundations of the pay pool
funds, (c) replacing five-tiered rating scales with three-tiered rating scales, (d)
prescribing simple and consistent pay increases for role models that are 2.5 times
higher than the average valued performer, (e) instituting faster promotions, higher
bonus awards, and quality recognition of role models, and (f) affording leadership
resources to conduct swift and certain poor performer terminations.
NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM: SUCCESSFULLY DESIGNED FOR
FAILURE
In a reconfigured Total Force, a new balance of skills must be coupled with
greater accessibility to people so that the right forces are available at the right
time. Both uniformed and civilian personnel must be readily available to joint
commanders.
—Donald Rumsfeld1
Focus is on mission, strive is toward results, performance is nothing less than
extraordinary2 – these are the phrases associated with the intended effect of the design
and implementation of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) National Security Personnel
System (NSPS). Senior strategic decisions3 and the most recent approved legislation4
provided DoD leadership with greater flexibility in hiring, firing, reassigning, evaluating,
compensating, and disciplining federal civilian employees in an effort to positively
influence a civilian employment culture shift in which individual performance and
contributions to mission are acknowledged and rewarded.While an inspiring venture,
DoD entities, and specifically the U.S. Army environment, do not exercise organizational
characteristics conducive to a fair civilian pay for performance environment that “fosters
cooperation and trust”5. Nor does the NSPS inspire a paradigm shift toward (a) personal
accountability, (b) participation in increasing deployments, (c) supporting global natural
disasters, and (d) enhancing the joint spectrum of operations.
The following discussion uses the U.S. Army environment as its baseline and
provides an empirical framework of (a) organizational characteristics where pay for
performance has worked over time, (b) a review of the history of DoD pay for
performance concepts, specifically the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978, (c)
employee perceptions of the competence of the practices of NSPS, and (d) other