Appendix A-6: Office of Executive Resources Management (OERM)

FY 2000 Performance Report
Goal & Performance Indicators Checklist

Forward | Back | Table of Contents | OPM Home Page

OPM STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL I

PROVIDE POLICY DIRECTION AND LEADERSHIP TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE REQUIRED FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.

OERM Goal 1 -- M

By the end of FY 2000, needed changes in all significant OPM program policies are identified and changes are introduced so that Federal agencies are better equipped to respond to changing human resources and agency needs in the 21st century.

This program goal was established under Strategic Goal I to identify policy revisions that were needed to enable agencies to select, develop and manage senior executives who are equipped to meet the leadership challenges of the 21st century. There are four indicators to assess whether this goal is achieved. Of these, the first was identified at the beginning of the year as most critical for achieving the goal. We met this goal by publishing two regulatory changes and creating two legislative proposals.

M New or revised policies are issued in a timely manner, so that agency needs are met without delay, and informal feedback from agencies indicates that these policies are beneficial to agencies. [Critical indicator]

Although this indicator was inadvertently left out in FY 1999, it is clearly the most critical measure for this goal because, as a result of the 1998 Draft Framework for Improving the SES, we did identify policies in need of revision. We have introduced the following changes:

-- On May 25, 2000, we published in the Federal Register final revised SES staffing regulations that include a stronger focus on executive qualifications in SES selections, and an emphasis on evaluating executive performance in the probationary year.

-- On June 21, 2000, we published in the Federal Register proposed revisions to the SES performance appraisal regulations to increase agency flexibility, focus on results, promote alignment with strategic planning, and require balanced measurement. (Final regulations were published on October 13, 2000.)

-- We drafted legislative proposals to abolish recertification and enhance pay for performance. They have been cleared by the Office of Management and Budget, discussed with congressional staff, and will be introduced at the appropriate time.

M Baseline established for determining senior executives’ satisfaction with OPM’s leadership of the SES program and their sense of “ownership” in the system.

The baseline for senior executives’ satisfaction with OPM’s leadership of SES programs was established in FY 1999 through a survey of the SES corps. Of the 2,521 executives who responded, 25% said that they were satisfied with OPM’s leadership, and 23% were dissatisfied. Based on comments provided by the respondents, we believe these results stem from issues with the SES system, for example, pay compression and other pay-related issues, and the application and QRB certification process.

The SES revised staffing and performance management regulations that we proposed/published in FY 2000, and the legislative proposals mentioned above addressed some of these concerns, and we will explore these issues further with senior executives. The survey will be repeated in FY 2002 to assess our progress.

The issue of ownership of the system was dropped in FY 1999 because there is no practical way of measuring it.

NX Increased levels of satisfaction among HR Directors with OERM’s executive resources policy leadership and with their opportunities for involvement in the policy process, as measured by informal customer feedback and/or a 2% increase in favorable ratings in the HR Directors Customer Satisfaction Survey.

FY 1999 survey data were not usable due to a low response rate. The FY 2000 survey was redesigned and does not include questions on policy leadership. The FY 2001 survey has not yet been designed, and may not include policy leadership questions.

The 1999 SES survey established the baseline. An overwhelming majority of the respondents affirmed the importance of the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs) to job performance. When asked to rank the relative importance of qualifications for SES positions now and in five years, respondents rated executive qualifications as more important than technical qualifications today and even more important in five years. However, only 56 percent reported that the ECQs were emphasized in evaluating applicants for the SES. In FY 2000, we used these responses to reform our revisions to the SES staffing regulations which now require agencies to consider the ECQs in the selection process.

Two out of three executives reported that their performance plans are linked to their agency’s strategic plan. However, most executives reported their pay increases and bonuses were more directly linked to their individual performance versus other outcomes. In FY 2000, we used these responses to inform our proposed revisions to the SES performance management regulations which require agencies to consider balanced measurements in assessing the performance of their executives.

OERM Goal 2 -- M

The selection of executives with solid leadership and management skills, public service values, and a Governmentwide perspective, who are prepared to lead the continuing transformation of Government is promoted.

We established this program goal under Strategic Goal I to emphasize that while technical job-specific qualifications are important, the keystone of the SES is executive leadership. To meet the leadership challenges of the 21st century, all executives must demonstrate that they can lead change, lead people, build coalitions and partnerships, have a keen business sense about managing organizations, and can produce results. There are three indicators to assess whether this goal is achieved. Of these, the first was identified at the beginning of the year as most critical for achieving the goal. We met this goal by holding well-received workshops and briefings that emphasized the importance of these executive qualifications.

M Favorable ratings and comments on evaluations collected at the end of ECQ briefings, SES and Schedule C orientations and SES symposia which indicate that attendees understand and value information provided about the importance of developing and demonstrating the ECQ’s. [Critical indicator]

This is the critical measure because participant evaluations from the ECQ briefings and the SES symposia reflect the opinions of the people we are trying to reach – those who are, or aspire to become, the leaders of the future. NOTE: We determined that the ECQ’s are not the appropriate emphasis for the SES or Schedule C orientations, but they are the focal point of the ECQ briefings and the SES leadership symposia.

In the ECQ briefings and workshops, we emphasize leadership attributes and a focus on achieving results versus managing a process. Attendee’s evaluations show they value the information they receive – 98% rated the workshops very good to excellent, with the most popular segment being the one on Understanding the ECQ’s.

The briefings for new senior executives provide an opportunity to emphasize leadership attributes as the participants learn from high level Administration officials about current initiatives and their role in the Federal Government. Of the participants who evaluated the briefings, 87 percent rated them very good or excellent. The SES leadership symposium was postponed to FY 2001 (November 2000) and focused on the new performance management requirements.

NX Increased levels of satisfaction among HR Directors with OERM’s executive resources policy leadership and with their opportunities for involvement in policy development related to this goal, as measured by informal customer feedback and/or a 2% increase in favorable ratings in the DCSS.

FY 1999 survey data were not usable due to a low response rate. The FY 2000 survey was redesigned and did not include questions on policy leadership. The FY 2001 survey has not yet been designed, and may not include policy leadership questions.

QRB cases approved after first time review:

Anecdotal evidence from returning QRB members shows that the quality of SES selectees continues to improve based on the cases they review. Although QRB’s reviewed 33% more cases in FY 2000 than FY 1999, the percentage of cases approved after the first review went down. We now give QRB’s the option of “Return Without Action” (RWA) in lieu of only approval or disapproval. This is one of our administrative initiatives to improve the selectee certification process -- we believed that sometimes a case was disapproved because of very poor presentation rather than any serious doubt about the person’s executive credentials. RWA’s were 4%; when added to those approved the first time (92%), the approval rate equals what the general trend has been the past two years. (The FY 1998 figure has been corrected from that presented in the previous annual performance report [90%]).

OERM Goal 3 -- M

The levels of executive resources assigned through the 2000-2001 biennial allocation and subsequent interim adjustments meet the Administration’s corporate goal of maintaining an executive workforce consistent with overall Government downsizing while efficiently supporting agency missions.

We established this program goal under Strategic Goal I because it directly relates to OPM’s responsibility to provide leadership and policy direction for managing the Senior Executive Service. Our leadership and corporate management of the Government’s executive resources are critical to agencies’ effectively integrating executive resources decisions with their mission goals and objectives. There are two indicators to assess whether this goal is achieved. The second indicator was identified as the most critical for achieving the goal. We met this goal – agencies are recognizing the need to manage their current executive resources before requesting additional allocations.

M Agencies operate successfully within biennial allocations. Cumulative ad hoc adjustments during the FY 2000-2001 biennial cycle result in no more than a 2.5% increase in executive resources allocated by OPM.

Biennial allocations for the FY 2000/2001 cycle resulted in a net increase of less than 4% over FY 1998/1999. Overall, there has been a 12% reduction in permanent SES spaces since September 1994 when a 10% reduction in the SES was initiated as part of Governmentwide workforce reductions. Because we exceeded that goal and have maintained reduced levels, there was flexibility to grant increases for pressing needs. The increases were limited to agencies that effectively managed their executive resources and/or received additional funds for new programs. Net adjustments within the biennial cycle (ad hoc adjustments) will not be determined until the start of the FY 2002/2003 cycle.

M Qualitative analysis of reports submitted in conjunction with the biennial review show that agencies are effectively managing their executive resources and integrating a succession planning emphasis. [Critical indicator]

This measure is more critical than the actual numbers because it is more closely tied with our efforts to get agencies to do workforce planning, to directly link their executive resources assessments with their strategic planning efforts and budgets, and to make better use of their existing resources before asking for additional allocations. We continue to make progress in this ongoing effort to emphasize to agencies the need to manage their current resources wisely, and to incorporate planning for the future in their allocation requests.

Each agency seeking an increase for the FY 2000/2001 biennial allocation cycle was required to provide a detailed justification based on a comprehensive Agencywide assessment and prioritization of their executive resources needs, in conjunction with their strategic plans and budget authorizations, and to demonstrate effective corporate management of their resources. Agencies needed to make a sound business argument for any increases. We performed a qualitative analysis of the requests prior to our allocations decisions.

We used the biennial process as an opportunity to update and reissue guidance on distinguishing among SES, Senior Level (SL), and Scientific and Professional (ST) positions and their appropriate use.

OERM Goal 4 -- M

Continual learning is highly valued as a strategy for maximizing executive effectiveness with the result that agencies and executives increasingly use training, sabbaticals, details, temporary assignments, and movement within and between agencies to broaden perspectives and gain fresh insights on leadership.

This program goal was established under Strategic Goal I because the executives of the future must produce results by broadening their perspectives, working across agency lines, motivating others and building coalitions. This requires continual learning. There are four indicators to assess whether this goal is achieved. Of these, the first was identified as the most critical for achieving the goal. We met this goal through the FY 1999 survey of the SES which quantified the continual learning executives are engaged in, and in FY 2000 by developing new ways to promote continual learning and voluntary mobility.

M OERM will determine and implement methods to quantify how much continuing learning, e.g., executive training and mobility, is taking place and assess the qualitative impact on Federal programs to initiate tracking and determine a baseline for future years. [Critical indicator]

This is the critical measure because continual learning is a necessity to handle the rapidly changing world of work. We need to know “where we are”, i.e., to what extent executives are participating in continual learning activities, before we can determine “where we need to go”, i.e., where we need to focus our resources or programs we need to develop.

The FY 1999 survey of the SES corps became the mechanism to quantify how much continuing learning executives engage in and what development they and their managers need to be successful in the SES.

We established the Learning Center as a division in the Office of Executive Resources Management in March 2000 to develop new ways of promoting continual learning and voluntary mobility. In FY 2000, the Center developed and tested the tools required to implement an Internet forum that will help interested SES members find permanent or temporary assignments in other agencies and vice versa. However, responding to stakeholder recommendations, we will defer implementation of the forum, called SES SOARS (Senior Opportunity and Resume Service), until FY 2001. Also in FY 2000, the Center began developing an authority to give Federal agencies the ability to exchange Federal and private sector executives on a temporary basis to improve performance in both sectors.

M OERM will include in its new survey on SES members’ perceptions and attitudes items on mobility that can be used to establish a baseline for measurement of changes in attitudes in future years.

The FY 1999 SES survey established the baseline data on executives who have transferred to another agency or taken a new position within their own agency. We identified barriers to mobility (agency culture, two-career families, aversion to geographic relocation, among others) and are exploring ways to overcome or mitigate them. The survey will be repeated in FY 2002 to evaluate changes in executives’ attitude about mobility.

N Increases in intra/interagency, intergovernmental, and/or interdisciplinary selections for senior executive positions as measured through the executive information system (EIS).

EIS as currently designed will not be able to show data on interagency and interdisciplinary selections. Without significant additional investment of resources this system will not be expanded and therefore this indicator will not be included in the FY 2001 report.

M Increased emphasis by agency management on encouraging and supporting executives’ pursuit of continual learning activity, as shown by policy statements, training program activity, and commitment of resources. For example, one agency has shared with OERM a proposal to allocate funds exclusively for executive training and require each executive to seek such training each year.

The President’s Management Council has encouraged agencies to invest in continuing executive development to help their executives deal with the constant change in today’s working environment. Departments/agencies, such as Commerce, Transportation, SSA, Treasury, Education, and NASA, among others, are directing resources and senior management attention to this issue.

OPM STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL III

PROVIDE ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO HELP FEDERAL AGENCIES IMPROVE THEIR HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS TO EFFECTIVELY OPERATE WITHIN THE ECONOMY, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE 21ST CENTURY.

OERM Goal 5 -- M

Federal agencies, senior executives, and other stakeholders receive timely, clear, accurate, and useful advice and assistance that contributes to the development, selection, and effective management of high-quality senior executives.

This program goal was established under Strategic Goal III to ensure our technical advice and assistance enables agencies to select, develop and manage senior executives who are equipped to meet the leadership challenges of the 21st century. There are two indicators to assess whether this goal is achieved. Of these, the first was identified at the beginning of the year as most critical for achieving the goal. We met this goal as evidenced by the feedback we received from our stakeholders as reported under the indicators.

In addition to the accomplishments described under each indicator, we also led the OPM team that developed “Transition to a New Presidential Administration: Employment Guidance for Agencies.” Although written primarily for agency HR offices, the guidance is also useful for incoming Presidential and non-career SES appointees. It provides general information and addresses issues that relate to departing employees, new appointees, and the career civil service. Traditionally, this guidance is issued post-election; however, we accelerated the schedule and issued the guidance in August 2000.

M Ongoing feedback from senior executives, agency executive personnel managers, agency personnelists and other stakeholders about services provided. [Critical indicator]

This is the critical measure because feedback from these people is the ultimate way we have of knowing whether our program management, initiatives, and technical assistance are effective, and where we need to place our focus.

Our Website was completely redesigned in FY 2000 and contains significantly more information of use to executives, HR Specialists, and the general public.

We hold monthly meetings with executive personnel program managers and communicate daily with them and individual executives. We are in frequent contact with other stakeholders such as the Senior Executives Association as well as members of the general public. Feedback from these exchanges is almost always positive. For instance, the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in a letter to OPM’s Chief of Staff, expressed appreciation for “the timely and crucial support your agency has provided . . . in the area of executive resources.”

M Increases averaging 2% overall in levels of satisfaction with OERM information sharing and technical assistance in the CSS by those HR Specialists having executive resources program functions, and/or informal customer feedback.

As described in the previous indicator, HR Specialists who deal with executive personnel issues also communicate on a regular basis with OERM staff and have consistently expressed positive opinions of OERM performance, as demonstrated by anecdotal evidence (e-mails, phone calls, letters, etc.) of their satisfaction with the assistance we provide. For instance, the Assistant Director of the Executive Resources Group at DoJ commended a member of our staff for “. . . the excellent briefing on employment in the Senior Executive Service that you presented to the Department of Justice . . .” and “We . . . commend the Office of Personnel Management for its initiatives to improve the SES selection process.” In an email, a DoE HR specialist with responsibility for executive resources said, “. . . we appreciate all your efforts and assistance in helping us get our SES action through the QRB. We share the mutual goal of making that happen the first go around.” Also, “we’ve always inserted the OPM SES Website on our vacancy announcements.”

Reported levels of satisfaction of HR Specialists who deal with OERM issues as measured in the CSS were as follows:

The CSS Survey of HR Specialists was not conducted in FY 2000 but will be repeated in FY 2001.