[Senate Hearing 111-594]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-594
DEVELOPING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND
SUPERVISORS: MENTORING, INTERNSHIPS,
AND TRAINING IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT,
THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 29, 2010
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-331 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Lisa M. Powell, Staff Director
Bryan G. Polisuk, Counsel
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Minority Staff Director
Sean M. Stiff, Minority Professional Staff Member
Aaron H. Woolf, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Akaka................................................ 1
Senator Voinovich............................................ 3
WITNESSES
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Nancy H. Kichak, Associate Director and Chief Human Capital
Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management................... 5
Marilee Fitzgerald, Director, Workforce Issues and International
Programs, U.S. Department of Defense........................... 6
Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union................................................ 20
J. David Cox, Sr., National Secretary-Treasurer, American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE)............. 22
John Palguta, Vice President for Policy, Partnership for Public
Service........................................................ 23
Laura K. Mattimore, Ph.D., Director of Leadership Development,
Procter & Gamble............................................... 25
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Cox, J. David, Sr.:
Testimony.................................................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Fitzgerald, Marilee:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Kelley, Colleen M.:
Testimony.................................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Kichak, Nancy H.:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Mattimore, Laura K., Ph.D.:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Palguta, John:
Testimony.................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 71
APPENDIX
Background....................................................... 88
``Results of Hotline Complaint Review of EPA Region 9 Hiring
under the Federal Career Intern Program,'' Hotline Report No.
10-P-0112, April 26, 2010, Office of Inspector General, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Ms. Kelley....... 93
``Developing Federal Employees and Supervisors: Mentoring,
Internships, and Training in the Federal Government,'' prepared
statement submitted for the Record by The Federal Managers
Association.................................................... 115
Responses to questions submitted for the Record:
Ms. Kichak................................................... 124
Ms. Kelley................................................... 125
Mr. Cox...................................................... 127
Mr. Palguta.................................................. 129
DEVELOPING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
AND SUPERVISORS: MENTORING,
INTERNSHIPS, AND TRAINING IN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K.
Akaka, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Akaka and Voinovich
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Really great to see all of you here today.
This hearing will come to order. Good afternoon, and welcome to
our distinguished panelists and our guests. I would like to
thank you all for joining us here today for this hearing on
employee and supervisor development in the Federal workforce.
Today the Federal Government confronts some of the most
serious challenges in our Nation's history. Each day
approximately two million civil servants sacrifice to protect
our country from attack, serve our Nation's veterans, provide
for the needy, and otherwise improve the lives of Americans.
For too long, however, we have failed to provide Federal
employees with the tools they need to be successful.
Agencies often cut employee training and development
programs to stretch limited funding. Federal employees are left
to execute their missions without the resources and support
they need. As a former teacher, I understand that individuals
need guidance and nurturing to excel. In order to provide
efficient and effective government programs that taxpayers
should expect, we must invest in Federal employee training and
development programs.
By 2014, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) estimates
that nearly 500,000 Federal employees, including a large number
of supervisors, will retire. The Department of Defense (DOD),
our largest Federal agency, is projected to lose approximately
20 percent of its workforce to retirement by 2012.
These impending retirements make training and developing
Federal employees even more urgent. Federal agencies must take
steps now to ensure that a new generation of employees is ready
to lead when this retirement wave hits. My Federal Supervisor
Training Act addresses this need.
Often new supervisors have no prior management experience
and receive little training on how to be a good manager. My
bill would require each Federal agency to provide mandatory
training to new supervisors and retraining every 3 years. The
bill would require training on topics including setting
employee performance goals, mentoring and motivating employees,
fostering a fair and respectful work environment, addressing
poor performance, employee whistleblower, non-discrimination,
and other rights and protections, and other important topics.
Supervisory training promotes better manager/employer/
employee relationships, improves communication, reduces
conflict and otherwise helps supervisors do their jobs better.
And better supervisor performance leads to a more effective
government. Good supervisors motivate and empower their
employees, which improves agency productivity and saves
taxpayers money.
Because of the many benefits of supervisor training, my
bill is broadly supported by both labor and management groups.
I was pleased that the National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010 contained nearly identical
requirements for DOD employees. Additionally, OPM issued
regulations last year to require more effective Federal
supervisor training and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses on the progress being made in this area.
While these are positive developments, I believe
legislation is needed to ensure that all supervisors receive
the training and resources they need to perform well.
Internship and apprenticeship programs can be a good avenue for
focused training and development of new employees.
I am particularly proud of the Pearl Harbor Naval Ship
Yard's apprentice program, which annually attracts about 5,000
applicants for 125 to 150 apprenticeships. Apprentices learn a
trade and earn an associate's degree from the Honolulu
Community College through this 4-year paid work study program.
While I am a long-time supporter of valid internship
programs, I am concerned about the increased use of the Federal
Career Internship Program (FCIP) as a hiring authority. More
than half of the employees at grades 5, 7 and 9 of the General
Schedule (GS), or more than 22,000 employees per year, are now
hired through this program. Many of these employees receive
little of the focused training and development that is required
under the Executive Order establishing the program.
Labeling a hiring authority used for a wide range of
positions as an internship program may weaken agencies'
commitment to investing in real internships for focused
employee development. Moreover, many have complained that
agencies do not always honor veterans preference and other
competitive service requirements when hiring through this
program. As the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee and
an ardent proponent of the merit system, the broad use of this
program is very concerning to me.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these very
important issues. With that, I would like to ask Senator
Voinovich for any opening remarks he may have. Senator
Voinovich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Senator
Akaka knows, we have been long advocates of robust and focused
training programs for supervisors and employees. This interest
of mine stretches back more than three decades to my first
months as mayor of the City of Cleveland.
At that time, the Cleveland Police Department employed a
written exam to select officers for promotion to the
supervisory ranks. However, the test measured a candidate's
knowledge of departmental procedures while ignoring any
assessment of skill sets important for successfully managing
employees. My Administration worked to establish a more valid
selection process tied to the desired outcome, namely, to
identify and promote officers with strong interpersonal and
leadership qualities.
Unfortunately, we see similar patterns in our Federal
workforce. As agency missions become more complex, the ranks of
the Federal workforce are increasingly filled by subject matter
experts. Agencies often unnecessarily limit their focus when
selecting future agency leaders.
I know it just drove the police department crazy, Senator
Akaka, because I appointed a captain to be the new chief of
police. They just could not believe that, but he was a really
good manager. So I think so often we forget about how important
these management skills are.
Federal employees often advance to the supervisory ranks
because they are experts in cyber security or they are fluent
in Arabic, not because they can effectively communicate
performance goals to their employees or have outstanding
mentoring skills. Preparing Federal agencies for future
management challenges will require a shift in how agencies
identify and train Federal managers and today we are going to
hear from two important Federal agencies on efforts to do just
that.
Today's discussion will include other important components
in developing Federal workers, including student internship and
mentoring programs. The Subcommittee is also fortunate to be
joined by a representative from Procter & Gamble, a recognized
leader in developing future private-sector managers.
But I would like to share some thoughts on a topic that I
expect will draw much attention during the second panel, and
that is the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP). Today we will
hear that the FCIP is either a well-designed legitimate hiring
authority or a tool used by Federal agencies to frustrate the
application of veterans' preference or discriminate against
certain categories of applicants.
I would argue, however, that we in Congress cannot yet
determine which characterization of the FCIP is proper. When it
established the FCIP as a permanent hiring authority in
September 2005, OPM granted agencies much flexibility in
tailoring the selection, training, and conversion components of
the program to their own specific needs.
Moreover, reporting requirements for agency use of the FCIP
are limited at best and few Congressional hearings have touched
on this subject since the authority was put in place. Finally,
the last comprehensive examination of FCIP was included in a
report issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in
September 2005, the same month OPM's rule went into effect, and
much activity has happened since that time.
In the absence of detailed information about how agencies
employ the FCIP, we are left with anecdotal incidences of
potential agency abuse of this tool. While such potential
abuses are important, and if true need addressing, we cannot
establish policy informed solely by such anecdotes. I would
further argue that the increased use of FCIP does not
necessarily mean this authority is being abused.
For example, when one looks at a large group of Federal
employees assembled using the FCIP, we see some of the very
outcomes that some people's claims are denied by its use. For
example, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has used
this tool to hire thousands of additional border patrol
officers. Together, this collection of current and former
career interns represents one of the most ethnically diverse
components of the civilian Federal workforce and features one
of the highest concentrations of veterans among civilian
agencies.
Getting a firmer grip on the use of FCIP will require close
examination by Members of Congress and I am glad today's
hearing will provide one forum for such an examination.
However, I must emphatically reject the premise that Congress
must first resolve potential problems with the FCIP before
working to provide Federal agencies with increased
flexibilities and talent pipelines for filling the mission-
critical positions of the future.
I am confident that the Members of this Subcommittee and
its staff can examine both issues at once. And I worry each day
that passes with Congress and the broader stakeholder community
deadlock on this issue brings us one day closer to the largest
demographic shift the Federal workforce has ever faced, and
Senator Akaka has made that point--500,000 people by 2012.
We are losing valuable time in working to provide agencies
with the human capital tools they need to get the job done. As
I told OPM Director Berry recently, the recession presents a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Federal Government to
recruit and retain outstanding individuals. We are going to be
able to even compete with Procter & Gamble for individuals who
may not be able to find work in the private sector and whose
talents will lead them back to higher paying jobs when the
economy recovers.
So what I am concerned about is that we have this great
opportunity to find some wonderful people and get them involved
in the Federal Government. Once they come onboard, many of
them, I think, are going to learn the wonderful opportunity
they have to make a difference in the lives of the people who
live in America and we will keep them onboard. But we cannot
miss this golden opportunity that exists for us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much for your
statement, Senator Voinovich. On our first panel, it is my
pleasure to welcome Nancy Kichak, the Associate Director for
the Human Resources Policy Division at the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), and Marilee Fitzgerald, the Director of
Workforce Issues and International Programs at the Department
of Defense (DOD).
As you know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear
in the witnesses, so I ask you to stand and raise your right
hands.
Do you solemnly swear that the information you are about to
give this Subcommittee and your testimony is the truth, the
whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Kichak. I do.
Ms. Fitzgerald. I do.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Let the record note that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
I want you both to know that although your remarks are
limited to 5 minutes, your full statements will be included in
the record. Ms. Kichak, will you please proceed with your
statement?
TESTIMONY OF NANCY H. KICHAK,\1\ ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF
HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Kichak. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Voinovich,
thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing
on mentoring and training for employees and supervisors in the
Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kichak appears in the Appendix on
page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not possible to overstate how important our Director,
John Berry, believes training is in our effort to nurture a
high quality, high performing workforce. We strongly believe
providing managers and supervisors with the training they need
is critical to their success, and consequently, the success of
the Federal workforce.
Mr. Chairman, we at OPM appreciate the efforts both you and
Senator Voinovich have taken to move the government forward in
its approach to supervisory training. Senator Voinovich led the
effort to enact the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004,
which requires agencies to establish a comprehensive management
succession program that includes training to develop managers.
OPM published final regulations last year requiring
supervisory training within 1 year of a new supervisor's
appointment and retraining at least once every 3 years on
options and strategies to mentor employees, improve employees'
performance and productivity, conduct performance appraisals,
and identify and assist employees in addressing unacceptable
performance. OPM is currently developing guidance to assist
agencies in implementing this final regulation. Our plan is to
include this guidance in a newly revised training policy
handbook that we hope to finish later this year.
Mr. Chairman, I know you have introduced the Federal
Supervisory Training Act with the aim of enhancing Federal
employee and manager performance and in turn agency
performance. The bill includes requirements for new supervisors
to receive interactive instructor-based training. In addition,
agencies would be required to develop mentoring programs for
new supervisors and evaluate the effectiveness of supervisory
training programs.
At the request of the Subcommittee staff, OPM recently
conducted an informal inventory of agencies to determine what
agencies are doing to meet the supervisory training
requirements in our regulations and those that would be
required under S. 674. Twenty-five agencies responded to the
request. About half of the agencies we surveyed currently are
meeting those requirements and a majority of the others are
developing supervisory training programs to fully comply.
Most agencies go beyond the requirements in the Federal
Workforce Flexibility Act and offer new supervisors training in
additional key areas such as recruiting and hiring, labor and
employee relations, team building, strategic planning, and
conflict management. Five agencies, including the Department of
Defense, meet all of the additional training requirements
presented in S. 674, and six more agencies meet the
requirements in the bill, except for the requirement to
establish mentoring programs for new supervisors.
To assist agencies in the development of successful
mentoring programs, OPM recently issued a publication on
mentoring best practices and hosted a best practice and
mentoring forum where five agencies discussed their mentoring
programs with the Federal learning and development community.
Mentoring is also an integral part of many developmental
programs and plays a huge role in developing and retaining a
diverse workforce.
You also asked me to address our role in overseeing the
Federal Career Intern Program. The program was established by
Executive Order in 2000 to help agencies recruit individuals
for careers in analyzing and implementing public programs
during a time when the threat of the retirement wave was
imminent. Agencies are required to develop 2-year formal
training and job assignment programs for each career intern.
Upon successful completion, agencies have the option of
bringing in these interns into the permanent workforce.
OPM oversees the program. Through our implementing
regulations and other agency guidance, we directed agencies to
develop merit-based procedures for recruiting and selecting
interns in accordance with the government regulations governing
employment in the accepted service. We will be reviewing the
program and making recommendations for its future as part of
the Administration's Federal hiring reform initiative.
Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the
discussion and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Kichak. And now we
will hear from Marilee Fitzgerald. Please proceed with your
statement.
TESTIMONY OF MARILEE FITZGERALD,\1\ DIRECTOR, WORKFORCE ISSUES
AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, U.S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Ms. Fitzgerald. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member Voinovich. On behalf of the Secretary of
Defense, Robert Gates, thank you for inviting us today to
discuss with you the Department's efforts to enhance
supervisory excellence, a force readiness issue and a mission
imperative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Fitzgerald appears in the
Appendix on page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The growth and development of the Department's workforce,
including supervisors and managers, is of strategic importance
to our ability to meet our 21st Century mission requirements,
and we appreciate your long-standing support and advocacy of
the Federal civilian workforce as we have moved in this
direction.
The Department is facing mission requirements of increasing
scope, variety, and complexity. To ensure the availability of
needed talent to meet our future demands, we are conducting a
deliberative assessment of our current and future workforce
requirements. This effort will ensure that the Department has
the right workforce mix, military, civilians, and contractors
with the right competencies, including our supervisory
competencies.
As part of these efforts, the Department is working to
better employ talent of our civilian personnel to meet today's
challenges. For example, the Secretary of Defense has created
the Civilian Expeditionary Workforce, which will provide
deployable civilian expertise to support efforts in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and other contingencies. A parallel effort
is underway to synchronize civilian and military leadership
training with the goals of ensuring common professional
training and education between our senior executives and flag
officers, increasing joint capability for our senior
executives.
The Department has achieved much progress and reorienting
its civilian leadership capabilities. We have adopted a
leadership framework and published policy that requires that
leaders be developed in over 20 different competencies that are
found critical for success in leadership positions. These
include the development of interpersonal skills, supervising
others, and providing meaningful performance feedback. Yet, we
can always improve.
Supervisory proficiency is critical to individual
organizational performance, as well as employee motivation,
engagement, and retention. In February, the Secretary of
Defense asked our Defense Business Board to investigate and
recommend ways to improve the supervisory capabilities of the
Department's career workforce. Their report is due out shortly.
The Department's inaugural leadership summit being held
this week in Southbridge, Massachusetts will be the catalyst
for designing a fresh look at how we improve the Department's
effort to select, develop, and manage our DOD supervisors. The
Department is taking a comprehensive view of enhancing
supervisory excellence at all of its existing training
programs.
To this end, we are adopting a four-prong approach. The
first speaks to getting it right at the beginning, the
selection of supervisors. The Department will implement better
selection tools that are strong predictors of supervisory
excellence.
The second speaks to tapping into potential, the
development of supervisors. The Department is on a path to
develop initial and periodic training every 3 years for all of
its supervisors, including its executives. Training will
include a combination of formal training on the job, learning
and other development opportunities, job rotation, job
shadowing, and mentoring assignments. It will enhance our
current framework and specifically in the supervisory
competency area.
The next deals with organizing ourselves for success, and
alignment of our supervisory resources. The Department intends
to examine the employee-to-supervisor ratios and other
pertinent factors to determine whether supervisors have the
time to devote to the job of supervising with distinction. It
is clear that first-line supervisors have the most important
impact on employee engagement and productivity.
And finally, the next step will ensure that something with
such strategic significance is not left to chance,
accountability for supervisory excellence. The Department will
ensure all of its performance appraisal systems make it clear
that supervisors will be evaluated both on work outcomes and
how well they manage their staff. This is certainly true of our
executive performance appraisal system today, but as we
transition out of our National Security Personnel System (NSPS)
performance management system, we want to make sure that all of
our appraisal systems have this requirement.
The Department is committed to ensuring that we have the
caliber of supervisory workforce necessary to carry out our
mission. Supervising people is a privilege and a responsibility
to preserve and enhance human capabilities under a supervisor's
care. The Department needs capable leaders who can build strong
teams in support of our war fighters.
The Department has had a long and proud tradition of
training and developing our force. This investment has enabled
our country to maintain its preeminent war fighting
capabilities. You can count on the Department to continue its
focus, investment, and commitment to the development of our
civilian workforce.
Thank you again for your interest in our civilian
leadership and for the opportunity to speak with you today. I
would be pleased to answer any of your questions.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Fitzgerald. Ms.
Kichak, my Federal Supervisor Training Act would require more
effective Federal supervisor training government-wide. I was
pleased that OPM issued a regulation requiring better
supervisor training last year and that many agencies, including
DOD, already provide much of the training required in my bill.
While this is encouraging, of course more needs to be done.
As we make progress with government-wide supervisor training,
what will OPM do to make sure agencies consistently provide
high quality training to all new supervisors?
Ms. Kichak. First of all, we are preparing requests for
reporting back on the delivery of training to supervisors, so
we will not be doing the kind of informal survey that we did
for the Subcomittee this year, but will be requesting more
regular reporting.
We are also continuing to hold best practices forums. We
will be holding a series of these forums and will include the
best practices on a wiki, so that those will be available in
the future for people to go back and look at. We are going to
engage with the agencies on doing that so we can take advantage
of the ones that do things the best.
So we are going to provide continuous learning to the
managers of the agencies, including the small agencies, and
show them what works and what does not work, and then monitor
some of the provisions of their training, at least how many
people receive it and if they are complying with the
regulations.
Chairman Akaka. Ms. Fitzgerald, DOD employees add to the
rich cultural diversity in my home state of Hawaii. Your
testimony states that diversity in your civilian workforce is a
force readiness issue. Can you talk more about what DOD is
doing to ensure that a diverse group of DOD civilians is ready
to take on leadership roles?
Ms. Fitzgerald. I will, thank you. The Department has put
its efforts really in three directions. And first of all, I
want to state that the diversity of the workforce is important
to our mission. It is not just a compliance issue. It is the
perspectives that are brought to bear to serve--just to support
and serve our many mission requirements. It is that kind of
perspective that is what is going to help the Department move
forward and so forth. Therefore, the diversity of our force is
extremely important to us.
We went at it three ways, not to say that there is not
other areas to do this. But our efforts looked at one, placing
more emphasis at the leadership level. It is a leadership
responsibility to engage this. This is a readiness issue. So in
the Department, we created a Defense Executive Advisory Board
that reports directly to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and
advises him on executive matters, including the diversity of
the force, not only our senior executives, but the pipeline
that supports that.
That board looks at every year what our selection patterns
are. It looks at the diversity of our selections. It looks at
the diversity of our placements, to ensure that this stays
visible with the Secretary. A set of metrics are also in place
that help us measure our progress in this regard.
The second pillar is more training and development. We are
very fortunate to show some great progress in this area. Our
pipeline is growing more diverse and our GS-13, GS-14 and GS-15
ranks, our diversity is improving.
We set out with the proposition that folks, if they
understood the great challenges and rewards that are in
leadership, and particularly as they move higher and the
ability for them to make an impact on our mission and to
seriously influence its challenges, if they knew more about it,
perhaps they would choose it. So we are spending a great deal
more time developing the understanding of DOD, what it means to
be a supervisor and a leader and how one can exert its
influence. Approximately, not quite a third, a little short of
a third of our pipeline talent is quite diverse.
The third area is exposure, understanding what it means to
be a supervisor. So we have two great DOD enterprise-wide
leadership development programs that try and help our employees
understand what it means to work and serve as a leader in the
Department of Defense.
We take them on emergent experiences. They visit our
combatant commands. Most recently, in fact, next week a group
of these emerging leaders will be traveling to Kuwait and they
will spend about 10 days there practicing leadership and
understanding the mission with our central command
representatives and leaders.
So leadership, training, and exposure is our way of
attempting to try and build a much more diverse pipeline. With
a diverse pipeline, the opportunities to select a more diverse
workforce in our senior executive positions is greater and so
that is how we have been trying to approach it.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much. Ms. Kichak, your
testimony also addresses the importance of mentoring,
developing, and retaining a diverse workforce. What do you
believe supervisors can do to increase their multi-cultural
understanding in order to provide more effective mentoring?
Ms. Kichak. I think that there should be training in
dealing with diverse populations and building a workforce that
is inclusive and welcomes diversity. It should be a major part
of management training because there are different cultures and
there are different responses to different cultures and
managers need to be aware of that.
We are also working right now at OPM on building a
strategic plan for improving diversity in the Federal
workforce. A large part of that strategic plan will be
enhancing training. We are developing that strategic plan with
an interagency task force, and we expect that to be out soon.
Then we will start implementing some of those provisions, again
with a major training emphasis.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Ms. Fitzgerald, one of the
lessons we learned from the implementation of the National
Security Personnel System at DOD is that communication between
supervisors and employees is essential to the success of any
new personnel policy. As DOD develops a new performance
management system, what is DOD doing to ensure that supervisors
have the skills necessary to effectively seek input and
communicate changes to employees?
Ms. Fitzgerald. Thank you. The building of capacity of our
supervisors to provide meaningful feedback, engage their
employees and the right kinds of conversations that build and
grow and develop their skills is a fundamental area of our
performance management programs, development programs and
helping our employees understand how to improve their
performance management. It exists today for the senior
executives and the lessons that we learned for NSPS will
certainly be cascaded to any performance management system that
we develop.
As you may know, the Department is on track to try and
develop a replacement system, one that takes advantage of all
the positive lessons that we learned from NSPS and overcomes
some of the shortcomings of that performance management system
that we had in place. Communication will certainly feature as
it did prominently then.
We can assure you that it will be cascaded into our new
performance systems and as a matter of fact, as we transition
out of NSPS we require that all of our performance management
systems that are existing today, those legacy performance
management systems to which we are returning our employees,
pick up on these lessons that we have learned, including the
training and development of better communication, providing our
employees assistance in writing their performance objectives,
helping them ensure that there is a line of sight between the
work that they do and the organizational missions.
And these things that were critical and viewed as important
pillars of success in the NSPS performance management system
will be overlaid onto these existing legacy systems. The
Secretary put out a message to ensure that happens today.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much. We will have a second
round. Senator Voinovich, your questions.
Senator Voinovich. I worked my head off to get NSPS
established and worked with Gordon England. And you are here
today telling me that you are going to capture all of those
good things that were in the program when Department of Defense
employees are transition back to the General Schedule.
Why in the devil do you think we wanted to go to the system
for in the first place? And nobody says anything about our good
work and I am really unhappy about it. We spent years bringing
that system in. We even slowed it down. We had a hearing out in
Hawaii to make sure that the Department was not rushing into
it. We slowed them down.
So with all of this good stuff that exists in the National
Security Personnel System, you want to make sure that you
preserve it when employees go back to the General Schedule.
What do you do about the people that are in the highest pay
category who go back into the General Schedule and their
salaries are going to be frozen for 2 or 3 years? Do you think
you are going to be able to retain those people?
Ms. Fitzgerald. The Department's investment in the National
Security Personnel System, while I think it was perhaps
disappointing that we are not in the NSPS today, the lessons
that we have learned and the opportunities that we had to
experiment with some flexibilities will, I believe, carry
through in the efforts that Director Berry is doing Federal
wide.
Those lessons that we learned in NSPS, I do not believe,
and the good things that came out of that will not be lost as
we transition with a Federal reform effort. The director of the
Office of Personnel Management has ensured that the lessons
that we have learned are very much a part of the conversation
that he is having with his staff on reform, and so I am looking
forward to seeing the good things continue and even be improved
upon, because we certainly had lessons that we would have liked
to have seen improved upon if we had continued in NSPS.
I am confident that is going to happen. We have been a part
of those design teams and I think Director Berry's direction is
in the right place.
You raised some important issues about the transition,
moving back out of the General Schedule--moving it back out of
the NSPS to the General Schedule does pose an issue, certainly
for those who are now going to come back into the GS and be at
the top of their pay band, back at the top of their General
Schedule step.
There are a couple things about that. One, as they return
to a grade, the opportunity to leave that--what we call saved
pay area--can occur as they move up throughout the General
Schedule. So if they are capped at a GS-12, Step 15, the
opportunity to move out of that pay cap area would be if they
advance to GS-13, GS-14 and so on. So over time that may be
mitigated by their own advancement through the General
Schedule.
Certainly those who are at the top of the GS-15, Step 10,
for example, will have some issues. We are hoping that as we
design our new--with Director Berry, we have already raised
this as an issue--that perhaps should be addressed as one of
the reform efforts. We have brought that to his attention and
so we will continue to work them. But today they would--as you
say, Senator, they are going to go back and they would be
capped at the top step of the General Schedule for a period of
time until they are either----
Senator Voinovich. I would like to have a written document
from you and from John Berry about how you are going to handle
this situation.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Sure.
Senator Voinovich. Some of the complaints that we had is it
takes a lot of time to do performance evaluation. We should be
doing performance evaluation period, whether it is pay-for-
performance or not. We added pay-for-performance, as you know,
in the Defense Department. We have it in the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA). All these folks that do the TSA
screening work at the airports, they are under pay-for-
performance.
After they have gotten through the initial implementation
phase of pay-for-performance, they seem to be pretty happy with
the system. You said that it is a leadership obligation, too,
in terms of diversity. When you do performance evaluation, is
diversity part of the performance evaluation? Either one of you
can answer it.
Ms. Kichak. When we look at managerial capability, it is a
requirement that managers be able to manage well in a diverse
workforce. So from that perspective, yes, building a diverse
workforce is part of the review.
Senator Voinovich. What I am saying is that you have
managers who have responsibility for people and directly or
indirectly have responsibility for bringing people onboard. In
their evaluation, do you look at whether or not they are paying
attention to the issue of diversity in terms of their hiring
practices?
Ms. Kichak. Yes, we do. It is part of managerial competency
that we look for in a performance appraisal.
Senator Voinovich. Is there any recruiting going on that
you know of where diversity is the target? I have had people
say to me, sorry, governor or mayor, we cannot find diverse
people. Do you have programs where you really are reaching out
and looking around the country to make sure that there is
recruiting that is going on for all parts of society, making
sure people are aware of the wonderful opportunities they have
to come to work in the Federal Government?
Ms. Kichak. First of all, as part of our diversity
initiative, we are building those relationships so we know how
and where to reach out. The second major thing that OPM has
recently done is notify agencies that we are now accepting of
collecting data on applicants as far as their race and national
origin--what their diversity characteristics are. And this will
enable us to answer the question.
Often times people say, I did not hire somebody with a
diverse background because I am not getting applicants that are
diverse. And we have not known whether that is true or not, but
now we are taking steps to start to track the composition of
the applicant pool. That is not the only thing we are doing. We
are also coming up with strategies for increasing the diversity
of the pool as part of our----
Senator Voinovich. Doesn't designating an internship
program as a diversity tool provide a vehicle for some of that
to take place so you are able to go out and meet with people
and talk to them about Federal service?
Ms. Kichak. Certainly our intern programs provide people of
diverse backgrounds who are considering Federal employment.
However, we do not make selections based on the race and
national origin characteristics.
So an internship can provide an opportunity to reach out to
folks. We still need to get them interested and be successful
in getting them to apply for the Federal jobs.
Senator Voinovich. Switching subjects, how does OPM and DOD
ensure that the programs that you are talking about in terms of
training receive adequate funding? And if I were to look at the
budgets of the respective agencies, where would I find the
money for the training?
Ms. Kichak. We are at the present time not able to have a
control on agencies' budgets, in a way that guarantees
allocation of a certain level of resources to training.
Senator Voinovich. Well, isn't that something that Jeffrey
Zients and John Berry could get together and try to identify
training spending.
Ms. Kichak. John Berry is very interested and that is part
of the discussions that he is having now as he talks about
civil service reform. He would really like to see a set-aside
for training. It is one of his passions. But he is not the man
who controls the budget or the man who controls Congress. So he
is having those discussions. He is a great advocate of that and
so those discussions are ongoing.
Senator Voinovich. That is really interesting. You do not
have the flexibility because the way the pay scales work in the
Federal Government, but when I was governor, we were able to
work with the unions. When it came time for pay increases--and
I think Colleen Kelley is here, and she has heard this before--
what we did is we made a deal with the unions that if you gave
up a nickel in pay, we put in a dime for training, and we
really developed a very robust training program for our people.
It was one way that we could guarantee that the money was
really going for training. And I think that if you do not
guarantee that, it will not happen, because every time you have
a budget problem, the first thing that goes out the window is
training funding. I am going to be interested in hearing from
Dr. Mattimore in terms of how much money Procter & Gamble sets
aside for training and how important it is to the future of
their company.
Because there are some really good role models out there
and I think if you are serious about this, you ought to look at
how do they go about doing these things. That is why successful
organizations put a whole lot of money into training.
I am out of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Senator, in the Department of Defense, to
help perhaps address that, I mean, you are absolutely right.
You cannot say that a trained and ready workforce is a mission
imperative and then use a discretionary form of part of your
budget. That does not seem to make sense. It is a incongruent
statement.
Certainly we have known that on the military side. We
invest in our training. We do that deliberately and set aside
funds to do that. On the civilian side, we are less structured
to do that, but that said, the Secretary has made training and
development a priority of our civilian workforce and while I am
not prepared today to talk about exactly how each of our
components are setting aside money to do training and
development, I can talk about a couple of specific things that
he has done.
For our senior executives, of which we have about 1,200
currently in the Department of Defense, he has set aside $5
million per year beginning in Fiscal Year 2010 through the
budget to try and improve development and training of our
senior executive members. This includes improving their
interpersonal skills, ability to supervise folks, developing
their capability for supervisory excellence, performance
management and in fact requires it, improving their ability to
manage a diverse workforce, whether that be of a certain racial
and ethnic persuasion, or whether it is building a culture or
having a workforce that is teleworking, where it is very
different than these new 21st Century environments, are very
different kinds of environments that we have.
So that is where that money will be dedicated, providing
mentorships, 360s and so on. That effort is being cascaded down
to our components, and again, we can take that for the record
and tell you how they have organized themselves to serve the
training requirement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information referenced appears in the Appendix on page 132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also invested in our two major DOD-wide Enterprise
Leader Development Programs, which are essentially funded by
the Department. So we probably do not do enough of it, but we
are certainly trying to organize ourselves better to serve the
training requirement, again, because we see it as a mission
imperative.
On your other point of how the Department does do it, the
Department takes diversity into consideration through its
performance management system. For all those who supervise we
require that they demonstrate how they are building a diverse
workforce as part of their performance elements. It is
certainly required for our senior executives and it is required
for all of our supervisors who have that responsibility for
building a workforce. And so it is measured through the
performance appraisal process.
Senator Voinovich. It is one of the elements that you----
Ms. Fitzgerald. Yes, it is.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. We will have a second round of
questions. Ms. Kichak, OPM has regulatory oversight authority
over the Federal Career Intern Program. In a 2005 report, the
MSPB recommended that OPM more fully exercise its oversight
role.
What specific steps has OPM taken to ensure that agencies
are complying with the merit systems principles and veterans
preference laws when hiring under the career intern program?
Ms. Kichak. As part of our January reorganization, we have
elevated our merit system oversight division to the associate
director level at OPM. We are giving that more prominence and
more resources so that the division can increase its oversight
of the programs we regulate, which includes not just the
Federal Career Intern Program, but other merit system hiring.
We are also looking at the rate of use of veterans'
preference in the Federal Career Intern Program, which is at 15
percent, which is not the same level that veterans' preference
is used in other merit staffing, but is still significant.
Fifteen percent of the Federal Career interns are veterans.
So we continue to issue guidance and tell agencies the
policies that are in place, that veterans preference does apply
in the Federal Career Intern Program, and we continue in our
audit function.
Chairman Akaka. The MSPB also found that although the
Executive Order creating the FCIP requires career interns to
participate in formal training programs, many agencies provided
limited or no training at all to career interns.
Do you believe that agencies are complying with the
requirement to provide formal training to career interns?
Ms. Kichak. I believe like all of the programs that we are
part of, there is uneven application of the requirements. I
know that many agencies are providing training. Senator
Voinovich mentioned the Customs and Border Protection folks,
who have a very stringent training requirement. The program has
been used at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), again, another
agency that does stringent training.
We have had limited use of the Career Intern Program at OPM
for some of our professional folks, such as actuaries and
statisticians. The actuaries have a very stringent training
program.
So certainly many agencies are complying with the
regulations. I am sure there are exceptions to that.
Chairman Akaka. Ms. Kichak, traditionally public notice is
the means by which Federal agencies ensure fair, open, and
transparent competition for jobs. The Federal Career Intern
Program does not require public notice of job openings, which
can make it hard for potential applicants to find information
about opportunities.
Use of the USAJOBS website is a convenient and low-cost way
to let a wide applicant pool know about opportunities. Does OPM
encourage agencies to post career internship openings on
USAJOBS and what else is OPM doing to improve availability of
information about the program?
Ms. Kichak. Well, certainly we encourage the posting of all
job announcements on USAJOBS. We have our initiative that I
know that you are well aware of, to make those job
announcements understandable and to get them down to a length
that applicants will really read.
We do not require, as you said, the announcements for the
Federal Career Intern Program to be on USAJOBS, but we strongly
encourage that there is open competition and that the jobs are
announced.
We are looking at the issue of whether there are cases
where limited announcements make sense. As you know, for some
jobs, we get thousands of applications and it makes it very
hard to process those, but we want a diverse group of
candidates. We are looking at things like announcing within a
region not just to one person, but making it available maybe
within a range of States, a group of universities, or among the
professional organizations if you are looking for something
like engineers.
Those are all things that are under study as part of the
Administration's initiative to improve the hiring and hiring
reform. And as those things move forward, we will be in
discussions with you about some of the ideas we have where we
can foster competition, because we really do believe in
competition for Federal jobs and yet make sure that those
announcements get to places where we can get the most diverse
and qualified candidates.
Chairman Akaka. Ms. Fitzgerald, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 established the Defense
Civilian Leadership Program in DOD to recruit and develop a
more effective acquisition workforce. The law allows DOD to
recruit current employees as well as individuals outside of
government.
What are DOD's plans for recruiting current college seniors
or recent college graduates for this program?
Ms. Fitzgerald. Thank you. This is a very exciting
provision of the NDAA and we are just now beginning to develop
the framework for this program. This program will be decidedly
different from those that we have developed before, because
this program seeks to bring in individuals and hire them based
upon not only their technical competencies and perhaps some
other foundational competencies, but it will seek to identify
their ability to be leaders and to develop them as leaders from
day one, much like we do in the military.
So we develop them to be an acquisition specialist, a
contract specialist, a financial manager, budget analyst,
personnelist, and at the same time, with the same
deliberateness, we are developing their leadership capability.
This program, that is, in the NDAA, offers us that opportunity
to do that.
It will be a competitive program, so we will reach broadly
across our Nation to ensure that our college students and our
graduates, both undergraduate and graduate, have the
opportunity to apply. The foundational model that we are using
currently, again, it is under development, is our Presidential
Management Fellows Program, where there is rigorous assessment
coming in, where we do a variety of assessments, including a
portfolio assessment, opportunities for them to showcase their
talents in many different ways so that we avoid the temptation
to place so much emphasis on the technical ability, how good of
a budget analyst are they, or how well they did in college in
math and science, and allow us the opportunity to look at some
other capabilities.
So we are not ready to tell you about the program in all of
its details yet, but we do have a framework. We have briefed
both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed
Services Committee on it. They seem to think we are headed in
the right direction. We look forward to the opportunity to roll
that out. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much. Senator Voinovich,
your questions.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that you need is a set
of tools to attract people to come to the Federal Government,
and one of the things that we did several years ago was to
increase the amount of money in terms of paying off student
loans for individuals, which is a big deal today, because more
and more of our students are just hammered with the high costs
of higher education.
We went from a cap of $40,000 to $60,000 and from $6,000 a
year to $10,000 a year. Are either one of you familiar with
whether or not anybody is using that tool in order to attract
people into the Federal Government, or are the budgets so
limited that they never find money to do that?
Ms. Fitzgerald. Actually, sir, in the Department, we are
increasing our use of the student loan payment program. I do
not have the statistics with me today, but I will be happy to
take that for the record and get you the data on that.\1\ But
we see that as one of the important incentives in the
Department to attracting and retaining our workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information referenced appears in the Appendix on page 134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Kichak. We do a government-wide report on the use of
student loan repayments annually and it is on the OPM website.
And every year since the legislation was enacted, there has
been a substantial increase in the amount of student loans
repaid and the number of people who are getting those repaid.
Nonetheless, it remains a small part of total budgets.
Senator Voinovich. Do you have any information on just
overall what funding you have dedicated to that program?
Ms. Fitzgerald. Sure.
Senator Voinovich. And I am interested in your saying that
you are using this tool. And additional money has helped?
Ms. Fitzgerald. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Good. Ms. Kichak, as Mr. Palguta
discusses in his written testimony, Federal agencies, as we can
testify to, largely neglect internship programs as sources of
talent when selecting permanent employees. How can OPM work to
encourage Federal agencies to make greater use of internship
programs as recruitment tools?
Mr. Palguta represents the Partnership for Public Service
(PPS), I believe, and they do a lot of surveys on Fedeeral
workforce issues. I was interested that PPS is concerned that
intern programs are not being used enough in terms of selecting
permanent employees.
Ms. Kichak. I think you could say we disagree with the
Partnership for Public Service. We have about 40,000 student
temporary employees working for the Federal Government in a
year. Those are students who get a very valuable experience in
working for the Federal Government, but we do not call them
interns because we also have the Student Career Experience
Program (SCEP) where we select students and work with their
universities to match students' academic studies with their
work.
The folks in that program get the opportunity, if they have
proven to be successful as a SCEP, to convert without
competition into Federal service. We believe that those
programs are both serving their needs and that taking 40,000
student temporary employees and calling them career interns and
then saying they could compete, could become permanent Federal
employees, would prevent those folks who have not been able to
get that experience to compete for the same jobs.
So we do have intern programs. We have the Presidential
Management Fellows Program, a very small, leadership program.
We would like to see some growth in that. We would like
agencies to use the SCEP program widely because it is a great
opportunity to match student skills with jobs.
But we would like to see students continue to have the
experiences that they get with these summer employments, except
we would like to be able to see many more people have those
experiences. So if it is 40,000 one year, maybe there should be
another 40,000 the next year. Rather than turning these into
long-term projects, make it clear that, instead of having
40,000 people for 2 years, you would have had 40,000 people
each year, 80,000 people in a 2-year period. We have a mix of
programs and we think that mix of programs works for us.
Now, having said that, I want to assure you that we are
continually looking at all of our hiring authorities. We have a
``cool-team'' at OPM, that has been looking at what students
like today, and looking at how to improve these programs. We
want to keep a variety of options open so that we can provide
opportunities for as many people as possible.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I can tell you that it is amazing.
I think all of us Senators have internship programs and you
start asking people that have been in the Federal service for
awhile, why are you in the Federal service? Oh, they say, I did
an internship and I really liked it and I thought it was neat
and I thought, this is what I want to do.
So it is a great way, I think, to at least bring people in,
let them see what is going on and they get fired up, go back to
school and then when it comes time for them to enter the
workforce they have had a little experience and that opens the
door in terms of their being willing and able coming to work
for the Federal Government.
Ms. Kichak. Which is exactly why we want to give as many
people those opportunities as possible.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Kichak, in her written testimony,
Ms. Fitzgerald discusses the Department of Defense's use of
360-degree review processes where a supervisor is evaluated by
his or her supervisor, peers and subordinates.
It sounds to me like a pretty good system. Do you know if
that is in existence any place else besides the Department of
Defense?
Ms. Kichak. Yes, it is. I was just speaking to another
major agency yesterday that is implementing it. Other agencies
do it, not every year, but it is at the prerogative of the
agency on how they evaluate their senior executives. A 360-
degree review process is a very popular method for that segment
of the population.
Ms. Fitzgerald. We intend as well to take the 360-degree
review process. In the Department, we have taken our senior
executives and identified them into three tiers. Tier 1 is for
the entry kind of position into the Senior Executive Service
(SES); Tier 3 being the positions that have the most influence
in the Department.
We are going to repeat the 360-degree review process each
time you enter a new tier position, so it is not a one-time
assessment and we use it for development purposes, not for
performance management, but for development--at least the
employee--the executive has an opportunity to self-reflect,
consider a wide range of input in that development process and
the organization also has a chance to co-partner in the
development of the capabilities.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that I have observed
is that as I have come to know a lot of the people in the
military, and of what fantastic management and supervisory
experience they have.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. It is amazing to me. Have you ever
looked at how they go about developing their leaders, or is it
because they are in the Army or the Navy or the Marine Corp,
there is a different environment and not analgous to civilian
agencies?
Ms. Fitzgerald. No, there is much to be learned from that.
In fact, this leadership program that is in the NDAA 2010 is
going to be built just like our military model is built, hiring
folks in, believing they can be leaders, deliberately
developing them as leaders. And the training and development
that we have underway in the Department, both for this program
and for our senior executives, are ones in which we are
comingling with our military partners.
Going to military education courses, our CAPSTONE, the
professional military training academies, both officer and
noncommissioned officer academies--all of these opportunities
are being leveraged in the Department. In fact, that is a very
important goal for Secretary Gates, to ensure that there is
more connection between our military and civilian training.
And I mentioned in my testimony that we are working on this
parallel effort to develop that. So no, we are with you,
Senator. We think that is an important model, long overdue,
that we have not leveraged the experiences of our military. But
we intend to do so, and are doing so actually.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Fitzgerald. You are welcome.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. I
would like to thank our first panel of witnesses for your
testimony and your responses. It will certainly help us as we
continue to deal with employee and supervisor development in
our Federal workforce. So thank you. Thank you very much.
Ms. Fitzgerald. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. I would now like to call up the second
panel of witnesses. On our second panel this afternoon, we
welcome Colleen Kelley, President of the National Treasury
Employees Union; also J. David Cox, National Secretary-
Treasurer of the American Federation of Government Employees;
John Palguta, Vice President for Policy at the Partnership for
Public Service; and Laura Mattimore, the Director of Leadership
Development at Procter & Gamble.
It is the custom, as you know, of this Subcommittee to
swear in the witnesses. Will you please stand and raise your
right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are
about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Kelley. I do.
Mr. Cox. I do.
Mr. Palguta. I do.
Ms. Mattimore. I do.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Let the record note that the
witnesses answered in the affirmative. I want to let you know,
our witnesses, that your full statements will be included in
the record.
Ms. Kelley, will you please begin with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY,\1\ NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairman Akaka, and
Ranking Member Voinovich. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today on these important issues of training,
mentoring, and interning in the Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix on
page 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) is very
pleased to support S. 674, the Federal Supervisor Training Act.
We believe that supervisor training, accountability and
development are pressing concerns for workforce management in
the Federal sector. We also believe the lack of proper training
among managers and supervisors is responsible for some of the
current problems facing the Federal workforce today.
For example, in the area of hiring, a 2008 MSPB report
found little understanding of the various hiring authorities
and the different requirements that are tied to them. The
report stated that the authority that was used to hire an
individual often appeared to be a product of convenience or
coincidence rather than the result of a thoughtful and
deliberative choice to effectively use the most appropriate
hiring authority. The report also noted that 43 percent of
supervisors involved in hiring said that no one discussed
training or assessment responsibilities required by different
hiring authorities with them.
Another area that needs additional managerial training is
the implementation of the GS pay system. Despite comments to
the contrary, non-performers can be denied pay increases or
terminated, and outstanding performers can be given many
rewards under the GS system. But supervisors need more training
on the many flexibilities that are currently available under
that system.
NTEU is pleased to see that S. 674 calls for agencies under
the direction of OPM to develop competencies supervisors are
expected to meet in managing employees. This will help to
ensure the effectiveness of the supervisor training programs.
NTEU would also support adding provisions to provide additional
training and mentoring to current frontline employees so that
they could advance in their careers also.
While sound managerial training is critical, career
advancement of frontline employees can also greatly enhance the
effectiveness of Federal agencies. With respect to internships,
let me begin with the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP).
That was proposed and implemented on an interim basis in 2000
and when it became permanent in 2005, it became so under final
OPM regs. It was originally billed as a limited use special
hiring authority designed to provide formally structured 2-year
training and development internships.
Instead, the FCIP has become the hiring method of choice
for too many agencies because it does not require adherence to
competitive recruitment and selection procedures. In its first
year, about 400 employees were hired under FCIP. That grew to
over 7,000 in 2004 and the numbers have increased every year.
The most recent data we have shows that over 26,000 new hires
entered the government through FCIP and that number has clearly
continued to grow.
Despite its widespread use, the MSPB has identified serious
problems with this so-called intern program in the 2005 report
that have already been mentioned. That report includes citing
weaknesses in pre-hire assessment tools and also in not
providing training and development activities to career interns
as required. The report also noted that there is no requirement
under FCIP for vacancies to be publicly announced, preventing
veterans preference-eligible candidates from even learning
about and applying for the positions.
Mr. Chairman, the FCIP is not an intern program and it
should be terminated. There are several proposals pending in
Congress to create new internship programs in government, most
allowing conversions to Federal service outside of the normal
competitive process. NTEU supports limited initiatives,
including targeted internships and scholarships to recruit
employees who have special fields of expertise that are in
demand in the government.
It is NTEU's position that the current Federal Intern
Programs should be the building blocks for attracting talent to
the government. The Student Career Experience Program, for
example, allows the appointment of students to positions that
are related to their academic field of study.
We have talked about the Presidential Management Fellows
Program that allows agencies to recruit outstanding graduate,
law and doctoral level students who serve for 2 years and can
become valued members of an agency's workforce. We have no
problem making exceptions to the normal hiring process to draw
these talented individuals to public service under these
limited programs.
But in general, we support competitive hiring and public
service for all. With respect to those who argue that hiring is
too cumbersome under current competitive hiring rules, NTEU
does support reforming that process, but we remain firmly in
support of fair competition, equal treatment, veterans
preference, and adherence to merit principles.
In summary, I would just reiterate NTEU's support for the
Supervisor Training Act, our opposition to the Federal Career
Intern Program, and urge its termination. We support a return
to competitive hiring in the Federal Government, and support
greater utilization of our government's existing intern
programs to recruit talented students and recent graduates.
I would be glad to answer any questions you have. Thank
you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Ms. Kelley. Now, Mr.
Cox, will you please proceed with your statement?
TESTIMONY OF J. DAVID COX, SR.,\1\ NATIONAL SECRETARY-
TREASURER, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO
Mr. Cox. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Voinovich, thank
you very much for the opportunity to testify today. I would
like to focus my statement today on the abuse of the Federal
Career Intern Program (FCIP). The FCIP is the government's most
widely used and problematic special hiring authority. It is
essentially a direct hiring program that bypasses open
competition, veterans preferences, and circumvents career
ladder promotion opportunities for the incumbent workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cox appears in the Appendix on
page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCIP gives agencies enormous discretionary authority to
hire employees without using the competitive hiring process.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) strongly
objects to the Federal Government's continued use of the FCIP
because it has nearly superseded the competitive service and
because it has become a preferred vehicle for favoritism.
The original purpose of the FCIP was supposedly to attract
exceptional men and women to the Federal workforce who have
diverse professional experiences, academic training and
competencies. Based on reports from our members, however,
agencies have strayed from this purpose by using the FCIP as a
closed hiring system that does not reach many qualified members
of the American public or current Federal employees.
AFGE does not believe that the Federal Government can
succeed if its primary hiring process evades the open
competition requirements set forth in merit system principles
or simple standards of fairness and hiring. AFGE warned that
the FCIP would obliterate the rule of competitive hiring when
it was first proposed. At that time, OPM responded it was only
part of a series of improvements that OPM intended to make to
the Federal hiring process.
Ten years later, much damage already has been done. We
continue to receive the same message from OPM. In the meantime,
Federal agencies, such as the Border Patrol, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and Social Security, have used the FCIP
as the almost exclusive hiring authority for thousands of newly
hired employees. A 2007 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report showed that DHS used the FCIP more than any other
recruitment tool for permanent hires.
Agencies looking for an easy way out of responsibility to
honor veterans preference and open competition have changed the
purpose of the FCIP. It now represents the unrestricted use of
a hiring authority and is extremely subjective and grants
managers a degree of discretion that should not exist in the
Federal Government.
Further, managers have total control over newly hired
employees because of the absence of procedural due process
protections such as adverse action appeal rights and a
probationary period that is double the length of new hired
employees under competitive processes. Combined with the FCIP's
lack of transparency, the above problems have turned the FCIP
into a step backwards from the basic civil service protections.
AFGE has urged the Obama Administration to eliminate the
FCIP, limit it to a small number of positions, or revise the
program significantly in order to strike a more appropriate
balance between the need for hiring flexibility and the
imperative to uphold the principles of transparency and
fairness in Federal hiring.
AFGE is extremely sensitive to agencies' pleas with regard
to expedited hiring, especially in the context of insourcing
jobs that were inappropriately outsourced in the last decade,
with the recognition that each full-time equivalent position
insource saves the Federal Government approximately $40,000 a
year. It has become routine for agencies to complain that the
competitive hiring process is somber and sometimes consuming
and to use this as an excuse either to resist or delay
insourcing or to revert to non-competitive hiring processes,
such as the FCIP.
AFGE does support the Administration's effort to modernize
and expedite the competitive hiring process and we are hopeful
with the proper training and resources managers at agencies
throughout the Federal Government will make use of the more
user-friendly procedures to uphold the merit system and
veterans preference.
AFGE urges the Subcomittee to enact legislation that would
restrict the use and abuse of direct hiring authorities in
general and the Federal Career Intern Program in particular.
The FCIP makes a mockery of the merit system and its promise of
open competition for Federal jobs as well as veterans
preference.
Numerical limits and other restrictions on the FCIP should
be accompanied by hiring reforms and increase resources
available to agency human resource offices to expedite both
insourcing and the hiring of the next generation of Federal
employees. Once hired, these new Federal employees should be
given every opportunity to succeed, including access to well-
managed mentoring programs. Mandated training for managers and
supervisors, along with restrictions on non-competitive direct
hiring, will also help ensure that the Federal Government
workforce continues to be a source of pride for all Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Cox. Mr. Palguta,
please proceed with your statement.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN PALGUTA,\1\ VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY,
PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Palguta. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Voinovich,
thank you very much for the opportunity to appear today. As you
know, I am Vice President for Policy at the Partnership for
Public Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Palguta appears in the Appendix
on page 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to joining the Partnership, however, I did spend over
30 years as a career employee of the Federal Government as a
human resource professional and I had the privilege to serve as
a career member of the Senior Executive Service as Director of
the Office of Policy and Evaluation at the Merit Systems
Protection Board.
The topic of today's hearing is of vital importance to
effective and efficient operation of our government and one in
which the Partnership has a strong and ongoing interest. The
willingness and capability of the Federal Government to invest
in the growth and development of its most valuable asset,
Federal employees and supervisors, is not a sexy topic, but it
is one that is very important and richly deserves the attention
that it has received from this Subcommittee. Your work on this
issue is both needed and timely, and we thank you for the
tremendous work of the Subcommittee.
In my opening remarks, I would like to touch very quickly
on four issues that are expanded upon in my written testimony.
First, I think it has been well established already in this
conversation that we do have cause for concern about the
ability of our managers and supervisors to carry out their
responsibilities. I would simply add a couple of quick
examples.
We at the Partnership have--since 2003, developed a Best
Places to Work in the Federal Government ranking based on
employee survey data gathered by the Office of Personnel
Management. The rankings are based on employee satisfaction and
we have done analyses to find out what drives that
satisfaction, and what we have consistently found is that the
largest variable that predicts satisfaction is employee views
of their supervisor.
As the views decline, so does job satisfaction. And this is
not about happy employees. It is about engaged, committed
employees getting the work of the organization done. This is
about effective government. In our 2008 report, Elevating Our
Federal Workforce, over half of the chief human capital
officers we interviewed throughout government thought that
their managers possessed the managerial competencies they
needed to only a moderate or limited extent, and of course,
over the next 5 years, a third to half of supervisors will
leave, both an issue, but also an opportunity.
We do have some solutions at hand. This is the second
point. OPM's recent regulations for Federal supervisory
training are a good step. We also strongly support S. 674, the
Federal Supervisor Training Act, which will put some of those
requirements into law and increase accountability for results
by requiring periodic reports to and oversight by OPM. Senator
Akaka, thank you for introducing this bill.
Third point, the Federal Career Intern Program, it was put
into place, as already noted, in 2003 for two purposes. One,
make sure that we are recruiting and selecting exceptional
employees for careers in public service, and two, to provide
those employees participation in a formal program of training
and job assignments.
It really, in my view, is not an intern program, as most
people currently think. It was a hiring authority put into
place and with a specific outcome to be desired, and as already
noted, it has become quite popular. In 2009, there were over
26,000 hires under the Federal Career Intern Program out of
142,000 hires overall.
I think the popularity in part is because from an agency
perspective--and my lenses on this world are through an human
resources (HR) perspective and a manager's perspective--I think
it is popular because it works for the agencies. I would be
quick to note, however, that it was very clear in the Executive
Order that veterans preference applies, as do the merit
principles, and if we have agencies that are not adhering to
the merit principles in application, then we do have a problem
that should be dealt with as a violation of principles. But
that was not a problem of the Career Intern Program.
The fourth point is that we should not forget about the
untapped potential of student internships. Senator Voinovich is
right, we have mentioned at the Partnership that even among the
Student Career Experience Program that Ms. Kichak mentioned,
which has a conversion to permanent employment option, even if
you look at just those individuals who have served under the
SCEP appointment authority, only 25 percent of them are
converted and the private sector equivalent would be 50
percent.
So in conclusion, steps can and must be taken to ensure
that the Federal Government is investing in the training and
development of its workforce. S. 674, the Federal Supervisor
Training Act, is one of those important steps. And I would also
want to mention, of course, very quickly Senator Voinovich and
Senator Akaka, your bill on the hiring process, I think is also
a very important component to this and I commend you there.
I thank you for this opportunity and I am happy to answer
any questions. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Palguta. Will you
please proceed with your statement, Dr. Mattimore?
1TESTIMONY OF LAURA K. MATTIMORE, PH.D.,\1\ DIRECTOR OF
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT, PROCTER & GAMBLE
Ms. Mattimore. Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member Voinovich,
thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon. I am the
Director of Leadership Development at Procter & Gamble (P&G),
where I manage the processes and systems that we use to develop
leaders at all levels in the company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Mattimore appears in the Appendix
on page 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may know, P&G is the largest consumer products
company in the world, with 127,000 employees working in 80
countries on brands like Pampers, Tide, Bounty, Pantene,
Duracell, Olay, just to name a few. Training and developing
leaders is a particularly important, strategic imperative for
P&G.
I want to highlight a couple of key concepts that are
critical to our approach to leadership development. The first
is our company's purpose. Our stated company purpose is to
touch and improve consumers' lives now and for generations to
come, and it is the foundation of our leadership development.
We attract and retain people who want meaning in their
professional lives and we feel like they find a connection to
our company purpose.
Second is build from within. We are one of the last large
companies that truly is a build-from-within culture, so our
senior leadership is almost entirely made up of people who
spent their whole careers at P&G. That happens not just at the
executive levels, but at all levels. In fact, less than 5
percent of our employees are hired with outside experience. Our
success depends entirely on the strength of our talent
pipeline.
Our leadership development starts with recruiting, so we
seek to hire the best university graduates and bring them in at
entry level. Last year alone, we had over 200,000 applicants in
the United States for positions and we hired less than 1
percent of those, so we are very selective at the outset.
Once onboard, we invest significantly in training, training
of technical, functional and leadership skills throughout our
employees' careers. For those at the associate director and
above, we offer programs specifically on management and
leadership, where they receive direct instruction and training
from our most senior executive and from external contacts and
thought leaders.
Something that is very unique about P&G in this area is the
engagement of our senior leaders as trainers. Our chief
executive officer (CEO), our board members, our other senior
executives spend a significant amount of time training. In
fact, their offices are adjacent to our corporate training
center so they can readily come back and forth and teach and
participate in learning events.
They also recruit actively on college campuses and serve as
mentors for our young managers. Over time, we have created a
learning culture where our leaders teach, mentor, and coach
other leaders at all levels of the company. We not only plan
assignments, but we also plan careers over time so that our
employees have the opportunities to develop breadth and depth
of experience.
One of the tools that we use for this is our Work and
Development Plan. These plans are jointly developed by every
P&G employee and his or her manager and reviewed quarterly. In
these plans, employees prioritize their work for the coming
year, they set goals, they identify their career plans and
their responsibilities, and they identify how they are going to
leverage their strengths and develop their opportunities in
specific areas.
In terms of executive developments overseen by our chairman
and CEO, Bob McDonald, Mr. McDonald meets regularly with the
board of directors to review our leadership needs and do multi-
generational succession planning for key management positions.
He also holds regular planning sessions with members of our
senior team to do further executive staffing, review individual
performance, plan next assignments and identify those mid-level
career employees who are on path for general manager roles in
the company.
In terms of performance, every employee at P&G, from the
most junior recruits to our CEO, is evaluated for performance
and results and those evaluations feed into their compensation
and eligibility for promotion. For all employees, performance
is measured against the key work priorities that are called out
in the work and development plans.
Employees are held accountable for two principle areas,
building the business and building the organization. For those
with profit and loss responsibility, a performance score card
is also completed which assesses the leader's business and
organizational performance. We use objective data on six to 100
key business metrics and an additional 11 organizational
metrics to measure their performance.
In terms of evaluating our talent and leadership
development programs, there are eight key talent metrics which
are detailed in the written statement, but a number of these we
look at and track rigorously, including bench strength, flow
through, our pipeline, interchange, continuity, something we
call constellation and sequencing of our business teams, and
then certainly diversity.
P&G's rigorous leadership development program yields three
significant outcomes that we are looking to achieve. First, all
of our strategic jobs at P&G are filled by our top talent and
the bench is deep to fill those positions in the future.
Second, we have a globally diverse organization and leadership
team that reflects our consumers.
Third, our leadership development efforts produce multi-
disciplinary leaders with the capabilities needed to succeed
today and in the future.
In conclusion, the future of Procter & Gamble depends on
our investment in leadership development today. We take pride
in the processes and policies we have developed that allow us
to recruit, train, and develop talent at all levels of our
company.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify this afternoon
and I look forward to answering any questions.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Dr. Mattimore. I have
a question for both Colleen Kelley and David Cox. As I noted in
my opening statement, a wide range of both labor and management
groups, including both of your unions, support my Federal
Supervisor Training Act. As representatives of organized labor,
why do you feel that increased training of supervisors in the
Federal Government is important and how do you believe it will
benefit your members? Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. Well, I think it is pretty well documented that
the closest working relationship is between frontline managers
and their frontline employees and vice versa. Very often, as
someone else mentioned, it might have been you, Senator
Voinovich, who said that very often those who are promoted into
management positions are promoted because they are really good
at the technical job that they do, and that there is therefore,
an assumption that they have all the other skills that they
need to appropriately manage and to lead.
And I think most of them have the ability to learn those
skills, but those skills do not come naturally for everyone,
and especially so just because you are really good at your
technical job. So I think because frontline employees look at
their frontline manager for not only support and guidance in
achieving the mission of the agency, but also in what they
should look at as value for their agency, as well as
opportunities to advance their own career. That frontline
manager is the person that they are looking to. So for them to
be seen as someone who can lead as well as manage and can help
them do the technical parts of their job, I just think that is
critical, and it is going to help them also someday, if for
example, maybe they would like to be a supervisor, knowing that
they would get the training and support they need.
There are many frontline employees who I think would be
really good managers, but they recognize they do not have those
skills and they do not see a program in place in their agency
to help them acquire them.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I frequently have said that a bad
supervisor was our best membership recruitment tool, but I have
also said that a bad supervisor creates more problems than it
is worth for labor and for management. Training of supervisors
is imperative, and not just the technical skills. The
supervisor should be able to mentor employees, to maybe one day
be another manager of some type, but to develop that employee
to be the best that they can be where they may move in either
way, vertically or horizontally as an employee and in the
process of that organization.
In developing and training supervisors, again we all get
jobs for various reasons, but we do not always come with the
skills necessary to do the job appropriately. And so I think
constant training, teaching people how to mentor other people,
how to get employees to do the right thing and to train
employees in a proper manner, those are good supervisors and
those are labor's best friends, those that manage properly.
Chairman Akaka. Ms. Kelley and Mr. Cox, I have been
particularly concerned with the use of the Federal Career
Intern Program to hire frontline workers who receive very
little focused training. I understand that CBP and the Federal
Protective Service (FPS) hire most entry-level employees
through that program. For these types of law enforcement
positions, the military training that veterans have would put
them in a strong position in the competitive hiring process.
Could you address the effect the use of FCIP has on
veterans' ability to compete for these positions?
Ms. Kelley. I think it plays itself out in a number of
ways. First of all, when CBP talks about the training that they
do as part of FCIP, the training that they provide to these
officers is at the Federal Law Enforcement Academy and it is
training that has always been provided for their jobs.
There is nothing specific or special about it because it is
under the FCIP. There is not a 2-year training program or
anything that special that is required under the legislation.
And when it comes to the veterans preference issue, while they
probably are reporting inaccurately that there is a good
percentage of hires that come from the military, there is no
way to know how many are being passed over. Because if they
were using the competitive process that requires veterans
preference, it not only provides for points to be added to
their score for consideration, but if the agency wants to pass
over them to select another applicant, they have to report that
to OPM and get approval to pass over that veteran.
That is not true under the FCIP. So there is no data that
shows how many veterans are not being given consideration as
they would be if they were using a competitive process. So the
good news is there is whatever percentage of veterans in CBP,
but I think the bad news for the agency, as well as for the
fairness of the process, is that there are many that are being
overlooked and not being given a fair competitive opportunity
to be hired into those positions as the law intended.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you, Ms. Kelley. Mr. Cox.
Mr. Cox. While Ms. Kelley knows much about the Customs and
Border Patrol folks, I know more about Border Patrol folks,
just the Border Patrol.
Ms. Kelley. It is all CBP.
Mr. Cox. All the entities that we represent. And in the
Border Patrol high numbers of them are from the military. They
are veterans. But I would echo again what Ms. Kelley has said.
Without reporting to OPM, I do not think that there is any
viable data to know whether veterans are being passed over.
Again, while there is a large pool of those employees that
are veterans, again, the data is still not showing that
veterans preference is being followed, especially the various
point systems.
Ms. Kelley. Mr. Chairman, if I could add, it is very clear
to me that agencies do use the FCIP to get around veterans
preference. There was a recent example just this week, a report
issued by the Inspector General (IG) of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), where they filled four positions using
the FCIP and there is an email reported on in this report where
the manager reports--and this is a quote--the email says that
they use the FCIP because they did not want to ``risk losing
the candidates we want to hire who may get blocked by veterans
via USAJOBS.''
And that is why they used FCIP and that is documented in
their own email. So they use it. They use this FCIP to get
around and to avoid veterans preference. So I would like to
submit this IG report for the record with your permission.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much. It will be included in
the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA report submitted by Ms. Kelley appears in the Appendix
on page 93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let me then look to a second round and Senator
Voinovich, will you please proceed with your questions.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Kelley, like you, I was concerned to
learn that the Customs and Border Protection uses the Federal
Career Intern Program to hire all entry-level Border Patrol
agents and Customs and Border Protection officers. So I asked
my staff to dig deeper into CBP's use of the authority and we
have a chart.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The chart referenced by Senator Voinovich appears in the
Appendix on page 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am going to get up and go over it, but it details the
evaluation process used by CBP when using FCIP. And preliminary
to going over this chart, one of the things that we fail to do
as legislators is to give consideration to the management and
employment challenges that we will have when we create new
agencies. And one of the questions I would like to know is what
agencies are really using this authority, like CBP is using
FCIP for just about all entry-level law enforcement personnel?
The issue then becomes why are they doing it? I know
several years ago when we passed Part D of Medicare, I think
the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) hired about
500 people; I am not sure. We gave them some authority because
they had to hire actuaries and support staff. I think they went
to OPM and got direct hire authority to go out around to the
universities and so forth, to hire quickly.
So I am interested in that, but let me just go over this.
Public notice of Border Protection Officers (BPOs) vacancies by
USAJOBS, then they have an assessment of an applicants' job-
related competencies using a logical reasoning test developed
by CBP psychologists in accordance with Federal testing
policies, an examination of candidate experience record.
Applicants also receive an artificial language or Spanish
language test.
Next applicants receive structured scenario-based oral
interviews before three BPOs who have been trained to interview
according to standardized procedures for interviewing and
rating candidates, then applicants are scored on test results
and veterans preferences and are certified and selected in
accordance with OPM's delegated examining operations handbook.
Then you have BPO interns undergo training, including 55-
day basic training, 40-day Spanish language training, 36-week
post academy training, and 12-week national field training. And
then they have the interns undergo panel reviews at the 12- and
20-month mark, and are only recommended for conversion if the
panels determine their performance is satisfactory.
In Fiscal Year 2009, 64 percent of the BPO interns received
conversion. Now, I do not have the demographic data on the ones
that got through the system and I am going to be investigating
what the diversity is and what the veterans composition is and
so forth. But I think that you and Mr. Cox, particularly Mr.
Cox, you just hammer this and maybe you are right. But it seems
to me that it is our obligation to really get into this issue
and start looking at who is using it and how they are using it
and if the reason is that we have asked them to hire a bunch of
people and the current system does not allow them to get the
job done and they are turning to this authority, then we ought
to take that into consideration.
Now, Mr. Palguta, you have been watching this. Tell me,
what are your observations?
Mr. Palguta. Several, Senator. First, let me just comment
on this process. This is an assessment process that really is a
role model just from a viewpoint of assessment. If most
agencies were this rigorous about making sure that the people
they are considering are well matched to the job, we would be
in a much better place than we are.
So as an assessment process, this is a very good one, I
believe. As I said, the Executive Order that President Clinton
signed setting up the FCIP was explicit, veterans preference
applies. In the case of CBP here, they applied the preference
in accord with the delegated examining handbook from OPM, which
means 30 percent disabled vets get first consideration. Other
preference eligibles get priority consideration before non-
veterans with a comparable rating.
I know that CBP also does recruit from veteran discharge
centers because the experience of veterans is something
valuable to them. Overall, Department of Homeland Security, 25
percent of their workforce are veterans. So I do not think they
are anti-veteran in any way and to me this is a good
illustration of the application of merit system principles.
Merit system principles which apply to the Federal Career
Intern Program basically say you go about matching the best
applicants to the job, taking into account veterans preference
and diversity.
I think in this case I do not see the problem here. Colleen
did mention the EPA example. I read the Inspector General's
report and what they found was not that the FCIP was violated,
but that these four--well, these managers, in the case of four
applicants, committed a prohibitive personnel practice. That
sort of commission of a prohibitive personnel practice can
occur in a career merit promotion program action or any other
hiring action and I think that has to be corrected.
But there is nothing in the Executive Order or the way the
Federal Career Intern Program is supposed to operate that is
inconsistent with veterans preference or the merit principles.
As I said, I think for a lot of the agencies, it simply works
for them and the biggest users traditionally have been Defense,
Veterans Administration, Homeland Security. Each of those
agencies are well represented in terms of veterans and I think
they try hard to get the best people into the job.
Ms. Kelley. Senator Voinovich, if I could just add to other
agencies. CBP is a big user of the FCIP, but the IRS hires
almost all of their revenue agents today using the FCIP. The
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is now hiring
positions called financial institution specialists and they are
only using FCIP.
And again, what FCIP does not require is a posting, so that
everyone knows that the positions are available, including
veterans, and it does not require that the points are added for
veterans preference.
Senator Voinovich. Where do they get their names?
Ms. Kelley. They can post at one university or in one State
or in one city for one day. There is no requirement, as there
is under a competitive process, for an open posting for a
certain number of days so that the population at large has
access to those, or that veterans or whomever it is that is
looking for it.
In the EPA case, they posted the positions for 2 days. Now,
as Mr. Palguta said, the violation was not about finding
anything wrong with the FCIP, and that was not my point in
entering it into evidence. But I want you to read the whole
report because what the report says is that the agency
acknowledged they used FCIP so that they did not risk losing
candidates who may get blocked by veterans via USAJOBS.
Well, that is pretty clear that they were trying to avoid
veterans preference. I mean, you cannot get much clearer than
that, and that is a quote in the report from the IG. And that
is the issue, is the misuse of them.
Senator Voinovich. Yes, but what they are doing is they are
violating the order that created the FCIP in the first place.
It seems to me that the problem basically is in terms of
oversight as to whether or not they are following the rules
that have been laid out for them and not using it, as you
mention, to try to get around something that they find to be
inconvenient.
Ms. Kelley. Well, that is part of the problem, but I think
the bigger part of the problem is why have a process in place
that does not--that is not set up as a competitive merit-based
process that honors veterans preference as intended, including
having to be able to respond to why you pass over a veteran. I
mean, why even have a system like that in place?
Senator Voinovich. It would seem to me that probably for
the benefit of this Subcomittee, that you get the people in
that are really using this authority to find out why they are
using this system rather than the regular hiring process, and
is it because of what you are saying; they are trying to avoid
something, or do they find that the system that we now have in
place, particularly where they need to hire a bunch of people,
is not working.
That is basically it, are they using this because the
current system does not allow them to get the job done?
Ms. Kelley. Well, I would say two things to that. In
another MSPB report says that the reason the agencies claim
they use it is because it is faster, because they do not have
to do all the things in a competitive process, and so the
process is faster. But they also say that it is not because
they get the best people on that list to be able to select
from.
And I understand your example, Senator Voinovich, about if
an agency all of a sudden has to hire to get up and running or
something. That is not the case in Customs and Border
Protection. They hire these officers every month of every year
on a regular basis. Were there some spurts where they had to do
some bigger hiring than others? Yes, but it is an occupation
that is the major occupation in the agency, and the IRS revenue
agents are hired every year, every pay period in the IRS. So it
is not like a surprise that all of a sudden they need to hire
revenue agents.
Senator Voinovich. It seems to me that what you want to do
is to get the people that run the IRS and others to come in and
talk about it. What is the reason for it? I can tell you one
thing, that the pressure to hire these border protection staff,
it is a lot of pressure. I mean, right now we are involved in
an enormous brouhaha about the border down in Arizona and I
read Senator Kyl and Senator McCain's recommendation and they
want all these people hired that fast.
It is just the fact that we do not give enough
consideration to some of these implementation issues. So you
may be completely right in your testimony, but it seems that
before we just say this is bad, we ought to go in and find out
where the abuse is taking place and can these problems be
corrected? And the most important thing is why are they using
this system rather than the normal process and what is wrong
with the system that we have?
I mean, Senator Akaka and I are trying to improve USAJOBS,
which it is just archaic. I have people around here who say
that they apply for positions through USAJOBS and agencies do
not acknowledge they received the application. They do not know
whether they are on or they are off the list of candidates. I
will bet you I know a dozen people who said to me that they
wanted to work for the Federal Government but never heard under
the USAJOBS whether they were even being considered. They found
another job. They took the job and then afterwards found out
that they could have got the job with the Federal Government.
So there is something wrong with this. Then I also hear
complaints from people who say forget USAJOBS. Unless you know
somebody in the agency that is in the inside, you are not going
to get the job. And then I also have heard where some of the
agencies will post the job announcement on USAJOBS over a
holiday period for a short time period so that there are not
very many applicants and they end up getting the people that
they want.
So I think this is something that is maybe worthy of
looking at the big picture and seeing where we are right now on
what we are talking about today.
Ms. Kelley. I would agree that USAJOBS needs to be made
friendlier to applicants; that is for sure. But the fact that
agencies use FCIP as their primary method of hiring is a
serious problem and the FCIP is not an intern program. It is a
misnomer and the agencies hide behind that to use it----
Senator Voinovich. Well, I think that we ought to call it
for what it is and maybe it is a better system than the one we
got by using USAJOBS. All I know is I think we ought to really
look at this and just see how it all plays out.
I have taken more than my time.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. Let
me continue with questions to Dr. Mattimore. I was impressed to
learn of the Work and Development Plans (W&DP) that Procter &
Gamble employees and managers establish annually. Can you
explain the process involved in developing these plans and the
benefits they provide to employees and managers?
Ms. Mattimore. Sure. First of all, I will say that the Work
and Development Plan process is one that we use consistently
around the world and at all levels. So whether you are an
administrator or whether you are a vice president, we use the
same process. And the process requires the employee to layout
what the work priorities will be for the coming year. They work
that with their manager to be clear on what those priorities
are. They have clear deliverables and measures associated with
those priorities.
That is the work plan part of the plan itself. And then
there is a career and development portion of the W&DP as well,
so the career portion, as the individual indicates, what are
their career aspirations and what kind of training does the
individual believe that they need in order to prepare them for
that career?
And then the strengths and opportunities, the individual
works with their manager to document what are the strengths
that the individual can further leverage as they think about
their work plan for the coming year, and then what are the
development opportunities that they want to work on? What is
the individual going to do to work on those and what is the
manager going to do to support their ongoing development?
So that plan on an annual basis is put together and then it
is reviewed quarterly over the years. So it becomes kind of a
living contract between the employee and the manager and it is
something that we use consistently. And we have found in our
research that the document helps employees to have clear line
of sight between what it is that they do and their daily work,
how that relates then to the company's strategies and
objectives in the company's greater purpose.
And so it has been an instrumental tool for us in terms of
driving employees to have that connection with the greater
company.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Mr. Palguta, each year the
Partnership for Public Service publishes the Best Places to
Work in the Federal Government rankings. Your statement notes
that the No. 1 predictor of employee satisfaction is attitudes
toward the agency supervisors.
I would like to hear more about this finding, including
your views on the connection between morale and supervisor
training.
Mr. Palguta. Thank you very much. I would love to talk
about that. Just very quickly, the Best Places rankings are
based--first of all, on the positive answers to the question of
how satisfied are you with your job, how satisfied are you with
your organization, and would you recommend your organization as
a place to work?
We have other questions in the OPM survey, including 13
questions that explore different perceptions about supervisors
and leaders and there is a clear link between when employees
have positive attitudes about the job that their supervisor
does, the type of communication they receive, and the feedback
they get about their performance, then their job satisfaction,
and their willingness to recommend the organization to others
as a place to work go up together.
And what we have found is that the importance of that is
not that we want employees to be happy. We do. But the
importance is that job satisfaction, engagement, and commitment
is also related to organizational effectiveness so that the
more engaged employees are--and it stands to reason, if you are
unhappy with your supervisor, you are miserable coming to the
job every day, you are probably not giving it your best effort
and conversely, when you have faith in your supervisor, when
there is good communication, when your own training and
development as an employee is supported by your supervisor,
your commitment goes up, your engagement in the work of the
organization goes up.
So as I say, it really is about effective operations of
government and when we talk to agencies, and we do on many
occasions now as agencies try to figure out how they can
improve their ranking in the Best Places, one of the things we
consistently tell them is that you need to focus on your
supervisors and your managers and your leadership. If you can
improve through training, through development, through
selection of people into the supervisory ranks, if you can
improve the quality of your supervisors, you are going to
improve your score on the Best Places, but more than that, you
are going to improve the ability of the agency to get its
mission accomplished for the American people.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Cox, as
you know, DOD is implementing a new supervisor training program
created by the National Defense Authorization Act. AFGE
represents a large number of employees at the Department of
Defense. What features would you like to see in the program?
Mr. Cox. I would certainly want to see features in the
program that deal on good labor relations, that supervisors
understand collective bargaining agreements and abide by the
agreements whether they like them or not. Also that they abide
by the law.
The Federal Government spends a great deal of money at
times in Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, as well
as in grievances and those type things. So I believe
supervisors being properly trained how to interact with
employees and to deal with them and their union representatives
will be very important.
And I would again go back to a supervisor should constantly
be mentoring an employee to be the absolute best that they can
be. You may be a housekeeping aide in the Veterans Affairs (VA)
or you may be a scientist at EPA, but there should be someone
that is constantly giving you the feedback--the good and the
bad--about how to improve yourself to be the best that you can
be in your job every day so that when you complete that job,
you feel really great about what you perform for the American
public at the end of the day.
And I think that is what many people are looking for in job
satisfaction and that they look for in supervisor/employee
relations.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much. Senator Voinovich, do
you have further questions?
Senator Voinovich. Yes, I do. Do you know what percentage
of the budget goes for training?
Ms. Mattimore. I do not have any specifics on numbers, but
I can give you a couple of thoughts relative to the discussion.
There is a couple of things that we do in order to protect
training resources: We centralized the budgets that go towards
general skills and what I would call career phase training.
So when people join the company, when they take on
responsibility for managing other people and they are first
leading an organization, that money is protected; it is not
competing with other initiatives or budgets. So that money is
centralized.
And then the functions in the business units, set-aside
money for training, and they are able to make choices about
what they do. But a couple of additional things we do, one is
we have a community of trainers that comes together several
times a year to talk about what their training needs are, and
that group pools resources. So across the different divisions
of our company, a lot of times the needs are very much the same
and so we pool resources and design training one time and use
it across the critical mass of the company.
Senator Voinovich. Would it be 1 percent or 2 percent or 3
percent; do you have any idea?
Ms. Mattimore. I would have to come back to you with a
number.
Senator Voinovich. I would like to know just what it is.
Ms. Mattimore. OK.
Senator Voinovich. Because I know that many of the top
companies, they do spend a great deal of money on training
because I think----
Ms. Mattimore. We spend a great deal and I would have to
give you the specifics, like straight numbers.
Senator Voinovich. Is it something that P&G does not want
anybody to know about from a competition standpoint?
Ms. Mattimore. In fact, during these most recent difficult
financial times, we have not cut back on training at all. We
have been more efficient about how we use our training dollars,
so we have cut back on travel for training. But we are still
continuing to do live distance training using virtual media, so
we have not at all cut back on our training efforts.
Senator Voinovich. The other thing that I am fascinated
about, and I do not have the answer and maybe if Ms. Kichak
were here she could answer it, but I just wonder what
percentage of the training that is being done is being done by
Federal employees. Because one of the things that I did when I
was governor is we instituted Total Quality Management (TQM).
We call it Quality Service through Partnership.
But the fact of the matter is, when I left the governor's
office, we had about 3,500 continuous improvement teams and we
had 1,200 trainers. They were all people who worked in the
State government. Everybody said well, you could not do that.
It interferes with our jobs. But it works.
Ms. Mattimore. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. And they are out there constantly and so
you get this kind of new attitude in the whole workforce
because people are doing it themselves.
Ms. Mattimore. Yes, we have across the company a couple
thousand trainers who do that on a part-time basis in addition
to their day job and we have no dedicated training staff. We do
not outsource training. It is an expectation that our leaders
will teach other leaders.
Senator Voinovich. The company that helped us with this was
Xerox.
Ms. Mattimore. OK.
Senator Voinovich. In fact, they donated the whole thing.
It was unbelievable. I created an Operations Improvement Task
Force and they came to me and said they wanted to help. I will
never forget. I said, well, I got everybody involved already,
but what do you do? They said, well, we are really into Total
Quality Management.
And so we looked into it and found it was a great thing,
because I went through training with my union managers. They
all knew about the program. We got started wrong because union
representatives were not included initially, but it was
probably the best thing, actually, it was the best thing I did
when I was governor. It was involving people in the training
process themselves rather than bringing in a bunch of folks to
do the training and then the trainers go out the door and you
do not have that residue that is there with your people.
Mr. Palguta, you talked about three agencies. I always feel
good about this because Senator Akaka and I were able to get
GAO flexibilities. We were able to get NASA flexibilities and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Palguta. Yes.
Senator Voinovich. Because I am getting toward the end of
this job that I have, I want to find out whether or not any of
those flexibilities that we got them improved employee
satisfaction. I would be really interested if you might look at
that. In terms of those agencies, we got them some specific
flexibilities that they did not previously have in order to
move forward.
Mr. Palguta. And indeed those three agencies are among the
top 10 in our large agency Best Places to Work rankings. We
even gave them little plaques to commemorate that. I cannot
speak for them obviously, but I believe if you talk to Cynthia
Heckmann, Toni Dawsey, or Jim McDermott, the chief human
capital officers for each agency, they will tell you that part
of their ability to be a best place to work is the fact that
they have some flexibilities in terms of management of the
workforce that they use wisely, again, in accord with merit
principles and in accord with good HR management policies and
practices, and it makes a difference in the work environment.
They start with bringing in really good people. I know at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission they already invest heavily in
training and development.
Senator Voinovich. They brought in over 1,000 people there.
Mr. Palguta. Yes, they have. We are seeing a resurgence in
nuclear energy, and Senator Akaka, they would have no problem
meeting the requirements of your bill because I think they
already spent a lot of time on developing the workforce,
encouraging communication.
So I think there is a cause and effect relationship.
Organizations that focus on workforce improvements, and they
use the tools at their disposal the proper way--you can use
tools wrongly, but if you use the tools as intended for the
desired end results of a highly qualified motivated workforce,
with diversity and veterans being given preferential
consideration under the law, you can end up with a well
performing organization, and that is really the bottom line of
what it is all about.
It is government working and we believe at the Partnership
you do not have effective government without the people part
being right.
Senator Voinovich. The last question I have, because I am
running out of my time, is you have Mr. Berry as a partner. I
think he is really a terrific guy. I mean, I am really pleased
with his dedication. I just wonder if you could sit down with
him and kind of capture what ingredients there are in top
agencies as demonstrated by this report.
And you have mentioned some of these ingredients in your
testimony, but it would be interesting to see if there was some
kind of metrics they could develop to determine what do you
need to have in place in order to get this high performing,
satisfied work force? Because let's just take Department of
Homeland Security. They are way down on job satisfaction index.
What is it that you could do to help them bring up the attitude
of the people that work there? What are the things that are
missing?
I know part of the problem is--I think people in the labor
unions know this--that we took 22 agencies with different
cultures--think about doing this with Procter & Gamble--22
agencies, over 200,000 people and put them into a new agency
when all the various agencies had different kinds of customs
and missions.
I suspect also that in terms of if you did a job
classification analysis, you had some people that were working
in one agency and getting X number of dollars and another
employee that is working in another agency that was getting a
lower sum and the word starts getting out. I mean, it is an
enormous management challenge.
But do you think that there was a possibility that you
could sit down with Mr. Berry and talk about some of these
lessons learned so that he could use those ideas to look at
other agencies that are in trouble and say, if you did the
following things, I think you could improve your employee
satisfaction and make your agency a better place to work?
Mr. Palguta. We have talked with Mr. Berry on numerous
occasions. We are big fans. He is very accessible. I know he
has spent much time with our union friends as well. And the
answer is yes, there are things we think can be done.
And I will say, Homeland Security, even though they still
have many challenges, they had a 30 percent increase in their
Best Places index score in the last go-around. We have not seen
the 2010 numbers yet, but we asked, how did that happen? Was it
an accident? And Homeland Security said, well, here are the
things that we did in response.
We did this Idea Factory starting at Transportation
Security Agency and now we are expanding it as a way to get
employees actively involved in sharing ideas and taking it
seriously and try to make a difference. The point is, in answer
to your question, Senator, I think there are proactive steps
that can be taken to improve the work environment.
I think you have to do it in collaboration with all of the
stakeholders and I think you have to want to get better. I have
been around a long time, but I am feeling somewhat optimistic
that we may have an environment right now that is conducive to
trying to do some of the right things so that we have a better
work environment, we have more satisfied employees, and we have
effective organizations. But it is not an accident. There are
things that can be done and that is a good thing.
Senator Voinovich. Great. Thank you.
Chairman Akaka. Thank you very much, Senator Voinovich. I
want to thank our witnesses for attending this hearing and
providing thoughtful testimony and answers to our questions.
A large number of employees will retire in the next 5 years
and I believe that preparing the next generation of Federal
employees to lead must be an urgent priority. Clearly the
Federal Government must invest more in developing its
employees.
I am pleased with the progress we are making in that
effort, but much remains to be done. I look forward to
continuing to work with our witnesses and I hope to move
forward with my Supervisor Training bill in the near future and
to continue to work with my great partner, Senator Voinovich in
this.
And again, thank you for being here. The hearing record
will be open for 2 weeks for additional statements or questions
other Members may have pertaining to the hearing.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]