Survey of the Senior Executive Service
Pay and Performance Management System

Lost in Translation




                    ...
[Page intentionally blank.]
TABLE OF CONTENTS

            Introduction..................................................................................
[Page intentionally blank.]
INTRODUCTION
                                                                                         To fully understand ...
Supporting comments by the vast majority of executives noted their belief that their work was not susceptible to matrices
...
SIGNIFICANT FINDING #1                                                                     Do you believe you should be he...
Many of those who commented on the connection between performance ratings and pay indicated administrative
decisions and b...
SIGNIFICANT FINDING #3
Respondents reported disconnects between ratings, pay
adjustments, and bonuses.
                   ...
Comments from many executives indicated that the new performance management system adversely affected their
morale and the...
SIGNIFICANT FINDING #4                                                                                        How has the ...
The overwhelming sentiment expressed in comments by senior executives was that more transparency, both from OPM
and their ...
SIGNIFICANT FINDING # 5                                                                     Does your agency share with yo...
The elimination the Senior Executive Service ranks was found to be a negative factor for many of those commenting on
the s...
SIGNIFICANT FINDING #6                                                                                    797 SES responde...
In addition to their responses to specific survey questions, many executives added comments indicating that the new
perform...
AN ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION                                                             For the permanent civilian workfor...
Losing a major percentage of the SES over the next
 five years would be manageable given the significant
 population of GS-1...
APPENDIX A-
    SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS AND SES
    WORKFORCE COMPARISONS




These materials are copyrighted jointly by the S...
[Page intentionally blank.]
APPENDIX A-                                                                                                 To determine r...
APPENDIX B-
    SENIOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION
    ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS




These materials are copyrighted joint...
[Page intentionally blank.]
APPENDIX - B
SENIOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In 1987, in its report, the Twentieth Century Fu...
• The lack of an assured pay adjustment to fully                                    Pay Adjustments for Career Appointees ...
Transparency of Ratings for Senior Executives,                                    Correcting the problems that have develo...
APPENDIX C-
                SURVEY BACKGROUND & PROTOCOLS




These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Execut...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...

838 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
838
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance ...

  1. 1. Survey of the Senior Executive Service Pay and Performance Management System Lost in Translation in partnership with
  2. 2. [Page intentionally blank.]
  3. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction........................................................................................................... 03 Comments & Significant Findings......................................................................... 04 Members of the Senior Executive Service support effective performance management and believe they should be held accountable for agency performance. A majority of respondents believe that de facto quotas are affecting final performance ratings. Respondents reported disconnects between ratings, pay adjustments, and bonuses. Respondents reported that the new system has not affected their performance or the performance of their peers; however, the new system has negatively affected morale. Respondents reported the new system has been implemented with a lack of adequate communication and a resultant lack of transparency. Survey respondents noted that the abolishment of the SES ranks and locality pay have resulted in negative impacts on the SES. Appendix A – Survey Demographics and SES Workforce Comparisons ............ 18 Appendix B – SEA Assessment and Recommendations ..................................... 20 Appendix C – Survey Background and Protocol................................................. 24 Appendix D – SEA Survey Instrument.................................................................. 26 Appendix E – Survey Response Tables............................................................... 30 Appendix F – Summary of Survey Comments, arranged by Major Category ..... 45 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 2 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  4. 4. [Page intentionally blank.]
  5. 5. INTRODUCTION To fully understand the impact of this new system, SEA The Federal government has embarked on several determined that hard data, not just anecdotes, were major and unparalleled changes in the structure and needed from as many Senior Executives as possible. systems for compensating the Federal workforce. The implementation and administration of the National If there were systemic problems, they needed to be Security Personnel System (NSPS) in the Department identified and brought to the attention of OPM, the Office of Defense (DOD) and MaxHR in the Department of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress. SEA of Homeland Security (DHS) have the potential for also recognized that there are success stories regarding drastically changing the human resources management the SES pay system and determined to solicit more data processes of the Federal government. Understanding about the successes, as well as the problems. these changes and evaluating their impact on the Federal workforce will be essential for determining if the SEA, in partnership with Avue Technologies, developed changes are in the best interests of the government and an online survey to develop a fact-based understanding the public the government serves. of the experience and views of Senior Executive Service members with the SES pay and performance Preceding the NSPS and MaxHR changes, the Federal management system as implemented. Questions government implemented the new Senior Executive solicited demographic information, SES members’ Service (SES) pay and performance management experience with the system and involvement in its system in January 2004. The new SES system was implementation, how the new system affected the the first major, significant change to the SES since the member, perceptions of how the system affected the implementation of the SES in 1978 as a part of the Civil SES members’ colleagues, and views on how the new Service Reform Act of 1978. Since the new SES system system might affect the future of human resources is a performance-based compensation system and the management in the Federal government. A final open- first to be applied government-wide, the implementation ended question solicited comments regarding the and administration of the new system may serve as SES pay and performance management system and lessons learned for implementation and administration its implementation. The report that follows presents a of performance-based compensation systems for the summary of the results of the survey, a compilation of the DHS, DOD, and ultimately the rest of the government. significant comments by executives who have worked under the new system, and recommendations for how The changes implemented in 2004 have already some of the identified concerns can be resolved to create affected the SES and will significantly affect a better system for the SES and the Federal government. management of the Federal workforce and the performance of Federal agencies. Congress and the media have heard little about implementation SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT SURVEY and administration problems in the SES system; FINDINGS conversely, the new SES system has been touted as 1. Members of the Senior Executive Service support a model system of pay for performance by the Office effective performance management and believe they of Personnel Management (OPM). However, no one should be held accountable for agency performance. in government has asked the SES members for their 2. A majority of respondents believe that de facto reactions to the new system or its impact on their quotas are affecting final performance ratings. morale, motivation, or performance. 3. Respondents reported disconnects between ratings, pay adjustments, and bonuses. For some months prior to April 2006, the Senior 4. Respondents reported that the new system has Executives Association (SEA) heard a number of not affected their performance or the performance of concerns from its members on the implementation of the their peers; however, the new system has negatively SES pay and performance management system. These affected morale. concerns were often coupled with discouragement 5. Respondents reported the new system has been and exasperation at the treatment of career Senior implemented with a lack of adequate communication Executives under this system. Rather than seeing and a resultant lack of transparency. rewards for their hard work, some executives reported 6. Survey respondents noted that the abolishment they were seeing performance ratings being decreased of the SES ranks and locality pay have resulted in without explanation and were losing purchasing power negative impacts on the SES. each year. Some concerns suggested system-wide problems, from certification of agencies to rating The following pages present survey results supportive of executives. Many concerns were with the methods each of the significant findings. Accompanying the survey required to obtain OPM/OMB certification and agency results for each significant finding are the comments by implementation processes, including the “de facto” use Senior Executives that serve to highlight the concerns of of quotas at many agencies. those who have dedicated major portions of their adult lives to public service. These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 3 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  6. 6. Supporting comments by the vast majority of executives noted their belief that their work was not susceptible to matrices and objective measures and that to attempt to apply matrices was a waste of time. In addition, many comments reflected the belief by executives that agencies had to spread out their performance ratings in some pre-determined way in order to achieve OPM certification, and thus the higher pay cap. Many also said that forced limits on high ratings led to ill-will between senior executives. A significant number thought “favoritism” and “in-groups,” rather than objective considerations, determined who got what rating, as well as pay increases and bonuses. “I am very interested in accomplishing measurable results in my job, but as a policymaker, MEASURABLE “Performance measures are not that important to (Quantifiable) results are very difficult to assess. By me. I try to provide my personal best all the time. the timelines that policies are issued? By the number During the last five years I have averaged 152 hours of pages? Also…..many of my most important tasks each pay period – 80 with pay; 72 free. I know in the take a long time to bring to fruition. Should I ignore private sector I would be paid more. But, I like serving these for shorter-term, more easily achievable gains?” the public. This is my calling. Everything else is (DOD) secondary to me. I wish my compensation was more, but it is not. As a SES member for over 20 years, and a SEA member for about 15 years, I support the SES cadre and wish that Administrations would appreciate “I have long believed, as have many colleagues, that the work we do, the long hours we contribute, and the there is a quota system on Outstanding ratings. This dedication to public service that almost all of us have. past year my supervisor actually used the word, and In simple terms, the taxpayers get a great deal from the would not back down when challenged. He said the SES.” (Agriculture) quota was in the neighborhood of 25-30%. … This year, my supervisor directed me to lower the rating of an SES subordinate for whom I had proposed an Outstanding rating, and to lower the rating on any “You asked the question about the expressed use element I chose for him because it just wasn’t his of quotas. I answered ‘yes’ but in reality the use of ‘turn’ to get an Outstanding. Needless to say, I am quotas was more subtle: sites being told they could very cynical about it all.” (Agriculture) forward one outstanding; appraisals being returned for downgrading because we needed lower scores; and perceived written intent from the CHCO saying that the Deputy Secretary expected to see few outstanding “…in a highly political area like foreign affairs, ratings.” (Energy) measurable performance objectives are fictitious. Accomplishments are heavily affected by external political events outside the influence, much less the “After (certification process) review by OPM, they now control, of the SESer.” (State) have us chasing more quantifiable measures that may indicate production of things but will be of little utility in assessing whether we are accomplishing our mission.” (NASA) “The amount of time and the playing of games to have a quota without a quota is ridiculous.” (GSA) Page 4 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  7. 7. SIGNIFICANT FINDING #1 Do you believe you should be held accountable for measurable Members of the Senior Executive Service support accomplishments by your agency? 55% effective performance management and believe they 41% should be held accountable for agency performance. When the respondents were asked if they believe they should be held accountable for the performance of 0% 0% 4% their agencies over 96% indicated they should be held No Opinion Don’t Know No Yes, to a Yes accountable. limited Degree While the respondents agreed they should be held accountable, many indicated the performance rating If your initial summary rating for 2004/2005 was lowered, what process is flawed by the pressure to force fit the final was the reason? ratings. 53% 47% SIGNIFICANT FINDING #2 A majority of respondents believe that de facto quotas 2004 2005 27% are affecting final performance ratings. 21% 21% 17% Executives perceive that adjective performance rating 9% distributions are being forced to meet agency set 5% standards or limitations on the number of high ratings. The percentage of survey respondents who believe Performance Agency need Agency forced No explanation their agency set ratings to meet a preconceived quota Specifics for lower high ratings distribution provided increased from 42% for the 2004 ratings to 53% for the 2005 ratings. The increase in the percentage believing that ratings were set to achieve a preconceived quota In terms of the overall assessment by survey was gained by decreases in both those who were not respondents of the ratings in their agencies’ executive sure and those who disagreed that ratings were set to performance management system, 17% believe the achieve fewer high ratings. ratings are ‘fair and accurate”, 27% believe the ratings to be “fair and accurate” to a limited degree, while 33% For 2004/2005, my agency rated executives to meet a believe the ratings are not fair and accurate. Over 23% preconceived quota and achieve fewer high ratings of the respondents either did not know or had no opinion 53% regarding whether the appraisal process was fair and 42% accurate. 34% 2004 2005 30% 24% Are ratings given to executives in your agency fair and accurate? 18% 33% 27% Not Sure Disagree Agree 19% 17% Some of the survey respondents were advised of their initial performance rating and were subsequently informed that the initial rating was lowered. In some cases, the executives were advised of the reason for the 4% lowered rating and in other instances, no explanation was provided. The summary of survey respondent views No Opinion Don’t Know No Yes, to a Yes indicate that 74% in 2004 and 64% in 2005 believe the limited Degree initial rating was lowered because the agency needed to lower the number of high ratings or to achieve a forced distribution of ratings. For 2004, 5% of the respondents In further support that performance ratings were were informed that performance-based reasons assigned based on consideration other than the supported the lowered rating. For 2005, performance- executives performance, many indicated that they based reasons accounted for 9% of the lowered ratings. received ratings that were not aligned with pay increases Executives who were provided no reason for the and bonuses. lowered performance rating increased from 21% for the 2004 ratings to 27% for the 2005 ratings. These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 5 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  8. 8. Many of those who commented on the connection between performance ratings and pay indicated administrative decisions and budgetary constraints were more controlling than the executive’s performance. “ Executives at small agencies suffer greatly under the new system. Our bonus and salary adjustments are totally dependent upon the availability of “The new pay system was a huge step backwards funds for overall agency operations. In an era of but, even worse, is the new system is not adequately decreasing resources it is especially disheartening funded. In my agency, there may be no bonuses to know that any potential SES bonus or adjustment whatsoever paid in 2006 (for 2005 performance) is dependent upon what is left after all the bills are because of budgetary considerations.” (NLRB) paid and the paper clips bought for the final quarter of the fiscal year.” (EEOC) “The salary level for a GS-15 (10) may soon surpass my current salary. I have received performance “I was treated fairly in 2004, but after receiving bonuses for the last two years but no salary increase an Outstanding rating for 2005 together with a because my supervisor does not ‘believe’ in them. Presidential Rank award for meritorious service I …If I had it to do over … I would probably stay as a received no salary increase. So I performed at the GS-15.” (Education) top during 2005 and had my performance properly documented, but received no salary increase.” (NASA) “…I am very concerned about cascading this program down to non-SES employees. There aren’t enough funds in our agency to adequately compensate pay for performance under this system. The unions might be agreeing in principle but they won’t be happy when they see how little can be executed for the employees when it is put into place. We are building expectations which under current budgets we cannot meet.” (HHS) Page 6 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  9. 9. SIGNIFICANT FINDING #3 Respondents reported disconnects between ratings, pay adjustments, and bonuses. 2004 Ratings and 2005 Bonus The Senior Executive Performance Management Bonus No Bonus System is intended to link performance and rewards with higher pay increases and larger bonuses for those 86% with higher performance ratings. Survey respondents reported that the intent was not always clearly linked 69% or apparent as related to the pay increases. The respondents with the highest ratings in 2004 and 2005 54% reported that 13% in 2005 and 15% in 2006 received no 46% salary increase. However, of the respondents reporting 31% receiving a Fully Successful rating in 2004 or 2005, 22% in 2005 and 33% in 2006 reported receiving a salary 14% increase. 2004 Ratings and 2005 Pay Increases Pay No Pay Fully Successful Above Fully Successful Highest Rating Increase Increase 89% 87% The open pay range provisions implemented in 78% 2004 have also allowed agencies to increase the responsibilities of an executive’s position without requiring a compensation increase. Of the 233 executives who reported an increase in responsibilities since the implementation of the new system, 191 or 82% of those with increased responsibilities reported 22% that they received no corresponding salary increase. 12% 13% Fully Successful Above Fully Successful Highest Rating Did you receive a salary increase when your responsibilities were increased? 82% 2005 Ratings and 2006 Pay Increases Pay No Pay Increase Increase 82% 85% 67% 18% 33% 18% 15% No Yes Fully Successful Above Fully Successful Highest Rating 233 ~ responsibilities increased 42 ~ received a salary increase based on the increased responsibilities 191 ~ responsibilities added with no salary increase A similar result was reported regarding the 2004 appraisal ratings and the 2005 bonus award The disconnects in the performance management distributions. Of those receiving the highest rating, system were not reportedly affecting executive 14% received no bonus, while of those receiving a fully performance; however, the system is adversely affecting successful rating, 46% reported receiving a bonus. The morale. respondents were not asked to report on 2006 bonus distributions since some agencies may not have made the 2006 bonus decisions. These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 7 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  10. 10. Comments from many executives indicated that the new performance management system adversely affected their morale and the morale of other senior executives. “Most all SESers I knew were highly motivated “It is obvious that IRS and other agencies are forcing people who did not need the alleged incentives of performance evaluations lower, in order to achieve the new-style PWP to work hard…..” (Justice) ‘meaningful distinctions,’ so their SES plans can be certified….This is the worst development I have seen in 28 years in the Government. It has affected teamwork among executives, and had a very bad “I have done about as well as any executive could effect on morale.” (Treasury) have asked for under performance and pay system. My pay raises and bonuses have been among the “Morale is the lowest I have seen in almost 36 years highest in the agency, but I think I see systemic flaws with the Government.” (NIH) which are in fact demoralizing significant portions of our SES cadre and will weaken its foundations in the future.” (VA) “There is significant pressure on reviewers to distinguish between executives in ratings in a somewhat artificial manner so as to show a “The current plan has resulted in significantly range of results … The system does not improve reduced morale among top managers….As a performance in any important way and has negative manager of SES myself, I am looking for ways to impacts that far exceed any usefulness.” (NIH) ‘distinguish’ performance that means downgrading ratings on SES to meet the expectation of higher “What a tremendous waste all of this is – wasting managers that we should only have a 30% level human capital seems to me to be the biggest sin of outstanding performance. Since we are a small of all. Until the day I leave, I will give this work my agency with a limited budget, the difference in pay best because I owe it to the taxpayers and to the between ratings is minimal. We are like chickens warfighters risking their lives for our country, but I pecking for crumbs. …There is no budget to fund sure don’t do it because of this pay for performance pay for performance, and we ought to stop the system. In fact, this system insults me and wastes charade.” (NLRB) my time.” (Defense) “The rationales provided by most political appointees and elected officials for making changes to Federal employee (executive and non-executive) compensation systems almost always carry with them the not-so- subtle implication that the changes are necessary to make ‘lazy’ Federal workers actually produce. These rationales are damaging to the morale of current Federal employees. They also serve to deter potential applicants from even considering Federal employment.” (Defense) Page 8 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  11. 11. SIGNIFICANT FINDING #4 How has the new system affected morale? Respondents reported that the new system has not 40% 40% 40% affected their performance or the performance of their peers; however, the new system has negatively affected 33% morale. My Morale How has the new system affected performance? My Peers’ Morale 86% 83% 14% 12% 11% 7% My Performance My Peers’ 2% Performance 1% No change or Very negative Negative Positive Very positive neutral change change change change 9% 8% 6% In terms of morale, fewer respondents reported the new 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% system had no change with only 40% reporting no change for themselves or their peers. Of the respondents, 47% No change or Very negative Negative Positive Very positive neutral change change change change reported the new system negatively affected morale their morale and 52% reported that the new system negatively affected their peers’ morale. Thirteen percent of the respondents reported the new system had produced positive change for them, while 8% reported the new system had produced negative morale consequences for How has the new system affected motivation? their peers. 56% 54% As noted in the comments and reflected in Finding #1, Senior Executives are performance-driven. Morale and My Motivation My Peers’ Motivation motivation are also generally internalized. However, executives are very interested in quality communication on 29% performance and compensation. This communication is not happening for many survey respondents. 21% 13% 8% 8% 8% 2% 1% No change or Very negative Negative Positive Very positive neutral change change change change Survey respondents reported minimal positive effect on their motivation or the motivation of their peers as a result of the new performance management system. Only 15% of the respondents viewed the changes as having a positive effect on their motivation and only 9% of the respondents believe the new system has affected their peers’ motivation positively. However, negative change was much more significant with 29% of the respondents reporting negative results for themselves and 37% reporting negative results for their peers. No change or neutral impact on motivation was reported by 56% of the respondents for themselves. Fifty-four percent of the respondents reported the new system had no change or a neutral impact on the motivation of their peers. These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 9 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  12. 12. The overwhelming sentiment expressed in comments by senior executives was that more transparency, both from OPM and their individual agencies, was needed. “…My rater refused to discuss my evaluation with me.” (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) “I have still not been issued Performance Standards or a Performance Plan for the year beginning Oct. 1, 2005 and it is now May 3, 3006. The system is a joke.” (DHS) “There needs to be a more transparent process when it comes to pay increases and bonuses. Information is shielded and gives the appearance that monetary awards and pay increases are provided through a “The pay adjustments and performance bonuses are system of cronyism ….” (Transportation) not revealed, so we have no way to judge how we compare to others. Even those receiving very large bonuses are not made known for others to emulate “I do not have a work plan that I know of.” (OMB) their outstanding achievements … This secrecy leads to mistrust of the entire system.” (Commerce) “It is bewildering why political leadership do not discuss performance nor explore an executive’s development. As I near retirement I have not had a meaningful discussion on my performance with any political leader. While I have enjoyed the bonus and pay adjustments, they occurred without a word. It’s as if it is always a surprise.” (DHS) Page 10 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  13. 13. SIGNIFICANT FINDING # 5 Does your agency share with you summary info on executive 72.1% rating distributions? The new system has been implemented with a lack of adequate communication and a resultant lack of transparency. Several survey questions asked respondents to report on the degree of communication by their agencies 20% regarding the new system. Of the respondents, 49% reported that they have not seen a copy of their agency’s 8% performance management plan and 67% reported that they have not received a copy of the agency’s executive No Yes, to a limited degree Yes, to a significant degree compensation plan. Does your agency share with you summary info on executive Have you seen or received a copy of your agency’s executive performance bonuses? performance management plan? 76% 49% 29% 19% 18% 6% 2% No Yes, I have Yes, I have a Yes, I helped No Yes, to a limited degree Yes, to a significant degree seen a copy copy draft the plan In terms of substantive communications on performance appraisals, 16% of respondents reported that their 2004 performance rating was not discussed with them and Have you seen or received a copy of your agency’s executive 17% reported that the 2005 performance rating was not compensation/pay policy? discussed with them. 67% Was your performance rating discussed with you? 2004 2005 45% 46% 39% 37% 21% 10% 2% No Yes, I have seen a copy Yes, I have a copy Yes, I helped draft the plan 16% 17% Regarding the information provided to executives regarding the performance appraisal distributions No Yes, as a cursory Yes and compensation results, 72% reported receiving no discussion summary data on the distribution of performance ratings and 76% reported receiving no summary data on the distribution of performance bonuses. The lack of communication was also reflected in the changes that eliminate SES ranks. These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 11 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  14. 14. The elimination the Senior Executive Service ranks was found to be a negative factor for many of those commenting on the survey. Executives commenting also noted that the elimination of cost-of-living related annual adjustments for those rated fully successful and above and locality pay components for higher cost areas were negative factors affecting their satisfaction with the new system. “In an agency, that is very conscious of hierarchies and ranks, the elimination of SES grades was a major mistake. Now, the military does not know how to respond to me in terms of protocol, where I rank in the “I believe that the cost of living and locality pay pecking order vis-à-vis flag officers, etc.” (DOD) adjustments should be applicable to SES personnel. This disparate treatment is a travesty of justice and has an extremely negative impact on generating interest in becoming a senior executive with the federal government.” (USAID) “I thought the new system was a big step backward for the Senior Executive Service. My view is that the idea of rank in the person was very important to the success of the SES because of its contribution to self-esteem and recognition by others throughout the agencies….” (Interior) “The lack of locality adjustments severely restricts recruitment into SES in high cost of living areas such as DC. Average workforce cost of living and locality adjustments has been 3.7% in DC the past l2 years – now most SES pay adjustments are lower than that. Many SES members who were at ES-1 at the time of the conversion are now earning less than GS 15 step 10 in high cost of living areas. I am planning on reverting to GS 15 step 10 to preserve my CSRS retirement high-3 and will continue to serve my agency in that capacity although I thoroughly enjoy my SES position.” (Commerce) “We are dispersed across the nation. Our positions vary in difficulties, which easily could have been distinguished by rank. In the present system equivalent ‘targets’ are expected regardless of the difficulty of assignment resulting in larger pay raises in the less demanding assignments, often low cost areas with fewer responsibilities than in the more difficult high cost areas with more difficult operational assignments.” (VA) Page 12 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  15. 15. SIGNIFICANT FINDING #6 797 SES responded to the question ~ “How has the abolishment of pay adjustments based on locality Survey respondents noted that the abolishment of the affected the executive corps?” Respondents were able to select SES ranks and locality pay with the implementation of neutral or positive and/or negative assessments of the change. the new system have resulted in negative impacts on the 54% SES. A major change implemented with the Executive Performance Management and Compensation in 2004 was the elimination of the six SES pay ranks used to distinguish rank in person and rank of position by many agencies. This creation of an open pay range without 25% ranks resulted in some agencies creating pay bands. Of the respondents, 16% found a positive aspects to the 13% elimination of the SES ranks with an increased focus on 8% pay and/or believe it a positive that pay adjustments are not dependent on a rank level increase; however, 43% believe the elimination of the ranks had negative results Neutral Positive Only Positive & Negative Negative Only including loss of an indicator of level of responsibility and/or believe the loss of ranks to be a negative in terms of a loss of an established promotion path within the The elimination of SES ranks and locality pay are SES. perceived as negative changes. When a new system is implemented determining the system’s impacts on 789 SES responded to the question ~ “What is your opinion on executive retention and recruitment of future executives the impact of the loss of ES ranks?” Respondents were able to has to be considered. select neutral or positive and/or negative assessments of the change. 43% 25% 16% 15% Neutral Positive Only Positive & Negative Only Negative In addition to the loss of SES ranks, the introduction of the new system eliminated locality pay for the SES. Respondents overwhelming indicated (54%) that the loss of locality pay was only a negative factor for the SES corps. Making the system less attractive for encouraging executives to accept geographic moves and failing to recognize the differences in living costs were found as primary negative aspects. Of the respondents 25% found the changes to be neutral and only 8% cited only positive aspects to the changes to pay. These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 13 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  16. 16. In addition to their responses to specific survey questions, many executives added comments indicating that the new performance management system had accelerated their retirement plans and was adversely affecting the interest of the executives’ subordinates in competing for positions in the Senior Executive Service “Having come from industry myself, I believe that the new system has two major negative “A GS-15 working in Fort Lauderdale FL., if aspects: 1) It is accelerating the retirement of accepted into the SES/SFS would lose 17% cola experienced senior executives (many to industry and 10 percent SIP for a total of 27 percent loss of as contractors) …” (DOD) pay. Many GS-15s … will not open their window for competing into the senior ranks for the reason listed …” (State) “High level Grade 15s can now make as much, with bonus, as a mid level SES. They do not want “In the last three years, my performance ratings the additional hassles SES brings.” (Commerce) have been arbitrarily lowered and my salary increases have been far below what would have resulted under the COLA system for all. “I will retire when ELIGIBLE. Although I am My experience with the SES Performance fiercely dedicated to my mission, which is to equip Management and Compensation System is wholly our fighting forces with war fighting equipment negative and a principal driver for my decision to that will enable them to prevail and survive, I am retire in the very near future.” (Homeland Security) emotionally devastated by the change in my work environment. The AF’s implementation………..of the Pay for Performance legislation has reduced “Several executives that I know are concerned me to Mickey Mouse measurements and useless about the steady creep of GS-15 pay on the salary initiatives. In fact, I was told by my military levels that SES are paid. No one agrees with the supervisor, who by the way doesn’t have a work ridiculously low entry level pay. A fully successful plan and views mine as one big pain in the neck, executive could be earning less than subordinates that my day-to-day work was just my regular job under the current pay system. SES pay should and therefore is not pertinent to receiving a bonus include at least mandatory MRP adjustment every or pay adjustment, so don’t include it in my work year in order to keep on par with GS employees.” plan. The telephone advisor issued to me by AF- (OPM) DP to help me write a work plan that would pass OPM review advised me to parse complicated, multi-year technology and process developments into absurdly trite, but measurable steps that ‘people who don’t know anything about what you do will understand.’” (Air Force) “My agency is starting to see a severe reduction in highly qualified applicants for SES positions compared to referral lists received prior to implementation of the new system.” (Army) Page 14 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  17. 17. AN ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION For the permanent civilian workforce of the Federal ~ THE SES RETIREMENT TSUNAMI government, the retirement rate was 2.6% in FY 2001 “OPM estimates that … 90 percent of about 6,000 and 3.6% in FY 2005 for an average annual increase federal executives will be eligible for retirement over of 0.025%. The average years of service for all Federal the next 10 years,” Linda Springer, Director, Office of employees in FY 2001 was 26.4 years and has since Personnel Management, February 3, 2006. increased in FY 2005 to 28 years of service. Beyond the raw percentage of SES members potentially Based on the data obtained from the U.S. Office of eligible to retire in the next 10 years, there is significant Personnel Management, FedScope database and the data available to indicate a potentially severe retirement average annual increases in retirements for the fiscal tsunami is building. The career Senior Executive years from 2001 to 2005, it is projected that 4.8% of the Service (SES) had 6,201 members as of March 2006. Federal workforce will retire in FY 2010 and 11% of the In September 1998, 34% of the 6,190 career SES career SES workforce will retire in 2010. Based on the members were age 55 years of age or older and 28% projections, 49% of the career SES workforce will retire of the career SES had 30 or more years of Federal over the next five fiscal years, while only 22% of the total service. In March 2006, 46% of the career SES Federal workforce will retire. members were age 55 or older and 34% had 30 or more years of Federal service. Estimating that 90% of the SES workforce will be The increased percentage over age 55 and with 30 or eligible to retire in the next 10 years and projecting more years of service indicates a sizeable increase in that 50% of the SES workforce will retire in the next the numbers of SES members eligible or approaching five years, indicates a need for effective planning and eligibility to retire immediately. implementation of policies that do not exacerbate an already looming retirement tsunami. In FY 2001, six percent of the SES retired. Since FY 2001, the annual rate of increases in the percentage Certainly, implementing compensation and performance of SES retiring has been 0.055%. In FY 2005, 8.2% of management practices that result in SES members the career SES retired. The average years of Federal accelerating their retirement plans would not be a service for an SES employee retiring in FY 2001 was productive approach. However, with the implementation 32.3 years. In FY 2005, the average years of Federal of the new SES performance management system, service for retiring SES was also 32.3 years. 16% of the survey respondents indicated that they are accelerating their plans to separate from the government. Sixteen percent of the respondents indicated that their peers are also discussing plans to separate and 15% of the respondents indicated that they were aware of peers who retired, in part, because of the new system. Career SES Age Ranges Career SES - Years of Federal Service 36% 30% 29% 23% 29% 22% 22% Sep 98 Mar 06 Sep 98 Mar 06 18% 22% 21% 16% 12% 16% 11% 10% 13% 8% 5% 6%6% 8% 3% 8% 2% 7% 1%1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% Less 1-2 3-4 5-9 10-14 16-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35 0%0% than 1 years years years years years years years years years 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 or year or more more These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 15 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  18. 18. Losing a major percentage of the SES over the next five years would be manageable given the significant population of GS-14s and GS-15s who have spent years in the government with many well-prepared to assume positions of greater responsibility in the SES. However, according to 47% of the survey respondents, the changes in the SES performance management and compensation system have had a negative impact on the interest of GS-14s and GS- 15s in becoming members of the SES. The combination of increasing numbers of retirements from the career SES ranks and the declining interest of GS-14s and GS-15s in becoming members of the SES are indicative of potentially serious problems over the next five to ten years. Permanent Federal Employee Retirements Percent of Career SES & All Permanent USG Employees SES Actual SES Projected USG Actual USG Projected 11% 10.4% 9.9% 9.3% 8.8% 8.1% 8.2% 7.4% 7.5% 6% 4.6% 4.8% 4.3% 3.9% 4.1% 3.6% 3.1% 3.3% 2.6% 2.6% FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Page 16 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  19. 19. APPENDIX A- SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS AND SES WORKFORCE COMPARISONS These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 17 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  20. 20. [Page intentionally blank.]
  21. 21. APPENDIX A- To determine respondent experience levels as members SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS AND SES of the SES, they were asked to identify their SES level if they were members of the SES prior to the January WORKFORCE COMPARISONS 2004 implementation of the new system. Completed surveys were submitted by 846 current and retired members of the Senior Executive Service. Members of the current career and non-career SES workforce completed 830 surveys and represented ES Level Prior to January 2004 12.1% of the 6,837 members of the SES as of March SES Workforce December 2003 2006. Thirteen respondents identified that they retired & Survey Respondents after the implementation of the new system. Age Distribution of SES 3/2006 & SES Mar 06 Survey Respondents Survey SES Mar 06 Survey ES-1 ES-2 ES-3 ES-4 ES-5 ES-6 12.9% 12.7% 16.5% 36.6% 14.7% 6.6% 10.5% 12.3% 17.4% 35% 17.7% 7% 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ 0.1% 0.3% 3.4% 7.7% 16.1% 27.4% 27.5% 12.3% 4.3% 0.1% 0.2% 1.5% 3.9% 12.4% 28.4% 32.3% 16% 5.2% Respondents again essentially mirrored the SES population with representation from respondents at all six of the SES pay levels prior to the elimination of SES pay levels in January 2004. In terms of age and service, the respondents tended to be older and have more service than the March 2006 permanent SES workforce. ES Level Prior to January 2004 Years of Federal Service SES Workforce December 2003 SES March 2006 & Survey Respondents & Survey Respondents SES Mar 06 Survey SES Mar 06 Survey 0-1 2-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35+ 1.9% 7% 7.2% 6.4% 10.8% 14.9% 21.4% 19.7% 10.9% 0.0 3.8% 2.7% 3.8% 8.2% 14.5% 23.2% 27% 16.7% <$120k $120k- $130k- $140k- $150k- $160k- >$170 $130k $140k $150k $160k $170k .4% 1.1% 8.2% 23.7% 46.4% 18.7% 1.6% More respondents had 30 or more years of Federal 10.5% 12.3% 17.4% 35% 17.7% 7% service when compared to the current members of the Senior Executive Service as of March 2006. Gender There was no significant difference in the salary SES Workforce ~ March 2006 distribution for the SES members as of March 2006 and & Survey Respondents the survey respondents. 71.4% 72.4% Survey SES Mar 06 Survey respondents in major demographic variables appear to present a representative group of the overall SES workforce. 28.6% 27.6% Females Males The gender distribution of survey respondents and current members of the SES was essentially the same. These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 18 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  22. 22. APPENDIX B- SENIOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 19 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  23. 23. [Page intentionally blank.]
  24. 24. APPENDIX - B SENIOR EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS In 1987, in its report, the Twentieth Century Fund Task As a result of that work, as well as the recent survey, the Force on the Senior Executive Service, observed, Association has reached the following conclusions: “The nation could not function effectively without SES • The Senior Executive Service pay and executives. They not only manage the machinery performance management system has been applied of state, they also provide continuity in an often inconsistently and without full adherence to rules cumbersome governmental system.” concerning quotas, transparency and performance feedback. In large part, OPM has focused public Senator John Glenn put it another way that year, “The statements on a reduction in high ratings as an career Senior Executive Service is the institutional indicator of the success of this new system, rather memory; it knows how to grease the wheels and make than on an assessment of whether performance them turn.” standards themselves are leading to meaningful distinctions between rating levels, whether agencies The importance of the SES was noted, as well, by are applying system requirements effectively and both National Commissions on the Public Service. fairly, and whether, in fact, the new system has The first, in 1988, said “The President needs both the resulted in improved performance. In fact, evidence energizing force of committed political executives to exists of a substantial disconnect between ratings lead governmental agencies and the competence and and pay adjustments. experience of career civil servants to run programs.” Fifteen years later, the second Commission observed, • In testimony before the Senate Subcommittee “No organization in this country is more dependent on Oversight of Government Management, the on qualified senior leadership than the federal Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia on government.” June 27, 2006 the Comptroller General addressed the certification process for agency SES pay and The quality of those serving in the SES was the focus performance management systems. He said, “A of remarks by Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman at majority of CHCOs and human resource directors the Association’s Presidential Distinguished Rank Award told (GAO) that OPM could improve the clarity, banquet in April 2005. He said, “The caliber of the top consistency, and timeliness of its guidance to people in the Senior Executive Service is just as high agencies. Several agency officials commented as that which I was experienced with and exposed to that OPM conveyed a ‘we’ll know it when we see in the private sector…. Cabinet secretaries like myself it’ method of communicating expectations…….one come and go. But the work of the state is carried on, official said, while OPM tries to point agencies in and carried on very well, because of the commitment to the right direction, it will not give agencies discrete excellence displayed by the very best men and women requirements. This leads to uncertainty about what in the top ranks of civil service.” agencies must and should demonstrate to OPM….. Some agencies indicated that OPM’s late issuance Given this, it is in the public interest to attract and of guidance also creates an uneven playing field retain the best corps of Senior Executives possible and among agencies.” Perhaps most unsettling was to compensate them and manage their performance Comptroller General Walker’s statement that in as fair and effective a manner as possible. It has OPM officials “said their evaluation of agencies’ become especially critical that we do so given the submissions is evolving as their understanding of number of career Senior Executives currently eligible the SES certification criteria is increasing.” to retire – 31% - and the number who will be eligible for retirement over the next 10 years – 90%. How long the Federal government will be able to maintain their service and how well the government will succeed in appointing highly able successors will be affected to a large degree by whether we resolve existing problems in the design and implementation of the new SES pay and performance management system. During the past two years, since the new SES pay and performance management system took effect, the Senior Executives Association has reviewed and commented on implementing regulations and monitored the implementation of the system by the Office of Personnel Management and Federal agencies. Page 20 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  25. 25. • The lack of an assured pay adjustment to fully Pay Adjustments for Career Appointees without successful performers to enable them to maintain Supervisory Officials pace with inflation and the prevailing practice of A methodology should be provided to allow for annual awarding consistently lower raises for many career pay adjustments for Senior Executives and equivalent SES than that provided the General Schedule positions who do not have a supervising official (such has negatively affected their morale, is affecting as Inspectors General and executives who are the their retirement plans, and is deterring capable heads, or acting heads of agencies), namely, an GS employees from seeking to join the Senior adjustment equal to the average salary adjustment Executive Service. 90 percent of career SES are provided to all career Senior Executives within that eligible for retirement in the next decade, leading agency or a percentage adjustment equal to the to the threat of a weakening at the top of the civil percentage increase in the Executive Schedule, if service if steps are not taken to reform the current any. SES system and make it more appealing to highly successful General Schedule employees. Assured Funding of SES Pay Under the previous system, Senior Executives’ • The loss of locality pay eliminated the one salaries were set by Executive Order, which market-driven pay adjustment mechanism established salaries by rank; consequently, agencies available to the Senior Executive Service, inhibits were required to fund pay adjustments. Under the geographic relocation of Senior Executives, and current system, that is not the case. To assure that contributes to talented mid level managers being funds are available for SES pay adjustments, the discouraged from aspiring to its ranks. average percentage adjustment received by members of the Senior Executive Service may not be less • Performance awards provided to the SES have than the average salary adjustment in the General become an increasingly significant portion of their Schedule. compensation, yet they are not included in the “high 3” formula for calculation of their annuities. Inclusion of Executive Performance Awards in High-3 Average Salary Calculations • Executive Branch officials and Senior Executives Performance awards given to career Senior themselves are provided with insufficient Executives should be included in “high 3” average information on the standards for agency salary calculations for retirement. certification and how they are applied, on individual ratings, and on the processes surrounding the SES Prohibition of Quotas and Forced Distribution of pay for performance system. Ratings While the regulations implementing the SES pay and To alleviate these problems, and to ensure that the performance management system prohibit the use of SES pay and performance management system quotas, a specific prohibition against utilizing quotas functions in a manner most consistent with the public or forced distributions in rating the performance of interest, the Association makes the following legislative Senior Executives should be enacted in law. recommendations, which we urge Congress to consider and enact. Agency Performance Management System Certification on Calendar Year Basis with 5-Year Mandatory Minimum Market Adjustment for Senior Term Executives Rated at the Fully Successful or Higher Certification by OPM of an agency’s SES Level performance management system currently can last All Senior Executives who receive a rating of ‘fully one or two years (provisional vs. full certification) and successful’ or higher should receive a mandatory can be rescinded at any time. Because certification market-based adjustment to their salary. This is on a calendar year basis, an agency may be adjustment should be a formula-based percentage certified close to the end of the year and be faced of their salary equal to the increase in the Executive with reapplying within a short period of time, as well Schedule plus any increase in locality pay in the as having little time after receiving the certification region the Senior Executive is stationed. to implement appropriate pay adjustments. This process of continual re-application is wasteful and Assured 5% Increase for New Senior Executives time consuming. All certifications should be made for Any person appointed to the Senior Executive Service 60 months (5 years) from the date of approval, while from the General Schedule should be assured a maintaining the ability of OPM to rescind certification. minimum salary increase of at least 5% over his or Further, OPM should be required to provide agencies her current General Schedule salary. with clear and consistent advice on how to comply with requirements of certification for six months before the recertification application is due or before decertifying an agency. These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 21 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  26. 26. Transparency of Ratings for Senior Executives, Correcting the problems that have developed during the including Biennial Survey initial implementation of the SES Pay for Performance A Senior Executive should receive notification and System is essential to the development of an effective feedback regarding his or her individual rating system. Only an effective system will ensure that highly level and specific reasons for the rating level in a qualified candidates compete for the many future SES reasonable period of time (within 60 days), as well vacancies. Only an effective executive performance as be provided overall agency data regarding SES management system will ensure the retention of an ratings and the range of salary adjustments received executive corps essential to the smooth and efficient at each rating level. All documents related to the operations of the government. Failure to institute an SES pay and performance rating system plan and effective executive performance management system compensation determination policy should be made will make it far more likely that efforts to develop pay public via agency websites. for performance systems for the rest of the civilian workforce will meet the same fate as the Merit Pay In addition, a biennial survey should be administered System and its successors. by OPM to track the experience and views of career Senior Executives regarding the SES pay and performance management system. The survey would address opinions regarding transparency, perceived use of quotas or forced distribution and other irregularities, as well as other questions perceived as necessary by OPM. The survey should be developed in consultation with an organization representing the career executive corps. The survey should be developed in consultation with the organization representing the largest number of Senior Executives. Action by OPM to improve SES Pay & Performance Management Systems While this legislation is essential to achieving a fair and effective pay and performance management system, it must be accompanied by OPM and agencies taking steps to correct the problems identified in this report. To that end, we recommend that OPM • Recreate the central focus it once had for addressing all issues related to the Senior Executive Service and equivalent systems. The current organization spreads responsibility among a number of offices in a diffuse manner which inhibits communication and makes it difficult to address many issues effectively and efficiently. • Devote resources to providing effective oversight of agency implementation of the SES pay and performance management system. • Address instances of practices which violate the letter or the spirit of the statute or regulations in the administration of the SES pay and performance management system in a clear, forceful and timely manner. • Publicize best practices by agencies in obtaining and/or maintaining certification for SES performance management systems. Agencies, as well, must commit to reviewing the systems and policies they have developed but, most especially, to examining the manner in which they have been applied. Page 22 These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.
  27. 27. APPENDIX C- SURVEY BACKGROUND & PROTOCOLS These materials are copyrighted jointly by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation and may not be extracted, copied, reproduced Page 23 or distributed in any form without the consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. © 2006 All rights reserved.

×