Post-Hearing Questions Related to the Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System
Gao ID: GAO-05-641R April 29, 2005GAO was asked to respond to congressional requests regarding questions about a previous testimony entitled, "Critical Mission: Ensuring the Success of the National Security Personnel System."
GAO found that human capital reform is a critical element in the Department of Defense's (DOD) overall business transformation effort. Appropriate presidential appointees need to take the lead in selected meetings and communications. That will be necessary in order to assure that top union and other officials also participate in key activities. Also, the active involvement of employees and employee representatives will be critical to the success of DOD's National Security Personnel System (NSPS). Further, because people are the drivers of any transformation, it is vital to monitor their attitudes about the system. Active and ongoing communication is critical for the successful development and implementation of both the Department of Homeland Security's new personnel management system and DOD's human resources management system. GAO found that including employees, their representatives, and employee unions is a key practice to help increase the acceptance of organizational goals, improve morale, and for achieving overall success. Organizations undergoing a transformation should establish a communications strategy that creates shared expectations and seeks to genuinely involve stakeholders in the process as well. Finally, the recommendation that GAO audit the training program for managers and employees has merit, and GAO is willing to entertain a congressional request to evaluate DOD's training plan for the implementation and operation of NSPS.
GAO-05-641R, Post-Hearing Questions Related to the Department of Defense's National Security Personnel System
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-641R
entitled 'Post-hearing Questions Related to the Department of Defense's
National Security Personnel System' which was released on Apri 29, 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.
April 29, 2005:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Chairman:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Subject: Post-hearing Questions Related to the Department of Defense's
National Security Personnel System:
On March 15, 2005, I testified before your Subcommittee at a hearing
entitled "Critical Mission: Ensuring the Success of the National
Security Personnel System."[Footnote 1] This report responds to
requests from each of you that I provide answers to questions for the
record from the hearing. The questions, along with my responses, follow.
Question from Chairman Voinovich:
What recommendations or suggestions do you have for the Department of
Defense and the Office of Personnel Management in order for them to
earn employee acceptance of NSPS?
Human capital reform is a critical element in the Department of
Defense's (DOD) overall business transformation effort. Therefore, top
DOD leadership must play a direct and continuing role in this effort.
Appropriate presidential appointees need to take the lead in selected
meetings and communications. This will be necessary in order to assure
that top union and other officials also participate in key activities
(e.g., selected meet and confer sessions).
As we noted in our statement, the active involvement of employees and
employee representatives will be critical to the success of DOD's
National Security Personnel System (NSPS). We have reported that the
involvement of employees and their 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 DOD employees are to gain a sense of understanding and ownership of
the changes that are being made through NSPS. Further, we believe that
this involvement needs to be meaningful, not just pro forma.
Implementing large-scale change management initiatives, such as the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) new personnel system and DOD's
NSPS, are not simple endeavors and require the direct involvement and
concentrated efforts of both leadership, including top political
leadership, and employees to realize intended synergies and to
accomplish new organizational goals. People are at the center of any
serious change management initiative. People define the organization's
culture, drive its performance, and embody its knowledge base.
Experience shows that failure to adequately address--and often even
consider--a wide variety of people and cultural issues is at the heart
of unsuccessful transformations. Recognizing the "people" element in
these two initiatives and implementing strategies to help individuals
maximize their full potential in the new organization, while
simultaneously managing the risk of reduced productivity and
effectiveness that often occurs as a result of the changes, is the key
to a successful transformation.[Footnote 2]
We have found that because people are the drivers of any
transformation, it is vital to monitor their attitudes. Especially at
the outset of the transformation, obtaining employees' attitudes
through pulse surveys, focus groups, or confidential hotlines can serve
as a quick check of how employees are feeling about the large-scale
changes that are occurring. While monitoring employee attitudes
provides good information, it is most important for employees to see
that top leadership not only listens to their concerns, but also takes
action and makes appropriate adjustments to the transformation in a
visible way. By not taking appropriate follow-up action, negative
attitudes may translate into actions, such as employee departures,
among other things, that could have a detrimental effect on the
transformation.[Footnote 3] According to the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), alternative personnel systems require employee buy-in
to be effective.[Footnote 4] Thus, DOD employees and their
representatives should be involved from the beginning, and without
early consultation with DOD employees and their representatives, NSPS
buy-in probably will not occur.
Questions from Senator Akaka:
1. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has often reported on the
importance of employee buy-in for any reorganization to be successful.
However, the four largest unions at the Department of Homeland Security
have filed a lawsuit to stop implementation of the new personnel
system, and, based on testimony from Mr. Gage and Mr. Junemann,
employees are not supportive of the new National Security Personnel
System (NSPS) either. In your opinion, can either of these systems be
successful given the lack of employee support?
Active and ongoing engagement and communication is critical for the
successful development and implementation of both DHS's new personnel
management system and DOD's human resources management system. Like
DHS, DOD's efforts to date to involve labor unions have not been
without controversy. In fact, 10 federal labor unions also 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.[Footnote 5] Since these
suits currently are pending in federal court, I do not believe it would
be appropriate to comment further on them at this time.
By including employees and their representatives in the planning
process, organizations can increase their acceptance of organizational
goals as well as improve motivation and morale.[Footnote 6] For NSPS to
be a successful transformation, it must involve DOD employees and their
representatives from the beginning of the process to gain their
ownership for 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 engaging employee unions is a key
practice to help involve employees and is crucial to achieving
success.[Footnote 7] Thus, obtaining DOD union cooperation and support
through effective labor-management relations can help achieve consensus
on the planned changes, avoid misunderstandings, and more expeditiously
resolve problems that occur. Organizations we studied involved unions
and incorporated their input before finalizing decisions in such areas
as redesigning work processes, changing work rules, or developing new
job descriptions.
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 DHS's personnel management system and
DOD's human resources management system,[Footnote 8] both departments
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 DHS and DOD to enhance two-way
communication between employees, employee representatives, and
management, including enhancing communication between top political
appointees and labor leaders. 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.
2. Mr. Junemann's written testimony proposes that GAO audit the
training program for managers and employees for the performance
appraisal process. What is your opinion of this recommendation, and
would GAO be open to auditing the performance management training
offered by all agencies?
The recommendation that GAO audit the training program for managers and
employees has merit. GAO is willing to entertain a congressional
request to evaluate DOD's training plan for the implementation and
operations of NSPS. As part of our ongoing reviews of agencies' efforts
to address their human capital challenges, we developed a framework to
serve as a flexible and useful guide in assessing how agencies plan,
design, implement, and evaluate effective training and development
programs.[Footnote 9] We believe that these guides could prove helpful
to DOD as it develops its NSPS training and development program.
For additional information on our work on human capital issues at DOD,
please contact me on (202) 512-5500 or Derek B. Stewart, Director,
Defense Capabilities and Management, on (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) 512-6510 or [Hyperlink, larencee@gao.gov].
Signed by:
David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
(350706):
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed DOD
National Security Personnel System Regulations, GAO-05-432T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2005).
[2] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2003).
[3] GAO-03-669.
[4] OPM, Demonstration Projects and Alternative Personnel Systems: HR
Flexibilities and Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: September 2001).
[5] See American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO et al v.
Rumsfeld et al, No. 1:05cv00367 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 23, 2005).
[6] GAO, Human Capital: Practices that Empowered and Involved
Employees, GAO-01-1070 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 2001).
[7] GAO, A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).
[8] GAO, Human Capital: Observations on Final DHS Human Capital
Regulations, GAO-05-391T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2005) and GAO-05-
432T.
[9] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington,
D.C.: March 2004) and Human Capital: Selected Agencies' Experiences and
Lessons Learned in Designing Training and Development Programs, GAO-04-
291 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).
