Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System (NSPS)
Gao ID: GAO-06-582R March 24, 2006On November 17, 2005, the Comptroller General testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at a hearing entitled: "From Proposed to Final: Evaluating the Regulations for the National Security Personnel System." The Comptroller General responded to questions regarding labor relations for unique segments of the workforce, employee involvement and representation, system evaluation, impact on veterans, safeguarding of teamwork and fairness, pay and performance standards, and safeguards against abuse.
The Comptroller General responded that (1) the Department of Defense (DOD) could find no compelling argument that civilian mariners should not be covered by the new system; (2) legislation would be needed to allow the Secretary of Defense to exempt any unit from the labor relations system; (3) DOD's final regulations do not identify a process for the continuing involvement of employees and other key stakeholders in implementation of NSPS, but the Secretary of Defense would be permitted to determine the number of employee representatives allowed to engage in the collaboration process and the extent to which employee representatives are given an opportunity to discuss their views with and submit written comments to DOD officials; (4) the development of procedures for evaluating NSPS that contain results-oriented performance measures and reporting requirements are recommended to determine if the new system is "getting it right;" (5) the inclusion of employees and their representatives needs to be meaningful, and an elected Employee Advisory Council can be used to serve as an advisory body that represents a cross-section of agency employees, and one of the most relevant implementation steps will be for DOD to enhance two-way communication between employees, employee representatives, and management; (6) GAO cannot provide assurance that the final NSPS regulations will not have a detrimental impact on veterans, however the regulations continue to give veterans' preference the same priority in the event of a reduction-in-force as under current regulations; (7) senior executives needs to lead the way to transform their agencies' cultures to be more results-oriented, customer focused, and collaborative, and this focus on collaboration, interaction, and teamwork across organizational boundaries is increasingly critical to achieve results; (8) the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the final NSPS regulations do not ensure that employees can bargain collectively, DOD modified the proposed regulations so that the final regulations state that basic performance expectations should be provided to employees in writing, the final regulations could not reduce employees' basic rates of pay when converting to pay bands, and the final NSPS regulations would allow DOD to reduce, realign, and reorganize the department's workforce through revised reduction-in-force procedures; (9) to assure that pay levels are adequate for employee recruitment and retention and to reward good performance, DOD needs to conduct annual, high-level compensation reviews to determine the competitiveness of the pay ranges, and periodic comprehensive compensation studies while monitoring employee recruiting, retention statistics and employee feedback; (10) GAO has developed an initial list of possible safeguards to help ensure that pay-for-performance systems in the government are fair, effective, and credible; (11) this list of safeguards is based on the experiences of GAO and an extensive body of work looking at the performance management practices used by leading public and private sector organizations; (12) GAO plans to begin an evaluation of the costs associated with the design and implementation of NSPS by April 2006, and provide Congress with relevant information by September 2006; (13) DOD needs to address safeguards to ensure fairness and guard against abuse in any pay-for-performance system; and (14) DOD must address principles, players, and proposals to ensure that the NSPS appeals system is both fair and perceived as fair by employees.
GAO-06-582R, Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System (NSPS)
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-582R
entitled 'Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the
Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System (NSPS)'
which was released on March 27, 2006.
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.
March 24, 2006:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Subject: Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the
Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System (NSPS):
On November 17, 2005, I testified before your Committee at a hearing
entitled: "From Proposed to Final: Evaluating the Regulations for the
National Security Personnel System".[Footnote 1] This letter responds
to your requests for my response to questions for the record.
Questions from Senator John Warner:
1. The civilian mariners have a long tradition of supporting our
military forces--operating at the call of a combatant commander on Navy
vessels--carrying combat equipment and supplies to fighting forces
during World War II, Korea, Vietnam and our current military
operations. They also have a unique legal status as excepted employees-
-whose compensation is tied to prevailing wage rates for commercial
crews.
To what extent did the Department examine the appropriateness of the
NSPS authorities governing labor relations for certain unique segments
of the workforce, such as the civilian mariners?
In supplementary information to the final regulations, DOD and OPM
responded to comments suggesting that certain groups of employees,
including teachers, public safety employees, civilian mariners, be
excluded from the labor relations system. In evaluating the merits of
excluding these groups of employees from the labor relations system,
DOD and OPM noted that the Department considered the employees' unique
characteristics but could find no compelling argument that this
particular group should not be covered by the new system.
Is legislation needed to permit the Secretary to exempt any DOD unit
from the labor relations provisions if the Secretary thought it
necessary to do so?
We understand that DOD's interpretation of section 9902(m)(8) of Title
5 is that legislation would be needed to allow the Secretary of Defense
to exempt any unit from the labor relations system. If this is DOD's
position, then clarifying legislation would be necessary.
2. The GAO, as part of its ongoing review of the Department's
implementation efforts, has emphasized the importance of employee buy-
in to the new system, and also of evaluating its success throughout
implementation.
What are the specific mechanisms that will be in place for continuous
employee involvement, and for evaluation of the NSPS system?
As we noted in our statement, DOD faces a significant challenge in
involving--and continuing to involve--its employees, employee
representatives, and other stakeholders in implementing NSPS. DOD's
final regulations, while providing for continuing collaboration with
employee representatives, do not identify a process for the continuing
involvement of employees and other key stakeholders in implementation
of NSPS. DOD's final NSPS regulations on 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 final
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 final regulations will give designated
employee representatives an opportunity to be briefed and to comment on
the design and results of the new system's implementation. However, the
active, visible, and continuous involvement of top key players,
including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, the military
services' secretaries, and presidents of the employee labor unions will
be a major factor in determining whether such efforts will be
meaningful, successful, and credible.
Our prior statement and work also indicate that evaluating the effect
of NSPS will be an ongoing challenge for DOD. As we noted in our
statement, DOD's final regulations indicate that DOD will evaluate the
regulations and their implementation. In our July 2005 report on DOD's
efforts to design NSPS, we recommended that DOD develop procedures for
evaluating NSPS that contain results-oriented performance measures and
reporting requirements.[Footnote 2] We also recommended that these
evaluation procedures could be broadly modeled on the evaluation
requirements of the OPM demonstration projects. If the department
follows through with this effort, we believe that it will be responsive
to our recommendation.
How will the Department know whether or not the new system is "getting
it right"?
Our answer to question 2 above regarding evaluating the effect of NSPS
applies to this question.
3. The level of employee and employee representative participation will
help determine the success of this personnel system for DOD, and
ultimately, possible extensions throughout the federal government. GAO
Comptroller General Walker underscored the need for DOD to continue to
involve employees, including employee representatives, throughout the
implementation process. The "implementing issuance" process, which
remains under the sole authorization of the Secretary of Defense and
other principal partners, will provide the ultimate framework and
details for important aspects of implementing NSPS. While final
regulations specify that employee representatives will have the
opportunity to participate in this process, could you elaborate on some
of the ways you will seek to request and include suggestions from
employees and their representatives in the implementing issuances?
By including employees and their representatives in the planning
process, organizations can improve related policies and processes,
increase their acceptance within the workforce and minimize any
potential adverse morale implications. For NSPS to be a successful
transformation, it must involve DOD employees and their representatives
from the beginning of the process in order to obtain their input and
acceptance, and hopefully their ownership of the changes that are
occurring within the department. Employee involvement strengthens the
transformation process by including frontline perspective and
experiences. Further employee involvement helps to create the
opportunity to establish new networks and break down existing
organizational silos, increase employees' understanding and acceptance
of organizational goals and objectives, gain ownership for new policies
and procedures, and reduce related implementation risks.
Our prior work also indicates that involving employees and other
stakeholders helps to improve overall confidence and belief in the
fairness of the system, enhance their understanding of how the system
works, and increase their understanding and ownership of organizational
goals and objectives. Organizations have found that the inclusion of
employees and their representatives needs to be meaningful, not just
pro forma. At GAO, to obtain direct feedback from employees, we created
the elected Employee Advisory Council (EAC) to serve as an advisory
body to the Comptroller General and other senior executives on a range
of management and employee issues. Comprising employees who represent a
cross-section of the agency, the EAC's participation is an important
source of front-end input and feedback on our human capital and other
major management initiatives. Specifically, EAC members convey the
views and concerns of the groups they represent, while remaining
sensitive to the collective best interest of all GAO employees; propose
solutions to concerns raised by employees; provide input to and comment
on GAO policies, procedures, plans, and practices; and help to
communicate management's issues and concerns to employees while also
relaying employees' comments and concerns to management.
We have found that organizations undergoing a transformation should
establish a communications strategy that creates shared expectations
and seeks to genuinely involve stakeholders in the process. As we have
noted in our prior testimonies on DOD's human resources management
system, it will face multiple implementation challenges that include
establishing overall communications strategies and involving employees
in implementing the new systems. We believe that one of the most
relevant implementation steps is for DOD to enhance two-way
communication between employees, employee representatives, and
management, including enhancing communication between top political
appointees and labor leaders. To enhance communications, there needs to
be visible and ongoing involvement of a number of top-level DOD
leaders, including the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, and
the military services' secretaries. Frequent and timely communication
cultivates a strong relationship with management and helps gain
employee ownership for a transformation like NSPS. But communication is
not about just "pushing the message out" or seeking information without
any meaningful response. It should facilitate a two-way honest exchange
with and allow feedback from employees, employee representatives,
customers, and stakeholders. Once employee feedback is received, it is
important to acknowledge, consider, and use it to make any appropriate
changes to the implementation of the transformation.
4. As Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and as a veteran
of World War II and the Korean War, I have a profound respect and
gratitude for our nation's veterans. During my 27 years in the Senate,
I have supported efforts to provide veterans with employment
opportunities in the federal government. Concerns have been expressed
that the final regulations modify the current rules governing workforce
reshaping, and consequently could negatively impact DOD's veteran
employees. What assurance can you provide my colleagues and I that the
changes will not have a detrimental impact on veterans?
While GAO cannot provide any assurance that the final NSPS regulations
will not have a detrimental impact on veterans, we note that the
regulations continue to give veterans' preference the same priority in
the event of a reduction-in-force (RIF) as under current regulations.
5. During my service as Secretary of the Navy--during which I was
privileged to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side
with the uniformed Navy, --I valued very highly the sense of teamwork
between the civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy.
Teamwork is an intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential
to mission accomplishment. Some have been concerned that NSPS could
undermine that sense of teamwork by increasing the competition between
individuals for recognition of their performance. How can we safeguard
this essential element of national service--teamwork--as we move
forward in changing the personnel systems of the Department of Defense?
Senior executives need to lead the way to transform their agencies'
cultures to be more results-oriented, customer focused, and
collaborative in nature. Performance management systems can help manage
and direct this process. As public sector organizations shift their
focus of accountability from outputs to results, they have recognized
that the activities needed to achieve those results often transcend
specific organizational boundaries. Consequently, organizations that
focus on collaboration, interaction, and teamwork across organizational
boundaries are increasingly critical to achieve results. High
performing organizations use their performance management systems to
strengthen accountability for results, specifically by placing greater
emphasis on competencies and other factors that promote teamwork and
collaboration to achieve desired organizational results.
6. In preparation for a hearing of the Armed Services Committee which I
chaired in April, 2005, I asked my good friend John Gage to whittle
down the scores of issues that he identified with the draft regulations
to a few flashpoint issues--a handful of things that had the highest
priority from his perspective. He did that, and in his testimony to the
SASC on April 14, 2005, identified six "flashpoints" of concern:
1. The scope of bargaining:
2. Composition of the National Security Relations Board:
3. The standard for mitigation of adverse actions by the Merit Systems
Protection Board:
4. The requirement for written standards for employee performance:
5. A general lowering of pay for the DOD civilian workforce; and:
6. Procedures for identifying who will be affected by a Reduction in
Force.
It is my understanding that the final regulations reflect progress on
some of these issues. How far has the Department come in addressing
these issues to ensure the success of NSPS?
Importantly, DOD should move expeditiously to resolve the appeals
issue, since it will be critical to the effective, credible, and fair
implementation of any major classification, compensation and
performance management, and reduction-in-force changes. John Gage is in
the best position to judge if his concerns are being addressed.
However, as you noted, the final regulations reflect progress on some
of the issues John Gage identified as flashpoints. However, 10 federal
labor unions filed suit last fall challenging the final NSPS
regulations on several grounds. On February 27, 2006, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia found that DOD was authorized to
establish a labor relations system that differed from the federal labor
relations system under Chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code, and that
DOD satisfied their statutory obligation to collaborate with the
unions.[Footnote 3] The court, however, ruled that the final NSPS
regulations do not ensure that employees can bargain collectively. The
court also ruled that the proposed internal labor relations board at
DOD is not an "independent third party" as required by the NSPS
authorizing legislation and that the proposed employee appeals process
does not provide fair treatment to DOD employees. The court permanently
enjoined DoD from implementing the parts of the final NSPS regulations
addressing adverse actions, appeals, and labor relations. At this
point, DOD and OPM officials are continuing to work with the Department
of Justice to determine their next steps relative to the court's
decision. As such, while DOD can implement the performance management,
compensation and classification, staffing, and workforce shaping
portions of the regulation, the regulations on the scope of bargaining,
composition of the National Security Labor Relations Board, and the
standard for mitigation of adverse actions by the Merit Systems
Protection Board may not move forward.
In response to public comments to its proposed regulations and feedback
obtained during the meet and confer process with employee
representatives, DOD modified the proposed regulations, so that the
final regulations state that the basic performance expectations should
be provided to employees in writing.
Similar to the proposed regulations, DOD's final regulations could not
reduce employees' basic rates of pay when converting to pay bands.
However, employees' compensation may increase at a rate higher or lower
than under the current compensation system because under NSPS
compensation is designed to be (1) market-based, with consideration of
local market conditions to set pay rates, and (2) more performance-
oriented.
Similar to the proposed regulations, the final NSPS regulations allow
DOD to reduce, realign, and reorganize the department's workforce
through revised reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures. In a change from
the proposed regulations, employees serving in an initial probationary
period have a lower retention standing than career employees (i.e.,
permanent will be listed first, followed by employees serving an
initial probationary period, and then followed by employees on
temporary appointments). In another change, the final regulations
reflect the use of more than one year's performance ratings in placing
employees on the retention list.
Questions from Senator Joseph Lieberman:
Downward pressure on pay levels.
John Gage in his written testimony expresses concern that the NSPS
system will create downward pressure on DOD civilian pay. Are there
mechanisms that you could suggest to assure that pay levels are
adequate for employee recruitment and retention and to truly reward
good performance?
We have observed that a competitive, market-based compensation system
can help organizations attract and retain a quality workforce. To begin
to develop such a system, organizations assess the skills and knowledge
they need; compare compensation against other public, private, or
nonprofit entities competing for the same talent in a given locality;
and classify positions along levels of responsibility. While one size
does not fit all, organizations generally structure their competitive
compensation systems to separate base salary--which all employees
receive--from other special incentives, such as merit increases,
performance awards, or bonuses, which are provided based on performance
and contributions to organizational results. DOD needs to conduct
annual, high-level compensation reviews to determine the
competitiveness of the pay ranges, and periodic (every 3 to 5 years)
much more comprehensive compensation studies while at the same point in
time, monitoring employee recruiting, retention statistics as well as
employee feedback during the interim in order to try to help assure the
competitiveness of the system.
We have reported that direct costs associated with salaries were one of
the major cost drivers of implementing pay for performance systems,
based on the data provided us by selected Office of Personnel
Management demonstration projects. We found that some of the
demonstration projects intended to manage costs by providing a mix of
one-time awards and permanent pay increases. Rewarding an employee's
performance with an award instead of an equivalent increase to base pay
can help contain salary costs in the long run because the agency only
has to pay the amount of the award one time, rather than annually.
Safeguards to help ensure fairness and guard against abuse.
Mr. Walker, in your testimony you expressed concern about whether the
regulations contain adequate safeguards to help ensure fairness and
guard against abuse. This seems particularly relevant with respect to
the process for assessing performance.
Could you elaborate on what kinds of safeguards you believe should be
considered in this context?
As we noted in our statement, although DOD's proposed regulations
provide for some safeguards to ensure fairness and guard against abuse,
additional safeguards should be developed. We have developed an initial
list of possible safeguards to help ensure that pay-for-performance
systems in the government are fair, effective, and credible. The
safeguards include, among other things, the following.
* Assure that certain predecisional internal safeguards exist to help
achieve the consistency, equity, nondiscrimination, and
nonpoliticization of the performance management process (e.g.
independent reasonableness reviews by Human Capital Offices and/or
Offices of Opportunity and Inclusiveness or their equivalent in
connection with the establishment and implementation of a performance
appraisal system, as well as reviews of performance rating decisions,
pay determinations, and promotion actions before they are finalized to
ensure that they are merit-based; internal grievance processes to
address employee complaints; and pay panels whose membership is
predominantly made up of career officials who would consider the
results of the performance appraisal process and other information in
connection with final pay decisions).
* Assure that there are reasonable transparency and appropriate
accountability mechanisms in connection with the results of the
performance management process. This includes reporting periodically on
internal assessments and employee survey results relating to the
performance management system and publishing overall results of
performance management and individual pay decisions while protecting
individual confidentiality.
* Assure that the agency's performance management systems (1) link to
the agency's strategic plan, related goals, and desired outcomes and
(2) result in meaningful distinctions in individual employee
performance. This should include consideration of critical competencies
and achievement of concrete results.
* Involve employees, their representatives, and other stakeholders in
the design of the system, including having employees directly involved
in validating any related competencies, as appropriate.
* Assure that there is an independent and credible employee appeals
mechanism.
Do you know of federal agencies where such mechanisms have proven
effective to guard against unfairness and abuse in a pay-for-
performance system?
The list of safeguards mentioned earlier are based on our own
experience at GAO as well as our extensive body of work looking at the
performance management practices used by leading public and private
sector organizations in the United States. For example, to help provide
transparency on how employees' performance compares to the rest of an
organization, we previously reported that that Naval Sea Systems
Command Warfare Center's Newport division publishes the results of its
annual performance cycle. Newport aggregates the data so that no
individual employee's rating or payout can be determined to protect
confidentiality. Employees can compare their performance rating
category against others in the same unit, other units, and the entire
division.
IBM built in several accountability mechanisms to help achieve
consistency and equity in pay decisions across employee groups and
teams. To help ensure there is no discrimination in pay decisions, IBM
conducts a base pay equity analysis to review the pay of women or
minority employees if their proposed pay is one standard deviation or
more away from the mean of the majority of employees and looks for an
explanation for these pay differences, such as poor performance, a
recent promotion into the pay band, or an extended leave of absence. In
addition, IBM built in second-level reviews of pay decisions before
employees receive any pay increases to ensure consistency in the
compensation process. The first-line managers discuss their proposed
pay decisions with managers at the next level--the up-line managers--to
ensure the performance assessments and justifications are consistent
across groups. Up-line managers can also shift pay allocations across
groups if necessary in order to ensure employees who perform similarly
are compensated the same regardless of their first-line managers. As a
final check, the senior managers sign off on the pay decisions for each
employee.
Questions from Senator Daniel Akaka:
1. As you know, I was joined by Senators Collins, Lieberman, and
Voinovich in asking GAO to review the costs associated with the design,
implementation, and training related to the National Security Personnel
System (NSPS) so I am very pleased that our request has been elevated
to a GAO initiative. Your evaluation will assist us greatly with our
oversight of NSPS. What methodologies, mileposts, and timeframes have
been established for the review?
As we have noted in our most recent testimony, DOD is challenged to
provide adequate resources to implement its new personnel system,
especially during a time when some of the department's resources are
being directed towards the Global War on Terrorism. By April 2006, we
plan to begin an evaluation of the costs associated with the design and
implementation of NSPS, and provide Congress with relevant information
by September 2006.
2. You have repeatedly testified that safeguards are needed to ensure
fairness and guard against abuse in any pay-for-performance system.
From your meetings with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM), do you know why similar safeguards have
not been included in the NSPS final regulations?
In our most recent testimony on the final NSPS regulations, we noted
several issues that DOD will need to define in more detail than is
currently provided. We believe that the details of DOD's system do
matter and that they should have been addressed in the final
regulations and then further defined in implementing issuances.
Importantly, DOD has plans to issue a number of issuances that will
contain detailed policies and procedures for the new system. These
issuances will be of critical importance and their content will include
important details that can serve to either enhance or reduce the
likelihood of a successful implementation. Hopefully, these issuances
will be responsive to our recommendations with regard to the need for
additional safeguards. In any event, these critically important details
must be defined in conjunction with applicable key stakeholders and
certain steps should be taken before any new authorities are
implemented.
3. Mr. Walker, you support revising reduction-in-force (RIF) procedures
to emphasize employee performance over tenure. However, union
representatives state that the change in RIF procedures will adversely
impact veterans by allowing DOD to design a RIF that will affect only
veterans. Would you comment on this, and do you have any suggestions as
to how this situation can be avoided?
Our answer to Senator Warner's question 4 above also applies to this
question.
4. DOD has clearly stated that NSPS must be perceived as fair by
employees. However, based on public comment and congressional testimony
from employee representatives, it appears that employees believe NSPS
is neither fair nor perceived as fair. What would you do to make the
NSPS appeals system both fair and perceived as fair by employees?
There is no question that DOD's proposed and final regulations relating
to the adverse actions and appeals process has not been without
controversy. As you know, 10 federal labor unions filed suit alleging
that, among other things, DOD's adverse actions and appeals process is
unlawful. In ruling on the labor unions' suit, a federal judge found
that DOD's appeals process does not provide fair treatment to DOD
employees, and permanently enjoined DOD from moving forward with
implementing the final regulations relating to the adverse actions and
appeals process.[Footnote 4]
As Comptroller General, I have worked with others to make the
Government Accountability Office a model federal agency by transforming
its organization and operations to address the challenges and
opportunities of the 21st century. In other presidentially appointed
posts, including public trustee for Social Security and Medicare, I
have seen the federal government falter in its attempts at major public
policy reforms in those areas. The process one employs to advance major
initiatives is critical. Based on my experience, three key process
related elements maximize the chances for success: principles, players,
and proposals.
With regard to principles, before leaders can achieve major internal or
external changes, they need to make a clear and compelling case that
the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. But that's not
enough. Leaders also must provide a set of clear, comprehensive and
compelling principles to frame the debate and help others understand
the overall direction and objectives.
With regard to players, any major reform effort requires the direct and
sustained involvement of an organization's chief executive officer. But
the CEO also must recruit champions from various stakeholder groups.
For internal reforms, this includes managers, employees and employee
organizations. For legislative reforms, it includes businesses, unions,
citizen groups, think tanks, the media and members of both major
political parties. Champions should be capable, credible, committed and
effective communicators. These individuals also should be part of a
broad-based "big tent" approach to both crafting and selling reform
proposals.
With regard to proposals, a detailed plan should be developed and
presented or endorsed for action. The proposal should be consistent
with the articulated principles, supported by applicable champions and
informed by the "big tent" process. There is always risk in presenting
a specific plan, especially in politically charged environments. But
realistic leaders recognize that any major reform proposal is likely to
be revised before it is enacted. Revisions could include desirable
improvements or necessary compromises, but as the old saying goes,
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
These three steps to reform do not have to be addressed in a particular
or guarantee success, but failure to effectively address one or more
would likely ensure defeat.
For additional information on our work on human capital issues at DOD,
please contact me on 512-5500 or Derek B. Stewart, Director, Defense
Capabilities and Management on 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov, or J.
Christopher Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues on governmentwide
human capital issues at 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.
David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
(350806):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Human Capital: Observations on Final Regulations for DOD's
National Security Personnel System, GAO-06-227T (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
17, 2005).
[2] GAO, Human Capital: DOD's National Security Personnel System Faces
Implementation Challenges, GAO-05-730 (Washington, D.C.: July 14,
2005).
[3] American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et. al. v.
Rumsfeld et al, No. 05-2183, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7068 (D.D.C. Feb.
27, 2006).
[4] American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et. al. v.
Rumsfeld et al, No. 05-2183, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7068 (D.D.C. Feb.
27, 2006).
