This report reflects data on 6,834 career and non-career members of the Senior Executive Service. Of 6,410 rated, 5,906 are career members of the SES.
Agencies continue to make steady progress in the second year of measuring executive achievement under modernized performance management systems. Chart 1 shows progress in the differentiation of pay among SES members since 2004 when agencies with certified SES appraisal systems were permitted to pay SES above Executive Schedule Level III.
The first two tables show a decrease of 16 - 17 percent in those rated at the highest level, continuing a trend toward increased distinctions in ratings. Table 1 covers only career senior executives, while Table 2 includes non-career and limited term senior executives.
Agencies are exercising more rigor in implementing pay for performance. Table 3 shows that all reporting agencies now use appraisal systems with at least one level above fully successful. It also demonstrates that SES compensation is performance sensitive since, on average, higher-rated executives received higher performance awards and salary adjustments.
Table 4 shows that in FY 2005 salaries increased by 3.8 percent compared to 3.7 percent in FY 2004. Adjustment percents vary by agency due to differing strategies, funding levels, and rating patterns.
The shift to pay for performance involves only modest increases in award amounts. Table 5 shows the average performance award increased from $13,734 in FY 2004 to $13,814 in FY 2005. Awards vary by agency based on factors such as compensation strategy, funding, and agency performance levels.
1. All salaries above Executive Schedule Level III are made possible by certification. 2. 2004 data include all agencies regardless of certification status.
Back to top
1. Percent change in bold italics denotes those agencies whose appraisal systems changed from a 3 summary level system to a 5 summary level
1. Additional performance adjustment decisions were pending at the time of this report; data shown reflect MPR (maintain position in range) adjustments only. 2. Agency appraisal system was not certified by OPM for CY2004 or CY2005. 3. 2004 data for the Department of Homeland Security were not available for inclusion. 4. 2005 non-career adjustment data for the Department of State were not available when this report was prepared.
1. Performance award decisions were final for only one agency component at the time of this report. 2. The agency appraisal system was not certified by OPM for CY2004 or CY2005.