Human Capital
Preliminary Observations on Proposed Department of Defense National Security Personnel System Regulations Gao ID: GAO-05-517T April 12, 2005The Department of Defense's (DOD) new human resources management system--the National Security Personnel System (NSPS)--will have far-reaching implications for civil service reform across the federal government. The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act gave DOD significant flexibilities for managing more than 700,000 defense civilian employees. Given DOD's massive size, NSPS represents a huge undertaking for DOD. DOD's initial process to design NSPS was problematic; however, DOD adjusted its approach to a more deliberative process that involved more stakeholders. NSPS could, if designed and implemented properly, serve as a model for governmentwide transformation in human capital management. However, if not properly designed and implemented, it could severely impede progress toward a more performance- and results-based system for the federal government as a whole. On February 14, 2005, DOD and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) released for public comment the proposed NSPS regulations. This testimony (1) provides GAO's preliminary observations on selected provisions of the proposed regulations, (2) discusses the challenges DOD faces in implementing the new system, and (3) suggests a governmentwide framework to advance human capital reform.
Many of the principles underlying the proposed NSPS regulations are generally consistent with proven approaches to strategic human capital management. For instance, the proposed regulations provide for (1) elements of a flexible and contemporary human resources management system--such as pay bands and pay for performance; (2) DOD to rightsize its workforce when implementing reduction-in-force orders by giving greater priority to employee performance in its retention decisions; and (3) continuing collaboration with employee representatives. The 30-day public comment period on the proposed regulations ended March 16, 2005. DOD and OPM have notified the Congress that they are preparing to begin the meet and confer process with employee representatives who provided comments on the proposed regulations. The meet and confer process is critically important because there are many details of the proposed regulations that have not been defined. (It should be noted that 10 federal labor unions have filed suit alleging that DOD failed to abide by the statutory requirements to include employee representatives in the development of DOD's new labor relations system authorized as part of NSPS.) GAO has three primary areas of concern: the proposed regulations do not (1) define the details of the implementation of the system, including such issues as adequate safeguards to help ensure fairness and guard against abuse; (2) require, as GAO believes they should, the use of core competencies to communicate to employees what is expected of them on the job; and (3) identify a process for the continuing involvement of employees in the planning, development, and implementation of NSPS. Going forward, GAO believes that (1) the development of the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management, who would act as DOD's Chief Management Officer, is essential to elevate, integrate, and institutionalize responsibility for the success of DOD's overall business transformation efforts, including its new human resources management system; (2) DOD would benefit if it develops a comprehensive communications strategy that provides for ongoing, meaningful two-way communication that creates shared expectations among employees, employee representatives, and stakeholders; and (3) DOD must ensure that it has the institutional infrastructure in place, including a modern performance management system and an independent, efficient, effective, and credible external appeals process, to make effective use of its new authorities before they are operationalized. GAO strongly supports the concept of modernizing federal human capital policies, including providing reasonable flexibility. The federal government needs a framework to guide human capital reform. Such a framework would consist of a set of values, principles, processes, and safeguards that would provide consistency across the federal government but be adaptable to agencies' diverse missions, cultures, and workforces.
GAO-05-517T, Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed Department of Defense National Security Personnel System Regulations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-517T
entitled 'Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed
Department of Defense National Security Personnel System Regulations'
which was released on April 12, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency
Organization, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m., EDT Tuesday, April 12,
2005:
Human Capital:
Preliminary Observations on Proposed Department of Defense National
Security Personnel System Regulations:
Statement of David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-517T]
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-517T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on the
Federal Workforce and Agency Organization, Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense‘s (DOD) new human resources management
system”the National Security Personnel System (NSPS)”will have far-
reaching implications for civil service reform across the federal
government. The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act gave DOD
significant flexibilities for managing more than 700,000 defense
civilian employees. Given DOD‘s massive size, NSPS represents a huge
undertaking for DOD. DOD‘s initial process to design NSPS was
problematic; however, DOD adjusted its approach to a more deliberative
process that involved more stakeholders. NSPS could, if designed and
implemented properly, serve as a model for governmentwide
transformation in human capital management. However, if not properly
designed and implemented, it could severely impede progress toward a
more performance-and results-based system for the federal government
as a whole.
On February 14, 2005, DOD and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
released for public comment the proposed NSPS regulations. This
testimony (1) provides GAO‘s preliminary observations on selected
provisions of the proposed regulations, (2) discusses the challenges
DOD faces in implementing the new system, and (3) suggests a
governmentwide framework to advance human capital reform.
What GAO Found:
Many of the principles underlying the proposed NSPS regulations are
generally consistent with proven approaches to strategic human capital
management. For instance, the proposed regulations provide for (1)
elements of a flexible and contemporary human resources management
system”such as pay bands and pay for performance; (2) DOD to rightsize
its workforce when implementing reduction-in-force orders by giving
greater priority to employee performance in its retention decisions;
and (3) continuing collaboration with employee representatives. The 30-
day public comment period on the proposed regulations ended March 16,
2005. DOD and OPM have notified the Congress that they are preparing to
begin the meet and confer process with employee representatives who
provided comments on the proposed regulations. The meet and confer
process is critically important because there are many details of the
proposed regulations that have not been defined. (It should be noted
that 10 federal labor unions have filed suit alleging that DOD failed
to abide by the statutory requirements to include employee
representatives in the development of DOD‘s new labor relations system
authorized as part of NSPS.)
GAO has three primary areas of concern: the proposed regulations do not
(1) define the details of the implementation of the system, including
such issues as adequate safeguards to help ensure fairness and guard
against abuse; (2) require, as GAO believes they should, the use of
core competencies to communicate to employees what is expected of them
on the job; and (3) identify a process for the continuing involvement
of employees in the planning, development, and implementation of NSPS.
Going forward, GAO believes that (1) the development of the position of
Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management, who would act as DOD‘s
Chief Management Officer, is essential to elevate, integrate, and
institutionalize responsibility for the success of DOD‘s overall
business transformation efforts, including its new human resources
management system; (2) DOD would benefit if it develops a comprehensive
communications strategy that provides for ongoing, meaningful two-way
communication that creates shared expectations among employees,
employee representatives, and stakeholders; and (3) DOD must ensure
that it has the institutional infrastructure in place, including a
modern performance management system and an independent, efficient,
effective, and credible external appeals process, to make effective use
of its new authorities before they are operationalized.
GAO strongly supports the concept of modernizing federal human capital
policies, including providing reasonable flexibility. The federal
government needs a framework to guide human capital reform. Such a
framework would consist of a set of values, principles, processes, and
safeguards that would provide consistency across the federal government
but be adaptable to agencies‘ diverse missions, cultures, and
workforces.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-517T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Derek B. Stewart at (202)
512-5559 or [Hyperlink, stewartd@gao.gov]
[End of Section]
Chairman Porter and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide our
preliminary observations on the Department of Defense's (DOD) proposed
National Security Personnel System (NSPS) regulations, which the
Secretary of Defense and the Acting Director of the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) jointly released for public comment on February 14,
2005.[Footnote 1] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004[Footnote 2] gave DOD significant authorities to redesign the
rules, regulations, and processes that govern the way that defense
civilian employees are hired, compensated, promoted, and disciplined.
The proposed regulations, which according to DOD will ultimately affect
more than 700,000 defense civilian employees, are especially critical
because of their implications for governmentwide reform. In March 2005,
I testified on the NSPS proposed regulations before the Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia.[Footnote 3] Also, during my recent speech before
the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on the challenges that the
federal government faces in the 21st century, I highlighted a range of
trends and challenges, including DOD's human capital reform effort and
a governmentwide framework to advance human capital reform.[Footnote 4]
As suggested by the title of this hearing--"NSPS: The New Department of
Defense Civilian Personnel System Reaching Readiness," NSPS represents
a huge undertaking for DOD, given its massive size and geographically
and culturally diverse workforce. In addition, DOD's new human
resources management system will have far-reaching implications for the
management of the department and for civil service reform across the
federal government. NSPS could, if designed and implemented properly,
serve as a model for governmentwide transformation in human capital
management. However, if not properly designed and implemented, NSPS
could impede progress toward a more performance-and results-based
system for the federal government as a whole.
We raised several issues regarding DOD's civilian workforce in a
recently released report on the fiscal challenges the federal
government faces in the 21st century, including whether DOD is pursuing
the design and implementation of NSPS in a manner that maximizes the
chance of success.[Footnote 5] In recent testimony on DOD's business
transformation efforts, we indicated that DOD is challenged in its
efforts to effect fundamental business management reform, such as NSPS,
and indicated that our ongoing work continues to raise questions about
DOD's chances of success.[Footnote 6] There is general recognition that
the government needs a framework to guide the kind of large-scale human
capital reform occurring at DOD and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), a framework that Congress and the administration can implement
to enhance performance, ensure accountability, and position the nation
for the future. Implementing large-scale change management initiatives
is a complex endeavor, and failure to address a wide variety of
personnel and cultural issues, in particular, has been at the heart of
unsuccessful organizational transformations. Strategic human capital
management, which we continue to designate as a high-risk area
governmentwide,[Footnote 7] can help agencies marshal, manage, and
maintain the workforce they need to accomplish their missions.
Summary:
Let me begin by summarizing three positive features, three areas of
concern, and three comments regarding the way forward. The first
positive feature is that the proposed regulations provide for many
elements of a flexible and contemporary human resources management
system--such as pay bands and pay for performance. The second positive
feature is that the proposed regulations will allow DOD to rightsize
its workforce when implementing reduction-in-force (RIF) orders. For
example, DOD will be able to give greater priority to employee
performance in RIF decisions and take more factors into consideration
when defining the areas in which employees will compete for retention.
The third positive feature is that DOD has pledged to engage in a
continuing collaboration with employee representatives. On March 16,
2005, the 30-day public comment period on the proposed regulations
ended. On March 28, 2005, DOD and OPM notified the Congress that they
are about to begin the meet and confer process with employee
representatives who provided comments on the proposed regulations. (It
should be noted that 10 federal labor unions have filed suit alleging
that DOD failed to abide by the statutory requirements to include
employee representatives in the development of DOD's new labor
relations system authorized as part of NSPS.)
However, in addition to the litigation referenced above, our initial
work indicates three primary areas of concern. First, DOD has
considerable work ahead to define the details of the implementation of
its system, including such issues as adequate safeguards to help ensure
fairness and guard against abuse. Second, in setting performance
expectations, the proposed regulations would allow the use of core
competencies to communicate to employees what is expected of them on
the job, but the proposed regulations do not require the use of these
core competencies. Requiring such use can help provide consistency and
clarity in performance management. Third, the proposed regulations do
not identify a process for the continuing involvement of employees in
the planning, development, and implementation of NSPS.
Regarding the way forward, development of the position of Deputy
Secretary of Defense for Management, who would act as DOD's Chief
Management Officer, will be essential to provide leadership that can
elevate, integrate, and institutionalize responsibility for the success
of DOD's overall business transformation effort, including its new
human resources management system. In fact, in my previous testimony on
DOD's business transformation efforts, we identified the lack of clear
and sustained leadership for overall business transformations as one of
the underlying causes that has impeded prior DOD reform
efforts.[Footnote 8] Additionally, DOD would benefit if it develops a
comprehensive communications strategy that provides for ongoing,
meaningful two-way communication that creates shared expectations among
employees, employee representatives, managers, customers, and
stakeholders. Finally, DOD must ensure that it has the institutional
infrastructure in place to make effective use of its new authorities.
At a minimum, this infrastructure includes a human capital planning
process that integrates DOD's human capital policies, strategies, and
programs with its program goals and mission, and desired outcomes; the
capabilities to effectively develop and implement a new human capital
system; and, importantly, a set of adequate safeguards, including
reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, to
help ensure the fair, effective, and credible implementation and
application of a new system.
DOD's proposed regulations are intended to provide a broad outline of
its new human resources management system. While they are not, nor were
they intended to be, a detailed presentation of how the new system will
be implemented, the details of the proposed regulations do matter.
Although we continue to review the DOD's extensive regulations, today I
will (1) provide some preliminary observations on selected provisions,
(2) discuss the multiple challenges that DOD faces as it moves toward
implementation of its new human resources management system, and then
(3) suggest a governmentwide framework that can serve as a starting
point to advance human capital reform.
Preliminary Observations on the Proposed DOD National Security
Personnel System Regulations:
DOD and OPM's proposed NSPS regulations would establish a new human
resources management system within DOD that governs basic pay,
staffing, classification, performance management, labor relations,
adverse actions, and employee appeals. We believe that many of the
basic principles underlying the proposed DOD regulations are generally
consistent with proven approaches to strategic human capital
management. Today, I will provide our preliminary observations on
selected elements of the proposed regulations in the areas of pay and
performance management, staffing and employment, workforce shaping,
adverse actions and appeals, and labor-management relations.
Pay and Performance Management:
In January 2004, we released a report on pay for performance for
selected OPM personnel demonstration projects that shows the variety of
approaches taken in these projects to design and implement pay-for-
performance systems.[Footnote 9] Many of these personnel demonstration
projects were conducted within DOD. The experiences of these
demonstration projects provide insights into how some organizations in
the federal government are implementing pay for performance, and thus
can guide DOD as it develops and implements its own approach. These
demonstration projects illustrate that understanding how to link pay to
performance is very much a work in progress in the federal government
and that additional work is needed to ensure that performance
management systems are tools to help agencies manage on a day-to-day
basis and achieve external results.
When DOD first proposed its new civilian personnel reform, we strongly
supported the need to expand pay for performance in the federal
government.[Footnote 10] Establishing a clear link between individual
pay and performance is essential for maximizing performance and
ensuring the accountability of the federal government to the American
people. As I have stated before, how pay for performance is done, when
it is done, and the basis on which it is done can make all the
difference in whether such efforts are successful.[Footnote 11] DOD's
proposed regulations reflect a growing understanding that the federal
government needs to fundamentally rethink its current approach to pay
and better link pay to individual and organizational performance. To
this end, the DOD proposal takes another valuable step toward a modern
performance management system as well as a market-based, results-
oriented compensation system. My comments on specific provisions of pay
and performance management follow.
Aligning Individual Performance to Organizational Goals:
Under the proposed regulations, the DOD performance management system
would, among other things, align individual performance expectations
with the department's overall mission and strategic goals,
organizational program and policy objectives, annual performance plans,
and other measures of performance. However, the proposed regulations do
not detail how to achieve such an alignment, which is a vital issue
that will need to be addressed as DOD's efforts in designing and
implementing a new personnel system move forward. Our work on public
sector performance management efforts in the United States and abroad
has underscored the importance of aligning daily operations and
activities with organizational:
results.[Footnote 12] We have found that organizations often struggle
with clearly understanding how what they do on a day-to-day basis
contributes to overall organizational results, while high-performing
organizations demonstrate their understanding of how the products and
services they deliver contribute to results by aligning the performance
expectations of top leadership with the organization's goals and then
cascading those expectations to lower levels.
A performance management system is critical to successful
organizational transformation. As an organization undergoing
transformation, DOD can use its proposed performance management system
as a vital tool for aligning the organization with desired results and
creating a "line of sight" to show how team, unit, and individual
performance can contribute to overall organizational results. To help
federal agencies transform their culture to be more results oriented,
customer focused, and collaborative in nature, we have reported on how
a performance management system that defines responsibility and ensures
accountability for change can be key to a successful merger and
transformation.[Footnote 13]
Establishing Pay Bands:
Under the proposed regulations, DOD would create pay bands for most of
its civilian workforce that would replace the 15-grade General Schedule
(GS) system now in place for most civil service employees.
Specifically, DOD (in coordination with OPM) would establish broad
occupational career groups by grouping occupations and positions that
are similar in type of work, mission, developmental or career paths,
and competencies. Within career groups, DOD would establish pay bands.
The proposed regulations do not provide details on the number of career
groups or the number of pay bands per career group. The regulations
also do not provide details on the criteria that DOD will use to
promote individuals from one band to another. These important issues
will need to be addressed as DOD moves forward. Pay banding and
movement to broader occupational career groups can both facilitate
DOD's movement to a pay-for-performance system and help DOD better
define career groups, which in turn can improve the hiring process. In
our prior work, we have reported that the current GS system, as defined
in the Classification Act of 1949,[Footnote 14] is a key:
barrier to comprehensive human capital reform and that the creation of
broader occupational job clusters and pay bands would aid other
agencies as they seek to modernize their personnel systems.[Footnote
15] The standards and process of the current classification system are
key problems in federal hiring efforts because they are outdated and
thus not applicable to today's occupations and work.
Under the proposed regulations, DOD could not reduce employees' basic
rates of pay when converting to pay bands. In addition, the proposed
regulations would allow DOD to establish a "control point" within a
band that limits increases in the rate of basic pay and may require
certain criteria to be met for increases above the control
point.[Footnote 16] The use of control points to manage employees'
progression through the bands can help to ensure that their performance
coincides with their salaries and that only the highest performers move
into the upper half of the pay band, thereby controlling salary costs.
The OPM personnel demonstration projects at China Lake and the Naval
Sea Systems Command Warfare Center's Dahlgren Division have
incorporated checkpoints or "speed bumps" in their pay bands. For
example, when an employee's salary at China Lake reaches the midpoint
of the pay band, the employee must receive a performance rating that is
equivalent to exceeding expectations before he or she can receive
additional salary increases.
Setting and Communicating Employee Performance Expectations:
Under the proposed regulations, DOD's performance management system
would promote individual accountability by setting performance
expectations and communicating them to employees, holding employees
responsible for accomplishing them, and making supervisors and managers
responsible for effectively managing the performance of employees under
their supervision. While supervisors are supposed to involve employees,
insofar as practicable, in setting performance expectations, the final
decisions regarding performance expectations are within the sole and
exclusive discretion of management.
Under the proposed regulations, performance expectations may take
several different forms. These include, among others, goals or
objectives that set general or specific performance targets at the
individual, team, or organizational level; a particular work
assignment, including characteristics such as quality, quantity,
accuracy, or timeliness; core competencies that an employee is expected
to demonstrate on the job; or the contributions that an employee is
expected to make. As DOD's human resources management system design
efforts move forward, DOD will need to define, in more detail than is
currently provided, how performance expectations will be set, including
the degree to which DOD components, managers, and supervisors will have
flexibility in setting those expectations.
The range of expectations that DOD would consider in setting individual
employee performance expectations are generally consistent with those
used by high-performing organizations. DOD appropriately recognizes
that given the vast diversity of work done in the department, managers
and employees need flexibility in crafting specific expectations.
However, the experiences of high-performing organizations suggest that
DOD should require the use of core competencies as a central feature of
its performance management effort.[Footnote 17] Based on our review of
other agency efforts and our own experience at GAO, we have found that
core competencies can help reinforce employee behaviors and actions
that support the department's mission, goals, and values, and can
provide a consistent message to employees about how they are expected
to achieve results. By including such competencies as change
management, cultural sensitivity, teamwork and collaboration, and
information sharing, DOD would create a shared responsibility for
organizational success and help ensure accountability for the
transformation process.
Making Meaningful Distinctions in Employee Performance:
High-performing organizations seek to create pay, incentive, and reward
systems that clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions
to organizational results. These organizations make meaningful
distinctions between acceptable and outstanding performance of
individuals and appropriately reward those who perform at the highest
level. DOD's proposed regulations state that supervisors and managers
would be held accountable for making meaningful distinctions among
employees based on performance and contribution, fostering and
rewarding excellent performance, and addressing poor performance.
Under the proposed regulations, DOD is expected to have at least three
rating levels for evaluating employee performance. We urge DOD to
consider using at least four summary rating levels to allow for greater
performance-rating and pay differentiation. This approach is in the
spirit of the new governmentwide performance-based pay system for the
Senior Executive Service (SES), which requires at least four rating
levels to provide a clear and direct link between SES performance and
pay as well as to make meaningful distinctions based on relative
performance. Cascading this approach to other levels of employees can
help DOD recognize and reward employee contributions and achieve the
highest levels of individual performance.[Footnote 18]
Providing Adequate Safeguards to Ensure Fairness and Guard Against
Abuse:
Although DOD's proposed regulations provide for some safeguards to
ensure fairness and guard against abuse, additional safeguards should
be developed. For example, as required by the authorizing legislation,
the proposed regulations indicate that DOD's performance management
system must comply with merit system principles and avoid prohibited
personnel practices; provide a means for employee involvement in the
design and implementation of the system; and, overall, be fair,
credible, and transparent. However, the proposed regulations do not
offer details on how DOD would (1) promote consistency and provide
general oversight of the performance management system to help ensure
it is administered in a fair, credible, and transparent manner, and (2)
incorporate predecisional internal safeguards that are implemented to
help achieve consistency and equity, and ensure nondiscrimination and
nonpoliticization of the performance management process. Last month,
during testimony, we stated that additional flexibility should have
adequate safeguards, including a reasonable degree of transparency with
regard to the results of key decisions, whether it be pay, promotions,
or other types of actions, while protecting personal privacy. We also
suggested that there should be both informal and formal appeal
mechanisms within and outside of the organization if individuals feel
that there has been abuse or a violation of the policies, procedures,
and protected rights of the individual. Internal mechanisms could
include independent Human Capital Office and Office of Opportunity and
Inclusiveness reviews that provide reasonable assurances that there
would be consistency and nondiscrimination. Furthermore, it is of
critical importance that the external appeal process be independent,
efficient, effective, and credible.
In April 2003, when commenting on DOD civilian personnel reforms, we
testified that Congress should consider establishing statutory
standards that an agency must have in place before it can implement a
more performance-based pay program, and we developed an initial list of
possible safeguards to help ensure that pay-for-performance systems in
the government are fair, effective, and credible.[Footnote 19] For
example, we have noted that agencies need to ensure reasonable
transparency and provide appropriate accountability mechanisms in
connection with the results of the performance management
process.[Footnote 20] This can be done by publishing the overall
results of performance management and individual pay decisions while
protecting individual confidentiality and by reporting periodically on
internal assessments and employee survey results relating to the
performance management system. DOD needs to commit itself to publishing
the results of performance management decisions. By publishing the
results in a manner that protects individual confidentiality, DOD could
provide employees with the information they need to better understand
their performance and the performance management system. Several of the
demonstration projects have been publishing information about
performance appraisal and pay decisions, such as the average
performance rating, the average pay increase, and the average award for
the organization and for each individual unit, on internal Web sites
for use by employees. As DOD's human resources management system design
efforts move forward, DOD will need to define, in more detail than is
currently provided, how it plans to review such matters as the
establishment and implementation of the performance appraisal
systemæand, subsequently, performance rating decisions, pay
determinations, and promotion actionsæbefore these actions are
finalized, to ensure they are merit based.
Staffing and Employment:
The authorizing legislation allows DOD to implement additional hiring
flexibilities that would allow it to (1) determine that there is a
severe shortage of candidates or a critical hiring need and (2) use
direct-hire procedures for these positions. Under current law, OPM,
rather than the agency, determines whether there is a severe shortage
of candidates or a critical hiring need. DOD's authorizing legislation
permits that DOD merely document the basis for the severe shortage or
critical hiring need and then notify OPM of these direct-hire
determinations. Direct-hire authority allows an agency to appoint
people to positions without adherence to certain competitive
examination requirements (such as applying veterans' preference or
numerically rating and ranking candidates based on their experience,
training, and education) when there is a severe shortage of qualified
candidates or a critical hiring need. In the section containing DOD's
proposed hiring flexibilities, the proposed regulations state that the
department will adhere to veterans' preference principles as well as
comply with merit principles and the Title 5 provision dealing with
prohibited personnel practices.
While we strongly endorse providing agencies with additional tools and
flexibilities to attract and retain needed talent, additional analysis
may be needed to ensure that any new hiring authorities are consistent
with a focus on the protection of employee rights, on merit principles-
-and on results. Hiring flexibilities alone will not enable federal
agencies to bring on board the personnel that are needed to accomplish
their missions. Agencies must first conduct gap analyses of the
critical skills and competencies needed in their workforces now and in
the future, or they may not be able to effectively design strategies to
hire, develop, and retain the best possible workforces.
Workforce Shaping:
The proposed regulations would allow DOD to reduce, realign, and
reorganize the department's workforce through revised RIF procedures.
For example, employees would be placed on a retention list in the
following order: tenure group (i.e., permanent or temporary
appointment), veterans' preference eligibility (disabled veterans will
be given additional priority), level of performance, and length of
service; under current regulations, length of service is considered
ahead of performance. I have previously testified, prior to the
enactment of NSPS, in support of revised RIF procedures that would
require much greater consideration of an:
employee's performance.[Footnote 21] Although we support greater
consideration of an employee's performance in RIF procedures, agencies
must have modern, effective, and credible performance management
systems in place to properly implement such authorities.
An agency's approach to reductions should be oriented toward
strategically shaping the makeup of its workforce if it is to ensure
the orderly transfer of institutional knowledge and achieve mission
results. DOD's proposed regulations include some changes that would
allow the department to rightsize the workforce more carefully through
greater precision in defining competitive areas, and by reducing the
disruption associated with RIF orders as their impact ripples through
an organization. For example, under the current regulations, the
minimum RIF competitive area is broadly defined as an organization
under separate administration in a local commuting area. Under the
proposed regulations, DOD would be able to establish a minimum RIF
competitive area on a more targeted basis, using one or more of the
following factors: geographical location, line of business, product
line, organizational unit, and funding line. The proposed regulations
also provide DOD with the flexibility to develop additional competitive
groupings on the basis of career group, occupational series or
specialty, and pay band. At present, DOD can use competitive groups
based on employees (1) in the excepted and competitive service, (2)
under different excepted service appointment authorities, (3) with
different work schedules,[Footnote 22] (4) pay schedule, or (5) trainee
status. These reforms could help DOD approach rightsizing more
carefully; however, as I have stated, agencies first need to identify
the critical skills and competencies needed in their workforce if they
are to effectively implement their new human capital flexibilities.
Adverse Actions and Appeals:
As with DHS's final regulations,[Footnote 23] DOD's proposed
regulations are intended to streamline the rules and procedures for
taking adverse actions, while ensuring that employees receive due
process and fair treatment. The proposed regulations establish a single
process for both performance-based and conduct-based actions, and
shorten the adverse action process by removing the requirement for a
performance improvement plan. In addition, the proposed regulations
streamline the appeals process at the MSPB by shortening the time for
filing and processing appeals.
Similar to DHS, DOD's proposed regulations also adopt a higher standard
of proof for adverse actions in DOD, requiring the department to meet a
"preponderance of the evidence" standard in place of the current
"substantial evidence" standard. For performance issues, while this
higher standard of evidence means that DOD would face a greater burden
of proof than most agencies to pursue these actions, DOD managers are
not required to provide employees with performance improvement periods,
as is the case for other federal employees. For conduct issues, DOD
would face the same burden of proof as most agencies.
DOD's proposed regulations generally preserve the employee's basic
right to appeal decisions to an independent body--the MSPB. However, in
contrast to DHS's final regulations, DOD's proposed regulations permit
an internal DOD review of the initial decisions issued by MSPB
adjudicating officials. Under this internal review, DOD can modify or
reverse an initial decision or remand the matter back to the
adjudicating official for further consideration. Unlike other criteria
for review of initial decisions, DOD can modify or reverse an initial
MSPB adjudicating official's decision where the department determines
that the decision has a direct and substantial adverse impact on the
department's national security mission.[Footnote 24] According to DOD,
the department needs the authority to review initial MSPB decisions and
correct such decisions as appropriate, to ensure that the MSPB
interprets NSPS and the proposed regulations in a way that recognizes
the critical mission of the department and to ensure that MSPB gives
proper deference to such interpretation. However, the proposed
regulations do not offer additional details on the department's
internal review process, such as how the review will be conducted and
who will conduct them. An internal agency review process this important
should be addressed in the regulations rather than in an implementing
directive to ensure adequate transparency and employee confidence in
the process.
Similar to DHS's final regulations, DOD's proposed regulations would
shorten the notification period before an adverse action can become
effective and provide an accelerated MSPB adjudication process. In
addition, MSPB would no longer be able to modify a penalty for an
adverse action that is imposed on an employee by DOD unless such
penalty is so disproportionate to the basis of the action as to be
"wholly without justification." In other words, MSPB has less latitude
to modify agency-imposed penalties than under current practice. The DOD
proposed regulations also stipulate that MSPB could no longer require
that parties enter into settlement discussions, although either party
may propose doing so. DOD, like DHS, expressed concerns that settlement
should be a completely voluntary decision made by parties on their own
initiative. However, settling cases has been an important tool in the
past at MSPB, and promotion of settlement at this stage should be
encouraged.
Similar to DHS's final regulations, DOD's proposed regulations would
permit the Secretary of Defense to identify specific offenses for which
removal is mandatory. Employees alleged to have committed these
offenses may receive a written notice only after the Secretary of
Defense's review and approval. These employees will have the same right
to a review by an MSPB adjudicating official as is provided to other
employees against whom appealable adverse actions are taken. DOD's
proposed regulations only indicate that its employees will be made
aware of the mandatory removal offenses. In contrast, the final DHS
regulations explicitly provide for publishing a list of the mandatory
removal offenses in the Federal Register. We believe that the process
for determining and communicating which types of offenses require
mandatory removal should be explicit and transparent and involve
relevant congressional stakeholders, employees, and employee
representatives. Moreover, we suggest that DOD exercise caution when
identifying specific removable offenses and the specific punishment.
When developing these proposed regulations, DOD should learn from the
experience of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS):
implementation of its mandatory removal provisions.[Footnote 25] (IRS
employees feared that they would be falsely accused by taxpayers and
investigated, and had little confidence that they would not be
disciplined for making an honest mistake.) We reported that IRS
officials believed this provision had a negative impact on employee
morale and effectiveness and had a "chilling" effect on IRS frontline
enforcement employees, who were afraid to take certain appropriate
enforcement actions.[Footnote 26] Careful drafting of each removable
offense is critical to ensure that the provision does not have
unintended consequences.
DOD's proposed regulations also would encourage the use of alternative
dispute resolution and provide that this approach be subject to
collective bargaining to the extent permitted by the proposed labor
relations regulations. To resolve disputes in a more efficient, timely,
and less adversarial manner, federal agencies have been expanding their
human capital programs to include alternative dispute resolution
approaches. These approaches include mediation, dispute resolution
boards, and ombudsmen. Ombudsmen typically are used to provide an
informal alternative to addressing conflicts. We previously reported on
common approaches used in ombudsmen offices, including (1) broad
responsibility and authority to address almost any workplace issue, (2)
their ability to bring systemic issues to management's attention, and
(3) the manner in which they work with other agency offices in
providing assistance to employees.[Footnote 27]
Labor-Management Relations:
The DOD proposed regulations recognize the right of employees to
organize and bargain collectively.[Footnote 28] However, similar to
DHS's final regulations, the proposed regulations would reduce the
scope of bargaining by (1) removing the requirement to bargain on
matters traditionally referred to as "impact and implementation" (which
include the processes used to deploy personnel, assign work, and use
technology) and (2) narrowing the scope of issues subject to collective
bargaining. A National Security Labor Relations Board would be created
that would largely replace the Federal Labor Relations Authority. The
proposed board would have at least three members selected by the
Secretary of Defense, with one member selected from a list developed in
consultation with the Director of OPM. The proposed board would be
similar to the internal Homeland Security Labor Relations Board
established by the DHS final regulations, except that the Secretary of
Defense would not be required to consult with the employee
representatives in selecting its members. The proposed board would be
responsible for resolving matters related to negotiation disputes, to
include the scope of bargaining and the obligation to bargain in good
faith, resolving impasses, and questions regarding national
consultation rights.
Under the proposed regulations, the Secretary of Defense is authorized
to appoint and remove individuals who serve on the board. Similar to
DHS's final regulations establishing the Homeland Security Labor
Relations Board, DOD's proposed regulations provide for board member
qualification requirements, which emphasize integrity and impartiality.
DOD's proposed regulations, however, do not provide an avenue for any
employee representative input into the appointment of board members.
DHS regulations do so by requiring that for the appointment of two
board members, the Secretary of Homeland Security must consider
candidates submitted by labor organizations. Employee perception
concerning the independence of this board is critical to the resolution
of issues raised over labor relations policies and disputes.
Our previous work on individual agencies' human capital systems has not
directly addressed the scope of specific issues that should or should
not be subject to collective bargaining and negotiations. At a forum we
co-hosted in April 2004 exploring the concept of a governmentwide
framework for human capital reform, which I will discuss later,
participants generally agreed that the ability to organize, bargain
collectively, and participate in labor organizations is an important
principle to be retained in any framework for reform. It also was
suggested at the forum that unions must be both willing and able to
actively collaborate and coordinate with management if unions are to be
effective representatives of their members and real participants in any
human capital reform.
DOD Faces Multiple Implementation Challenges:
Once DOD issues its final regulations for its human resources
management system, the department will face multiple implementation
challenges that include ensuring sustained and committed leadership,
establishing an overall communications strategy, providing adequate
resources for the implementation of the new system, involving employees
in designing the system, and evaluating DOD's new human resources
management system after it has been implemented. For information on
related human capital issues that could potentially affect the
implementation of NSPS, see the "Highlights" pages from previous GAO
products on DOD civilian personnel issues in appendix I.
Ensuring Sustained and Committed Leadership:
As DOD and other agencies across the federal government embark on large-
scale organizational change initiatives, such as DOD's new human
resources management system, another challenge is to elevate,
integrate, and institutionalize leadership responsibility for these key
functional management initiatives to ensure their success. A chief
management officer or similar position can effectively provide the
continuing, focused leadership essential to successfully completing
these multiyear transformations. For an endeavor as critical as DOD's
new human resources management system, such a leadership position would
serve to:
* elevate attention to overcome an organization's natural resistance to
change, marshal the resources needed to implement change, and build and
maintain the organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business;
* integrate various management responsibilities into the new system so
they are no longer "stove-piped" and fit into other organizational
transformation efforts in a comprehensive, ongoing, and integrated
manner; and:
* institutionalize accountability for the system so that the
implementation of this critical human capital initiative can be
sustained.[Footnote 29]
In 2004, we testified that while the Secretary of Defense and other key
DOD leaders have demonstrated their commitment to the business
transformation efforts, in our view, the complexity and long-term
nature of these efforts requires the development of an executive
position capable of providing strong and sustained executive
leadership--over a number of years and various
administrations.[Footnote 30] The day-to-day demands placed on the
Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and others make it difficult for these
leaders to maintain the oversight, focus, and momentum needed to
resolve the weaknesses in DOD's overall business operations. While
sound strategic planning is the foundation upon which to build,
sustained and focused leadership is needed for reform to succeed. One
way to ensure sustained leadership over DOD's business transformation
efforts would be to create a full-time executive level position for a
chief management official who would serve as the Deputy Secretary of
Defense for Management.[Footnote 31] This position would provide the
attention essential for addressing key stewardship responsibilities,
such as strategic planning, human capital management, performance and
financial management, acquisition and contract management, and business
systems modernization, while facilitating the overall business
transformation operations within DOD.
Establishing an Overall Communications Strategy:
Another significant challenge for DOD is to ensure an effective and
ongoing two-way communications strategy, given its size, geographically
and culturally diverse audiences, and different command structures
across DOD organizations. We have reported that a communications
strategy that creates shared expectations about, and reports related
progress on, the implementation of the new system is a key practice of
a change management initiative.[Footnote 32] This communications
strategy must involve a number of key players, including the Secretary
of Defense, and a variety of communication means and mediums. DOD
acknowledges that a comprehensive outreach and communications strategy
is essential for designing and implementing its new human resources
management system, but the proposed regulations do not identify a
process for the continuing involvement of employees in the planning,
development, and implementation of NSPS.
Because the NSPS design process and proposed regulations have received
considerable attention,[Footnote 33] we believe one of the most
relevant implementation steps is for DOD to enhance two-way
communication between employees, employee representatives, and
management. Communication is not only about "pushing the message out,"
but also using two-way communication to build effective internal and
external partnerships that are vital to the success of any
organization. By providing employees with opportunities to communicate
concerns and experiences about any change management initiative,
management allows employees to feel that their input is acknowledged
and important. As it makes plans for implementing NSPS, DOD should
facilitate a two-way honest exchange with, and allow for feedback from,
employees and other stakeholders. Once it receives this feedback,
management needs to consider and use this solicited employee feedback
to make any appropriate changes to its implementation. In addition,
management needs to close the loop by providing employees with
information on why key recommendations were not adopted.
Providing Adequate Resources for Implementing the New System:
Experience has shown that additional resources are necessary to ensure
sufficient planning, implementation, training, and evaluation for human
capital reform. According to DOD, the implementation of NSPS will
result in costs for, among other things, developing and delivering
training, modifying automated human resources information systems, and
starting up and sustaining the National Security Labor Relations Board.
We have found that, based on the data provided by selected OPM
personnel demonstration projects, the major cost drivers in
implementing pay-for-performance systems are the direct costs
associated with salaries and training.
DOD estimates that the overall cost associated with implementing NSPS
will be approximately $158 million through fiscal year 2008. According
to DOD, it has not completed an implementation plan for NSPS, including
an information technology plan and a training plan; thus, the full
extent of the resources needed to implement NSPS may not be well
understood at this time. According to OPM, the increased costs of
implementing alternative personnel systems should be acknowledged and
budgeted up front.[Footnote 34] Certain costs, such as those for
initial training on the new system, are one-time in nature and should
not be built into the base of DOD's budget. Other costs, such as
employees' salaries, are recurring and thus would be built into the
base of DOD's budget for future years. Therefore, funding for NSPS will
warrant close scrutiny by Congress as DOD's implementation plan evolves.
Involving Employees and Other Stakeholders in Implementing the System:
The proposed regulations do not identify a process for the continuing
involvement of employees in the planning, development, and
implementation of NSPS. However, DOD's proposed regulations do provide
for continuing collaboration with employee representatives. According
to DOD, almost two-thirds of its 700,000 civilian employees are
represented by 41 different labor unions, including over 1,500 separate
bargaining units. In contrast, according to OPM, just under one-third
of DHS's 110,000 federal employees are represented by 16 different
labor unions, including 75 separate bargaining units. Similar to DHS's
final regulations, DOD's proposed regulations about the collaboration
process, among other things, would permit the Secretary of Defense to
determine (1) the number of employee representatives allowed to engage
in the collaboration process, and (2) the extent to which employee
representatives are given an opportunity to discuss their views with
and submit written comments to DOD officials. In addition, DOD's
proposed regulations indicate that nothing in the continuing
collaboration process will affect the right of the Secretary of Defense
to determine the content of implementing guidance and to make this
guidance effective at any time. DOD's proposed regulations also will
give designated employee representatives an opportunity to be briefed
and to comment on the design and results of the new system's
implementation. DHS's final regulations, however, provide for more
extensive involvement of employee representatives. For example, DHS's
final regulations provide for the involvement of employee
representatives in identifying the scope, objectives, and methodology
to be used in evaluating the new DHS system.
The active involvement of employees and employee representatives will
be critical to the success of NSPS. We have reported that the
involvement of employees and employee representatives both directly and
indirectly is crucial to the success of new initiatives, including
implementing a pay-for-performance system. High-performing
organizations have found that actively involving employees and
stakeholders, such as unions or other employee associations, when
developing results-oriented performance management systems helps
improve employees' confidence and belief in the fairness of the system
and increases their understanding and ownership of organizational goals
and objectives. This involvement must be early, active, and continuing
if employees are to gain a sense of understanding and ownership of the
changes that are being made. The 30-day public comment period on the
proposed regulations ended March 16, 2005. DOD and OPM notified the
Congress that they are preparing to begin the meet and confer process
with employee representatives who provided comments on the proposed
regulations. Last month, during testimony, we stated that DOD is at the
beginning of a long road, and the meet and confer process has to be
meaningful and is critically important because there are many details
of the proposed regulations that have not been defined. These details
do matter, and how they are defined can have a direct bearing on
whether or not the ultimate new human resources management system is
both reasoned and reasonable.
Evaluating DOD's New Human Resources Management System:
Evaluating the impact of NSPS will be an ongoing challenge for DOD.
This is especially important because DOD's proposed regulations would
give managers more authority and responsibility for managing the new
human resources management system. High-performing organizations
continually review and revise their human capital management systems
based on data-driven lessons learned and changing needs in the work
environment. Collecting and analyzing data will be the fundamental
building block for measuring the effectiveness of these approaches in
support of the mission and goals of the department.
DOD's proposed regulations indicate that DOD will establish procedures
for evaluating the regulations and their implementation. We believe
that DOD should consider conducting evaluations that are broadly
modeled on the evaluation requirements of the OPM demonstration
projects. Under the demonstration project authority, agencies must
evaluate and periodically report on results, implementation of the
demonstration project, cost and benefits, impacts on veterans and other
equal employment opportunity groups, adherence to merit system
principles, and the extent to which the lessons from the project can be
applied governmentwide. A set of balanced measures addressing a range
of results, and customer, employee, and external partner issues may
also prove beneficial. An evaluation such as this would facilitate
congressional oversight; allow for any midcourse corrections; assist
DOD in benchmarking its progress with other efforts; and provide for
documenting best practices and sharing lessons learned with employees,
stakeholders, other federal agencies, and the public.
We have work under way to assess DOD's efforts to design its new human
resources management system, including further details on some of the
significant challenges, and we expect to issue a report on the results
of our work sometime this summer.
Framework for Governmentwide Human Capital Reform:
DOD recently joined a few other federal departments and agencies, such
as DHS, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
Federal Aviation Administration, in receiving authorities intended to
help them strategically manage their human resources management system
to achieve results. In this changing environment, the federal
government is quickly approaching the point where "standard
governmentwide" human capital policies and processes are neither
standard nor governmentwide.
To help advance the discussion concerning how governmentwide human
capital reform should proceed, we and the National Commission on the
Public Service Implementation Initiative hosted a forum in April 2004
on whether there should be a governmentwide framework for human capital
reform and, if so, what this framework should include.[Footnote 35] To
start the discussion, we suggested, in advance of the forum, a
framework of principles, criteria, and processes based on congressional
and executive branch decision making and prior work.
While there was widespread recognition among the forum participants
that a one-size-fits-all approach to human capital management is not
appropriate for the challenges and demands faced by government, there
was equally broad agreement that there should be a governmentwide
framework to guide human capital reform. Furthermore, a governmentwide
framework should balance the need for consistency across the federal
government with the desire for flexibility, so that individual agencies
can tailor human capital systems to best meet their needs. Striking
this balance would not be easy, but such a balance is necessary to
maintain a governmentwide system that is responsive enough to adapt to
agencies' diverse missions, cultures, and workforces.
While there were divergent views among the forum participants, there
was general agreement on a set of principles, criteria, and processes
that would serve as a starting point for further discussion in
developing a governmentwide framework in advancing human capital
reform, as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Principles, Criteria, and Processes:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Concluding Observations:
As we testified previously on the DOD and DHS civilian personnel
reforms, an agency should have to demonstrate that it has a modern,
effective, credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance
management system in place with adequate safeguards, including
reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, to
ensure fairness and prevent politicization of the system and abuse of
employees before any related flexibilities are operationalized. DOD's
proposed NSPS regulations take a valuable step toward a modern
performance management system as well as a more market-based, results-
oriented compensation system. DOD's proposed performance management
system is intended to align individual performance and pay with the
department's critical mission requirements; hold employees responsible
for accomplishing performance expectations; and provide meaningful
distinctions in performance. However, the experiences of high-
performing organizations suggest that DOD should require core
competencies in its performance management system. The core
competencies can serve to reinforce employee behaviors and actions that
support the DOD mission, goals, and values and to set expectations for
individuals' roles in DOD's transformation, creating a shared
responsibility for organizational success and ensuring accountability
for change.
DOD's overall effort to design and implement a strategic human
resources management systemæalong with the similar effort of DHSæcan be
particularly instructive for future human capital management,
reorganization, and transformation efforts in other federal agencies.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that
you may have at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Derek B. Stewart, Director,
Defense Capabilities and Management, at (202) 512-5559 or [Hyperlink,
stewartd@gao.gov]. For further information on governmentwide human
capital issues, please contact Eileen R. Larence, Director, Strategic
Issues, at (202) 512-6512 or [Hyperlink, larencee@gao.gov]. Major
contributors to this testimony include Sandra F. Bell, Renee S. Brown,
K. Scott Derrick, William J. Doherty, Clifton G. Douglas, Jr., Barbara
L. Joyce, Julia C. Matta, Mark A. Pross, William J. Rigazio, John S.
Townes, and Susan K. Woodward.
[End of section]
Appendix I: "Highlights" from Selected GAO Human Capital Reports:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
(350688):
FOOTNOTES
[1] National Security Personnel System, 70 Fed. Reg. 7552 (Feb. 14,
2005).
[2] Pub. L. No. 108-136 § 1101 (Nov. 24, 2003).
[3] GAO, Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed DOD
National Security Personnel System Regulations, GAO-05-432T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2005).
[4] The Honorable David M. Walker, "21st Century Challenges:
Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government" (paper presented to the
Merit Systems Protection Board, New Orleans, La., April 5, 2005).
[5] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).
[6] GAO, Department of Defense: Further Actions Are Needed to
Effectively Address Business Management Problems and Overcome Key
Business Transformation Challenges, GAO-05-140T (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
18, 2004).
[7] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005).
[8] GAO-05-140T.
[9] GAO, Human Capital: Implementing Pay for Performance at Selected
Personnel Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-83 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23,
2004).
[10] GAO, Defense Transformation: Preliminary Observations on DOD's
Proposed Civilian Personnel Reforms, GAO-03-717T (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 29, 2003).
[11] GAO, Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed DHS Human
Capital Regulations, GAO-04-479T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2004).
[12] GAO-04-479T.
[13] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2003).
[14] 5 U.S. Code §§ 5101-5115.
[15] GAO, Human Capital: Opportunities to Improve Executive Agencies'
Hiring Processes, GAO-03-450 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003).
[16] Because movement through the pay band is based on performance,
employees could progress through the pay band more quickly than they
could receive similar increases under the GS system. One method of
preventing employees from eventually migrating to the top of the pay
band, and thus increasing salary costs, is to establish control points
within each band.
[17] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).
[18] GAO, Human Capital: Observations on Final DHS Human Capital
Regulation, GAO-05-391T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2005).
[19] GAO-03-717T.
[20] GAO-04-479T.
[21] GAO-03-717T; GAO, Defense Transformation: DOD's Proposed Civilian
Personnel System and Governmentwide Human Capital Reform, GAO-03-741T
(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003); and Human Capital: Building on DOD's
Reform Effort to Foster Governmentwide Improvements, GAO-03-851T
(Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2003).
[22] For example, employees who work full time, part time, seasonally,
or intermittently.
[23] Department of Homeland Security Human Resources Management System,
70 Fed. Reg. 5272 (Feb. 1, 2005).
[24] Any final DOD decision under this review process may be further
appealed to the full MSPB. Further, the Secretary of Defense or an
employee adversely affected by a final order or decision of the full
MSPB may seek judicial review.
[25] Section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
outlines conditions for firing of IRS employees for any of 10 actions
of misconduct.
[26] GAO, Tax Administration: IRS and TIGTA Should Evaluate Their
Processes of Employee Misconduct Under Section 1203, GAO-03-394
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2003).
[27] GAO-01-479T.
[28] Under current law, the rights of employees to bargain may be
suspended for reasons of national security. See Title 5 U.S. Code §§
7103(b) and 7112(b)(6).
[29] On September 9, 2002, GAO convened a roundtable of government
leaders and management experts to discuss the chief operating concept.
For more information, see GAO, Highlights of a GAO Roundtable: The
Chief Operating Officer Concept: A Potential Strategy to Address
Federal Governance Challenges, GAO-03-192SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4,
2002), and The Chief Operating Officer Concept and Its Potential Use as
a Strategy to Improve Management at the Department of Homeland
Security, GAO-04-876R (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2004).
[30] GAO-05-140T.
[31] GAO-05-140T.
[32] GAO-03-669.
[33] DOD's efforts to date to involve labor unions have not been
without controversy. Ten federal labor unions have filed suit alleging
that DOD failed to abide by the statutory requirements to include
employee representatives in the development of DOD's new labor
relations system authorized as part of NSPS. See American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO et al v. Rumsfeld et al, No. 1:05cv00367
(D.D.C. filed Feb. 23, 2005).
[34] OPM, Demonstration Projects and Alternative Personnel Systems: HR
Flexibilities and Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: September 2001).
[35] GAO and the National Commission on the Public Service
Implementation Initiative, Highlights of a Forum: Human Capital:
Principles, Criteria, and Processes for Governmentwide Federal Human
Capital Reform, GAO-05-69SP (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1, 2004).
