    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          THE BEST AND WORST PLACES TO WORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                             GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 27, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-65

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                                  ____________

                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    20-557 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2016
     ________________________________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
     http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
     U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
     E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    Columbia
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TED LIEU, California
    MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina        BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    ROD BLUM, Iowa                       BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia                PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    WILL HURD, Texas
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                       Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                           Janelle Fitzhugh, Detailee
                   Katie Bailey, Subcommittee Staff Director
                              William Marx, Clerk

                                  ---------

                     Subcommittee on Government Operations

                     MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair        Ranking Minority Member
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina            Columbia
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on April 27, 2016...................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Ms. Lauren Leo, Chief Human Capital Officer, National Aeronautics
      and Space Administration
        Oral Statement...............................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     8
    Ms. Angela Bailey, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department
      of Homeland Security
        Oral Statement...............................................    14
        Written Statement............................................    16
    Ms. Sydney Rose, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department of
      Labor
        Oral Statement...............................................    19
        Written Statement............................................    21
    Ms. Towanda Brooks, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department
      of Housing and Urban Development
        Oral Statement...............................................    27
        Written Statement............................................    29
    Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service
        Oral Statement...............................................    32
        Written Statement............................................    34

          THE BEST AND WORST PLACES TO WORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 27, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                 Subcommittee on Government Operations,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in
    Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Walberg,
    Mulvaney, Buck, Carter, Grothman, and Connolly.
        Mr. Meadows. The Subcommittee on Government Operations will
    come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized
    to declare a recess at any time.
        After a downward trend for the last few years, the results
    of the Federal employees' survey sent to some 840,000 Federal
    employees reveals a 1 percent increase in both employee
    engagement and global satisfaction scores. And of that number,
    nearly 421,000 people replied, and this data was sorted by OPM
    to provide a number of useful metrics, some that are quite
    encouraging. For example, 96 percent of Federal employees
    surveyed are willing to put in the extra effort necessary to
    get the job done. Ninety percent are consistently looking for
    ways to do better and feel that the work that they do is
    important.
        And I must stress that, as I have talked to Federal
    employees, that this does not come as a surprise to me, and it
    is something that we need to do a better job in Congress of
    sharing with the American taxpayer that we have committed
    Federal employees.
        Yet some employee perceptions--and I am sad to say
    perceptions by some in Congress--of agency leadership continue
    to struggle. Only 50 percent of employees had positive things
    to say about the honesty and integrity of their leadership.
    This should remain as a concern for agency leaders with
    managing our nation's more than 2 million public servants.
        And in the area of promotions and dealing with poor
    performers, survey results are even more alarming. Only 33
    percent of the workers agreed with the statement that
    promotions in their work unit are based on merit. Twenty-eight
    percent of the employees said that the necessary steps are
    taken to deal with poor performers. And only 21 percent of
    employees across the government said that pay raises depend on
    how well the employees perform their jobs.
        So over the past year, I have had the pleasure and honor of
    visiting numerous Federal agencies, the most recent just a
    couple of days ago, across the Washington, D.C., area. I have
    had the opportunity to discuss a variety of topics with Federal
    employees, including employee engagement and satisfaction. I
    have met with Federal employees from NASA, the GAO, the
    Archives, MSPB, CBP, Air and Marine Operations, and I have
    always enjoyed it and appreciated the opportunity to visit with
    our Federal workforce.
        This week, as I was just mentioning, I was able to visit
    the Air and Marine Operations Manassas air branch, where I had
    the opportunity to meet and speak with AMO pilots and those
    that serve in that capacity, as well as serve the operation. I
    was highly impressed not only by their commitment to serving
    and protecting the American people, but I also wanted to thank
    them for sharing more with me about their mission because it
    was one of those things a lot of people don't know about, even
    Members of Congress. And so today, we are joined by a number of
    agencies near the top and bottom of the Best Places to Work
    rankings, as well as the most-improved agencies from 2015.
        NASA has ranked number one for large agencies in the Best
    Places to Work ranking for the past 4 years with an index score
    of 76.1 out of 100. Congratulations. Last year, I had the
    opportunity to not only meet with employees at NASA, enjoying
    that visit with staff and learning more about the mission and
    vision. I would like to hear more about NASA's employee
    engagement efforts undertaken at the agency that allows them to
    remain at the top of the rankings.
        The Department of Homeland Security, who also joined us
    last year, continues to remain last in the rankings with an
    index score of 43.1 out of 100. DHS has ranked 19 of 19 in
    large agencies on factors such as effective leadership,
    fairness, empowerment, and skills to match the mission.
        As many of you know, we have had Secret Service hearings. I
    have had a number of Secret Service employees who have reached
    out to me personally about just concerns that they have had,
    and the Secret Service employees rank their workplace as 319th
    out of 320 in the agency's subcomponent.
        Additionally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ranked
    318 out of 320. Both of those areas have been areas that we
    have addressed in this particular committee, and I am hopeful
    that we will be able to discuss those today, Ms. Bailey, as we
    look at DHS to have a plan to take ownership to ensure that its
    employees are engaged and how DHS plans to improve the employee
    satisfaction and commitment at the agency.
        The Department of Labor is the most-improved large agency
    for 2015 with an index score of 63.1 out of 100. DOL has
    improved from 17th in the 2013 Best Places to Work to a ranking
    of 8th in 2015. So congratulations.
        HUD is the most-improved midsize agency for 2015 with an
    index score of 52.3 out of 100, and HUD is ranked 21st out of
    24 for midsize agencies, and had an 8 point increase in their
    index score.
        For both DOL and HUD, I hope to hear about some of the
    initiatives that your agencies have undertaken that has led to
    the significant increase in the employee satisfaction and
    commitment. Obviously, the Partnership for Public Service also
    joins us today, perhaps can share some of your observations on
    employee engagement and offer some suggestions for agencies to
    improve the employee engagement efforts.
        Before I close, I wanted to also mention at the last
    hearing there were two different things that came out of that.
    We had different people testifying. The Archive, as I talked to
    him the other day, he mentioned a 4 point increase in their
    score that they are paying attention to. We are paying
    attention to this in a bipartisan way.
        The other thing that came out with Secretary Johnson, we
    had the title of this was ``The Worst Places to Work in the
    Federal Government,'' and he admonished me both privately and
    publicly that we ought to change the title of that. So indeed,
    we have listened to that and have changed the title, but I also
    want to stress today that the fact that you are here as
    witnesses and joining us here today is an important part of
    making sure that we address the concerns that have been raised
    by the rank-and-file. And I want to thank you for that.
        Mr. Meadows. And with that, I would like to recognize the
    ranking member of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, my
    good friend, Mr. Connelly, for his opening statement.
        Mr. Connelly. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I can
    only imagine with others what the change of title might have
    been, so maybe we are lucky with the title we had.
        Employee engagement plays an important role in agencies'
    mission success. The more employees are engaged, the more
    invested in the operation and productive they become.
        As the subcommittee charged with oversight of government
    operations, it seems to me we should be encouraging such
    engagement to ensure that the Federal workforce is motivated to
    deliver quality services for our constituents just as we do in
    the private sector.
        Today's hearing brings together a range of agencies, those
    with the highest and lowest scores, as well as those most
    improved, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman. 2015 rankings show
    signs of improvement with 70 percent of agencies improving
    their satisfaction and commitment scores. That is a welcome
    turnaround from the 43 percent comparable figure in 2014 and
    the mere 24 percent in 2013.
        However, obviously, there is always room for improvement. I
    am encouraged by the 2015 government-wide result showing a 1.2
    point increase from 2014. This is the first increase following
    4 straight years of decline since 2010.
        It is about time we see some positive signs, and I am
    hopeful maybe the tide is turning. Not only did employee
    satisfaction improve, but so did scores in all 10 workplace
    categories such as effective leadership, employee skills, and
    agency mission matches, pay, teamwork, training, development,
    and work-life balance.
        We all congratulate NASA, which again ranks number one
    among large agencies for the 4th year in a row. Its successful
    record of fostering employee engagement is credited to matching
    employee skills with agency mission, fostering teamwork and
    innovation, and satisfaction with pay. And I am going to be
    particularly interested, Max, in your analysis of that and
    yours as well. But how much of that is the mission that just
    elevates, whistling when I go to work every day? Because other
    agencies can't compete with that if that is the dispositive
    factor. But it is worthy of some examination.
        The Department of Labor is once again the most-improved
    large agency. This can be attributed in part to new workplace
    flexibility and telework initiatives. As the co-author of the
    telework legislation back in '09, '10, I am delighted to hear
    that. Expanding the use of telework has been such an important
    part of trying to improve actually workplace productivity and
    morale. So congratulations on taking advantage of the Telework
    Enhancement Act, which requires all agencies to incorporate
    telework into their Continuity of Operations plan.
        The Department of HUD is the most-improved midsize agency,
    and I am pleased to see Secretary Castro utilizing innovative
    online communication tools and town hall meetings to solicit
    employee feedback.
        Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security
    continues to struggle with employee morale and satisfaction,
    but I want to make clear that the purpose of this hearing is
    not to browbeat. We want to better understand and see what we
    can do to try to help.
        We must remember that DHS was created under the most
    intense pressures following 9/11 and combined all or part of 22
    Federal agencies under one roof with the incredibly difficult
    mission of protecting the American people from a variety of
    threats. As the newest Cabinet level agency, DHS continues to
    experience growing pains and in some cases the lack of logical
    glue for why something fits within DHS, or at least arguably
    so. So obviously we want to learn a lot more today about the
    recently created Employee Engagement Steering Committee and how
    it might help.
        It is our hope that we use today's hearing to better
    understand the challenges you all face and to identify best
    practices that could be helpful to improve employee engagement.
    I thank the partnership for its work. These rankings in the
    Office of Personnel Management's Federal Employee Viewpoint
    Survey, upon which they are based, are very powerful tools and
    again often used in the private sector as well.
        Mr. Chairman, employee engagement is not an issue about
    which only agencies need to be concerned. Congress also has a
    vested interest in the satisfaction of Federal employees as we
    are their employer. And I want to commend you for your efforts
    to visit Federal agencies to hear employee concerns firsthand.
    I, of course, do that going home every night. But really, you
    have done a great job in making that part of your mission so
    that you are getting firsthand evidence and information, and
    sometimes that changes our perspective and our opinion. And
    Chairman Meadows deserves great credit for doing that.
        I am also heartened by the progress made. We must not
    forget the tremendous difficulty that Federal employees have
    faced over the last few years. Sequestration cuts imposed by
    Congress caused nearly 1 million Federal employees, 1 million
    to be furloughed for some time, and the uncertainty and anxiety
    that created.
        A budget standoff led by some in this body forced a 16-day
    government shutdown in 2013, the first in 17 years. Federal
    employee pay was frozen 3 consecutive years, retirement
    benefits were reduced for new employees, and training budgets
    were slashed. In all, Federal employees were hit with more than
    $180 billion in compensation cuts, the only group of Americans
    targeted by Congress to contribute to deficit reduction
    explicitly. So it should come as little surprise that Federal
    employees during that time period were feeling unappreciated
    and often demoralized. As Congress prepares for the annual
    appropriation process to fund the government, let's learn from
    the painful experience of recent history.
        I would like to remind everyone that next week is Public
    Service Recognition Week. I feel that Congress should give
    Federal employees credit and recognition for the incredible
    work they do day in and day out serving the American people,
    our constituents.
        So as we approach Public Service Recognition Week, let's
    commit to engaging in fairly compensating our dedicated public
    employees to ensure that the Federal Government continues to
    provide the critical programs and services upon which the
    American people depend.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks,
    and I will keep the record open for 5 legislative days for any
    member who would like to submit a written statement.
        We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased
    to welcome Ms. Lauren Leo, chief human capital officer at the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Ms. Angela
    Bailey, chief human capital officer at the U.S. Department of
    Homeland Security; Ms. Sydney Rose, chief Human Capital Officer
    at the U.S. Department of Labor; and Ms. Towanda Brooks, chief
    human capital officer at the U.S. Department of Housing and
    Urban Development; and Mr. Max Stier, President and Chief
    Executive Officer of the Partnership for Public Service, of
    whom a lot of this actually started in an in-office visit with
    me many months ago. Welcome to you all.
        And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be
    sworn in before they testify, so if you would please rise and
    raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Let the record reflect that the
    witnesses answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may
    please be seated.
        In order to allow time for discussion, I would ask that you
    would limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, that your entire
    written statement will be made part of the record.
        And so without objection, we will go ahead and start. Ms.
    Leo, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                        STATEMENT OF LAUREN LEO

        Ms. Leo. Chairman Meadows and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on the
    topic of the 2015 Best Places to Work in the Federal
    Government.
        Today, I'd like to share with you what makes NASA such a
    great place to work, as well as what we've learned along the
    way about employee engagement and using the Federal Employee
    Viewpoint Survey result as a mechanism to continually improve
    NASA's work environment.
        First, I have to admit that I have one of the best jobs in
    the world. My job is to care for and support the agency's most
    valuable asset, our amazing workforce, the brilliant rocket
    scientists, innovative engineers, dedicated support and
    administrative professionals, and every employee and contractor
    that make up the NASA family.
        I work for an agency that inspires, challenges, and
    empowers our employees daily to carry out missions that benefit
    us here on Earth. I feel extremely fortunate to wake up every
    morning to serve NASA's employees who are truly a tremendous
    asset to our country and the world.
        Given that NASA is strongly mission- and project-focused,
    our employees believe in the importance of the mission and are
    heavily engaged in their work. They come to work at NASA
    because they want to be part of something bigger, not just
    because it's a job.
        Every NASA employee impacts the agency's mission daily, no
    matter his or her pay grade or area of expertise. NASA's
    employees consistently cite shared values, shared commitment to
    the mission, and loyalty to the agency as reasons why they feel
    positively engaged in their jobs. This sense of belonging fuels
    a deep sense of community at NASA, and this begins at the top.
    Administrator Charlie Bolden fundamentally believes that his
    communication is a cornerstone to connecting employees to
    NASA's mission, and he never misses an opportunity to tell
    employees that their work is important.
        Because our employees feel connected to the mission and to
    each other, we have a very positive work culture with a high
    level of employee engagement. But we are not satisfied with the
    status quo, and we are constantly searching for better ways to
    work.
        The health of our workforce is a top priority for NASA
    leadership. Our leadership pays attention to the Federal
    Employee Viewpoint Survey data and other indicators to monitor
    the state of the agency and to develop strategies for
    continually improving employee engagement, connection, and
    effectiveness.
        NASA believes that leaders and particularly supervisors
    play a unique role in creating a positive work environment for
    employees, so we continue to invest in a number of leadership
    development programs and activities across the agency from
    early career to executive, better designed to better equip
    current and future agency leaders to carry out our mission.
        While our 2015 survey results were extremely positive, we
    observed a few areas where we can continue to improve. In
    particular, we are currently working to improve the experience
    across our geographically dispersed centers so that we can
    close the gap on how employees feel they are valued and
    recognized. We also want to continue to focus on improving in
    areas where we've made progress such as innovation and
    performance management.
        Additionally, as part of the broader Federal Government
    community, NASA believes that we need to work together to
    leverage what's working across all Federal Government agencies.
    To that end, we are working with the Partnership for Public
    Service to find new and innovative ways to share promising
    practices across Federal agencies and to develop solutions that
    demonstrate how agencies can take action on those promising
    practices.
        In summary, NASA employees raise the bar of human
    achievement every day. They are passionate and dedicated men
    and women who overcome the huge challenges of exploring space
    and improving life on Earth. This is a workforce that is
    dedicated to ushering in the future of our nation, including
    developing new technologies with the goal of one day landing
    humans on Mars. NASA's employees are building a brighter future
    for us all and are extremely proud to be part of the NASA
    family.
        In my role, I am very privileged to have regular
    conversations with the many men and women who support and
    enable NASA's mission. We talk about what inspires them to show
    up to work every day, what commits them to stay engaged
    throughout their careers, and what new challenges they are up
    against. These people are NASA's most valuable asset and my
    number one priority. That is why I am proud of NASA's robust
    strategy to engage our workforce and create a culture of
    innovation. When I am asked why NASA is such a great place to
    work, I say it's about our people. Without them, nothing would
    be achieved.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today to share the story of NASA's workforce. I will
    be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Leo follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Leo.
        Ms. Bailey, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF ANGELA BAILEY

        Ms. Bailey. Thank you. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member
    Connolly, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to address our efforts
    to enhance employee engagement at DHS.
        I joined DHS in January of this year as a career Federal
    executive with nearly 35 years of service. Most of those years
    have been spent in human resources in the field and at agency
    headquarters. I'm responsible for the Department's overall
    human capital program, including providing human resource
    solutions for DHS headquarters employees.
        My office also supports employee engagement efforts led by
    the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. In fact, in my discussions
    with DHS prior to even coming on board and taking this job, the
    Under Secretary for Management made it very clear that employee
    engagement was a top priority for the Secretary and the
    Department, as a whole, and as you can imagine, it is also one
    of my top priorities.
        DHS is a large and complex agency that holds an
    extraordinary set of missions. Our employees, many of whom are
    on the frontlines, conduct difficult work under challenging
    circumstances.
        Recently, the Secret Service successfully protected 32
    heads of state during the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit in
    Washington, D.C.
        Transportation security officers discovered 58 firearms in
    carry-on bags around the Nation just last week, 49 of which
    were loaded, and 20 had a round chambered.
        The Coast Guard safely returned more than three dozen
    migrants found drifting in the Caribbean back to Cuba.
        The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, Customs
    and Border Protection officers, and Border Patrol agents and
    their partner agencies seized more than a ton of marijuana in a
    tunnel connecting California with Mexico. These are only a few
    examples.
        Clearly, DHS personnel, including those who provide
    critical assistance behind the scenes, do amazing work, are our
    greatest strength, and deserve all the support that we can give
    them.
        In my short time at DHS, I can tell you that from the top
    to the bottom, this department is laser-focused on supporting
    our workforce so that they can accomplish their missions.
    Engagement is a mission-critical leadership issue. I have seen
    firsthand how engaged our leaders are in embracing our
    workforce, and it is clearly a top priority.
        I was also encouraged to see that two of our components--
    Coast Guard and Citizenship and Immigration Services, with a
    combined total of 22,000 civilian employees--consistently score
    above the government-wide average on the Federal Employee
    Viewpoint Survey. We are leveraging their successful practices
    across the Department.
        The Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and the Under Secretary
    for Management have conducted numerous town halls across the
    country, thanking employees for their service, recognizing
    achievements, responding to questions, and receiving direct
    feedback on how we can improve our policies, our services, our
    operations, and even our opportunities for our employees.
        Both the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary have also
    employed ``undercover boss'' experiences to literally walk in
    the shoes of frontline employees and show their respect and
    appreciation for the tough jobs that they perform daily.
        DHS component leadership has also reached out directly to
    their employees during town halls. They have implemented crowd-
    sourcing idea-gathering. They have developed DHS-wide and
    component-specific leadership development to all levels of
    leadership.
        Since last year's testimony on this issue, we have
    accomplished quite a lot, including this year for the first
    time actions plans were signed by component leadership and
    submitted to the Under Secretary ensuring senior leaders'
    commitment and support.
        The Under Secretary and I are also working with
    representatives from all of the components through our Employee
    Engagement Steering Committee to ensure implementation of their
    plans and to share lessons learned and successful practices.
        A new department-wide employee engagement action plan,
    reflecting input from across DHS has three major focus areas:
    selecting and empowering high-performing leaders, developing
    excellent leaders at all levels, and enhancing communications.
    This has led to the deployment of new initiatives, including
    behavioral interview questions for all senior leadership
    positions ensuring we hire high-performing and engaged leaders,
    an online leadership resource center, which provides guidance
    and resources for all of DHS leaders covering a number of
    areas, including innovation toolkits, how to conduct meaningful
    town hall meetings, and stay interviews; and finally,
    accountability for SES with an engagement element added to our
    2016 SES performance plans.
        In addition, we're working with components to encourage
    employees to participate in the upcoming survey through
    messaging that states how feedback leads to ideas, and ideas
    leads to change, and change then leads to a more engaged
    workforce and increased morale.
        Every day, the men and women of DHS carry out difficult and
    dangerous work that is often unseen by the American public.
    They do an outstanding job and have a deep commitment to the
    mission. Through our efforts dedicated to employee engagement,
    we are determined to enhance their work experience and honor
    the contributions of our hardworking and dedicated workforce.
        Thank you again for supporting our employees, who protect
    us and our great Nation.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Bailey.
        Ms. Rose, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF SYDNEY ROSE

        Ms. Rose. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chairman
    Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and the distinguished members
    of the subcommittee. Thank you so much for the opportunity to
    participate in today's hearing.
        As the chief human capital officer for the United States
    Department of Labor, it is my privilege to report on the
    Department's climb in Best Places to Work rankings and to share
    our efforts of the past few years.
        In 2015, the Labor Department ranked 8th best place to work
    in the Federal Government. This was an improvement over our
    2014 ranking where we finally broke into the top 10. The
    Department received recognition from the Partnership for Public
    Service for receiving the most-improved scores for 2014 and
    2015. This was an incredible accomplishment for us.
        Our ranking and survey results have dramatically improved
    since 2013. Nearly 70 percent of the Department's sub-agencies
    improved in their 2015 rankings, and in fact, the Department's
    Bureau of International Labor Affairs was recognized as the
    most-improved subcomponent, having improved its ranking by an
    incredible 165 places.
        Secretary Tom Perez has made improving employee morale and
    engagement a top priority since the minute he arrived at the
    Department of Labor, and he has continually reinforced his
    commitment towards building a better DOL through employee input
    and feedback. He came to the Department with the belief that an
    engaged workforce is a more productive workforce. Virtually all
    communications from the Secretary's office now reinforce his
    commitment to and the importance of employee feedback.
        With his vision and well-communicated interest in improving
    workforce engagement, he appointed his deputy chief of staff,
    several members of the Secretary's office, and myself to lead
    employee engagement efforts. The team continues to meet weekly
    to discuss progress with regard to communications and various
    workplace initiatives and provides regular briefings to DOL
    leadership on a variety of workforce initiatives.
        One of the most important strategies was for the Department
    to improve our response rates. In 2013 the Department's
    response rate was 44.7 percent. In 2014, we increased to 71.7
    percent, and unbelievably, in 2015 we increased further to 76.5
    percent. To improve response rates, we sent out communications
    to employees throughout the year informing them how the survey
    was being used to implement changes.
        During the survey period, we sent frequent reminders from
    the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and DOL senior officials
    reminding them of the importance of the survey. We also used
    regularly scheduled meetings to remind agency leadership to
    encourage their employees to participate.
        Beginning in the summer of 2013, we conducted extensive
    data analysis and research, which included interviews with
    other agencies such as the Departments of Transportation and
    Justice in hopes of identifying strategies that we could
    consider and implement. Our efforts also focused on our labor-
    management relations. We worked closely with our labor unions
    to implement important workplace flexibilities and to develop
    and project positive workplace behaviors. Where possible, we
    tried to obtain pre-decisional input and engage in informal
    dispute resolution, as well as to utilize labor-management
    forums. In March, unions representing DOL employees were even
    invited to submit survey questions, eight of which we have
    included in this year's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
        In addition, we've worked to increase communication across
    the Department. We've held numerous town hall meetings and
    listening sessions and have visited all of DOL's regional
    offices. Employee questions are invited in advance and during
    the meetings. Electronic suggestion boxes are implemented, and
    we have even replaced those boxes now with IdeaMill, which is
    an electronic suggestion box and crowd-sourcing tool.
        Based on employee feedback we've received, we've
    implemented a number of new initiatives at the Department of
    Labor. We have a new policy that allows up to 40 hours of duty
    time for employees to participate in management-improved
    professional development activities. We created the ROAD
    program, which stands for Repository of Opportunities,
    Assignments, and Details. This allows managers to post
    opportunities that can be short-term and allow employees to
    apply.
        It goes without saying our civilian workforce is our
    greatest asset, and we continually strive to increase their
    engagement. We welcome your questions.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Rose follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Rose.
        Ms. Brooks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF TOWANDA BROOKS

        Ms. Brooks. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before you today to testify on behalf of the Department
    of Housing and Urban Development regarding the Best Places to
    Work in the Federal Government.
        I became the chief human capital officer for the Department
    of Housing and Urban Development in 2015 and have been a member
    of the Senior Executive Service since May 2009. As CHCO, I lead
    HUD's Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and oversee
    implementation of the Department's human capital management
    strategies, policies, and initiatives in support of HUD's
    mission.
        HUD's mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive
    communities and quality affordable homes for all. It is our
    nearly 8,000 employees who carry out the Department's mission
    on behalf of millions of hardworking American families in all
    50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories and the
    four insular areas every day.
        The link between an employee's engagement and mission
    accomplishment is well documented in private and public sector
    research, as well as in HUD's own experience. When we use
    employee engagement as a measure of success for the Department,
    we make HUD a better workplace and in turn improve outcomes for
    the American people.
        The best available measure for employee engagement in the
    Federal service is the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. In
    2015, HUD was recognized by the Office of Personnel Management
    as the most-improved agency for employee engagement and by the
    Partnership for Public Service as the most-improved midsized
    agency on their annual Best Places to Work in the Federal
    Government index.
        The Department improved its EVS scores on 69 out of 71
    questions, with an average increase of nearly 5 percentage
    points. Two indicates significant movement. Notably, our
    employee engagement score rose to 61.8 percent, HUD's second-
    highest mark since OPM began keeping records and just short of
    our all-time high in 2012.
        HUD also was the most-improved agency in the government on
    the ``New IQ,'' a measure of workplace inclusion and
    empowerment. HUD increased a full 5 points, while the
    government overall only increased 1 point. Employees ranked
    their leaders and supervisors 6 percent and 5 percent higher
    than the prior the year, and their overall view of their jobs
    improved 5 percent.
        And a record number of employees filled out the survey. HUD
    achieved its highest participation rate on record, as 74
    percent of its employees took the survey. In 2014, HUD's level
    of participation was just 51 percent.
        HUD's improved employee engagement scores are due in large
    part to the commitment made by HUD's most senior leaders.
    Secretary Castro and Deputy Secretary Coloretti have made
    employee engagement a sustained priority, and they have shown
    employees that their feedback is taken seriously. The Secretary
    and Deputy Secretary placed a strong emphasis on responding to
    employees' requests through HUD's internal social media tools,
    including HUDConnect, which provides ways to directly solicit
    and receive employee feedback. They also prioritize meeting
    with employees in HUD headquarters and in its regional and
    field offices and through regional town halls. In addition, the
    Deputy Secretary is carrying out an ambitious management agenda
    through a series of collaborative deep-dive projects aimed at
    strengthening the Department.
        We also attribute HUD's increase in employee engagement to
    proactively sharing the 2014 and 2015 EVS results with
    employees. We provided opportunities to all HUD employees to
    access and interpret the EVS results. In particular, we
    provided detailed briefings for managers, identifying not just
    areas of strength and opportunity, but appropriate peer offices
    for comparisons and sharing best practices. As a result,
    managers were able to learn more about the experiences of their
    career employees, not just at the agency level, but often at
    the individual office and division levels. These steps have led
    to real change in our various program offices.
        In conclusion, currently HUD is engaged in a planning
    process that ensures employee engagement will remain a priority
    in 2016 and beyond. OCHCO is continuing to provide all HUD
    employees with access to HUD's EVS data so they understand the
    opportunities and challenges in their work unit and how the
    changes they make contribute to HUD's ability to meet our
    mission.
        I've served 26 years in the Federal Government, and I know
    from experience that having a committed workforce is essential
    to delivering the best service to the American people. One of
    the most important measures of the quality of a Federal
    workplace is engagement of its employees. As such, while
    managing OCHCO operations, I have also championed leadership
    development, diversity and inclusion, and employee engagement.
        HUD's employees are essential to fulfilling our mission.
    Their success is HUD's success, and I'm proud to serve them and
    the American people.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Brooks follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Ms. Brooks.
        Mr. Stier, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF MAX STIER

        Mr. Stier. There we go. Thank you so much, Chairman
    Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, Congressman Mulvaney, for
    having this hearing. It's phenomenal that you're shining a
    spotlight on such an important issue. Thank you also for the
    trips you've been taking to Federal agencies. It's a really
    terrific thing. I've heard great feedback, and building more
    relationships between Congress and the executive branch is
    absolutely vital.
        Ranking Member Connolly, you raised the question in your
    opening statement about is it NASA's mission? I would tell you
    it is not the mission; it's leadership. What the data says
    across the board is you've got a highly committed workforce,
    whatever they're doing, if they're working at GSA or HUD. But
    where you have great leadership, you have engaged employees.
    And when I say great leaders, that really breaks down to a set
    of different issues that includes the ability to communicate
    effectively, get good information out, build trust with the
    employees, and also create a performance culture that's
    absolutely essential.
        And I would note that, again, Chairman Meadows, you cited
    some terrific stats at the front end. There are some good
    stories, some bad stories. There's a lot of room for
    improvement, and I think focusing on agencies--I'm proud to be
    on this panel of all the folks here who are great public
    servants. It's a great way of bringing up the good things that
    our folks are doing that they can spread across government.
        I want to focus my time, however, on making four
    recommendations of things that I think you all can do to help
    improve government management through improving government
    employee engagement. And the first and foremost, that would be
    modernizing the statute that is the basis for the information
    and all the work that you're doing here right now, the Federal
    Employee Viewpoint Survey.
        The statute was part of the 2004 NDAA and now needs to be
    modernized for four different reasons, most important, and that
    is that OPM is in the process right now of rewriting the
    regulations. There are 45 required questions. They're bringing
    that down to 11. A number of the questions that you cited,
    Chairman Meadows, in that beginning, will not have to be
    required going forward if those regulations go through.
        I think it's essential that this committee weigh in on
    making sure that critical information is actually gathered. OPM
    has done a terrific job. This is a change that I think
    unfortunately would unravel some important things, including
    our ability to do the Best Places to Work rankings, because one
    of our three key questions would be removed from the
    regulations as well. So we hope that the committee will look,
    number one, at trying to ensure that the right questions are
    actually included in the survey.
        Number two, the survey needs to be conducted every year by
    the Office of Personnel Management. The statue currently does
    not require that to happen. Kudos, frankly, to OPM under the
    Obama administration, they've chosen to do it every year.
    Clearly, it's a more efficient operation to have one entity do
    the survey for all of government, and it's both cost-effective
    and it enables comparison across agencies, which you lose if
    OPM isn't required to do it for everybody. So that would be the
    second point on change that we think would be really important.
        The third piece which is absolutely vital is getting the
    information out much faster. OPM has accelerated the time, and
    you'll see some nodding heads here about that. The truth of the
    matter is that you ask someone's opinion about what can be
    improved in their agency, and if they don't see anything done
    with that opinion for 6 months or 7 months or 8 months, that's
    a real problem. The only way the agencies can actually do
    anything with this is if that that information is turned around
    a lot faster. And therefore, I think that's a place, again,
    where you could legislatively put some, you know, incentives to
    make sure that it's getting out there much faster, not just the
    agencies, but to the public for organizations like the
    Partnership for Public Service.
        And finally, we think information should actually be
    reported by occupation because that would enable really
    critical comparisons across the board wherever feasible.
        So three other very quick suggestions for improvements that
    this committee could lead the way on, and the second one would
    be making sure that political leaders are actually held
    accountable for addressing engagement.
        So one interesting thing that goes on here, we talk about a
    performance culture. In any other organization I've seen, you
    have the top leadership that has certain expectations that
    cascade down to the rest of the organization. The career
    workforce have performance plan obligations. The political
    workforce doesn't. Some agencies require performance plans for
    political appointees, but that's frankly a rarity. That ought
    to be done across the board so the career workforce can
    actually see how their work lines up against the priorities at
    the top for the agencies. And that should include a focus on
    talent management and employee engagement.
        Number three would be improving the effort to create a
    culture of recognition and improve manager performance. So this
    is an area that I hope I can come back to. But we should be
    switching to probation period presumption that you
    automatically become non-probationary after you come through a
    year. Rather, our view is that a manager should actually have
    to make that choice. And the same goes for someone coming into
    a management position. If we have time at the end here or
    during your questions, I'd love to get into that.
        And then the last piece I would like to focus on is just
    what you're seeing here, the sharing of best practice. To my
    mind, everything that should happen in the Federal Government
    is happening somewhere, just not in all the places it needs to.
    And we need to figure out ways to scale best practice, and
    that's a place your oversight can make a very big difference.
        Thank you very much.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Meadows. Well, I thank each of you for your testimony.
        Max, obviously, some of those recommendations are spot on,
    but I would like to share that in other hearings other than
    those with a title like we have today, employee engagement
    continues to be a big issue.
        After my visit to NASA, I can tell you that we had a few
    others that were here, and I suggested that they get with NASA
    in terms of that employee engagement component to see what they
    are doing. Now, I wrote myself a note so I am going to see the
    next time they come back if they actually got with you.
        But with that, I am going to go ahead and recognize the
    gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mulvaney, for 5 minutes for
    his opening questions.
        Mr. Mulvaney. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Bailey, I don't want to appear to be beating up on you,
    but I don't know if you are--the coincidence of your being here
    today, we just had a hearing this morning regarding TSA, which
    I think is in your department, isn't it?
        Ms. Bailey. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. That didn't go very well. They weren't
    very happy. The subject matter of the hearing--were you here
    for that?
        Ms. Bailey. No, sir, I wasn't.
        Mr. Mulvaney. The ----
        Ms. Bailey. No, sir, I was not.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. The subject of the hearing was some of
    the issues that we have been facing with whistleblowers and so
    forth. We had two folks here who feel like they had been
    mistreated, and I had some stories from my district about
    folks--and I am not laying blame because I know that is not
    your department, but that was the subject matter of this
    morning's hearing is how could TSA be run a little bit better.
    And I listened to what the chairman had to say about DHS, what
    you had to say about DHS, and, again, I can't blame you because
    you have only been there for, what, 3 months or something like
    that?
        Ms. Bailey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mulvaney. And I get that. So I guess if I wanted to
    skip all of the rhetoric and get down to the bottom line, when
    is it going to get better at DHS? You all are last. When can we
    expect you to, say, be in the top half judged by your own
    employees' feedback on what kind of place this is to work? Top
    half by when?
        Ms. Bailey. I do believe, sir, that with all of the efforts
    that we have actually put in--put forth within this last year
    and actually for the last couple of years, I do think that what
    we're going to see is actual improvement in our EVS scores.
    There is an absolute dedicated commitment. We agree leadership
    matters most. We have--from the Secretary to the Deputy
    Secretary to the Under Secretary and on down, we've made a
    concerted effort to get out and listen to the employees and
    find out ----
        Mr. Mulvaney. And, Ms. Bailey, again, I don't want to cut
    you off, that is fine. That is what we call rhetoric. That is
    not really--everybody says that. Everybody says it is a
    critical thing--everybody says the same thing now. At NASA and
    DOL and HUD, it is actually working. They made it a priority
    and they have listened to the people. Everybody uses words we
    have had town hall meetings with our employees. We get that,
    okay, and that is the right thing to do. But our question is
    when is it actually going to work? All right.
        So let's pretend that we are not a congressional hearing
    and you are a private company. You are working with Google and
    you are the human resources chairman at Google, and everybody
    and Google hates working at Google. And you come into the board
    of directors and you say, okay, here is what we are going to do
    to fix it. We are going to do our town hall meetings and we are
    going to do all these wonderful things. And we turn to you and
    say, okay, when will it get better? What is your answer?
        Ms. Bailey. Well, if I may, sir, everybody does not hate
    coming to work to DHS. In fact, most of the men and women at
    DHS are incredibly proud to work at DHS. When things get better
    actually is whenever we're able to make concrete changes that
    affect their lives positively.
        Mr. Mulvaney. How did you all do on the percentage of
    employees who had a positive thing to say about the honesty and
    integrity of leadership? The average across the whole system is
    50. How did you all do?
        Ms. Bailey. I'm not sure, sir.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Probably worse than 50? Maybe? Probably? I
    don't have the numbers in front of me. But again, you are last,
    and if that is average, it is fair to say that you are last.
    And again, we are not trying to beat up on you. All we want to
    know is when is it going to get better? And just let us know.
    If it is a year, that is fine, if it is 3 years, that is fine,
    but I will let you know the next question is, okay, if you tell
    us it is going to be 3 years, what is the penalty for when it
    isn't? Because at some point--in fact, the gentlemen who were
    here this morning, very insightful, down-to-earth guys, they
    said, look, the only way it is going to get better at TSA is
    when we have accountable leadership. That is it, period, end of
    story.
        So my question is when are we going to have accountable
    leadership? And if we don't, who pays the price? Because right
    now, I think the people who are paying the price, at TSA at
    least, are the employees and the public, which that is a really
    bad group to have to pay the price. The people who are running
    the organization at DHS and TSA are not paying the price. The
    people who work there are paying the price. The people they are
    supposed to serve are paying the price.
        And we are going to try to turn that upside down to where
    the people who pay the price for failure are the people who are
    responsible for failure. At TSA, the people who wait in line to
    get through the security are not the ones who are not doing
    their job. In fact, what we heard today, and if you believe
    them--and I tend to do it--is the folks who actually work there
    on the line. The folks meeting face-to-face with the public are
    not the folks who are not doing their job. It is the folks, no
    offense, at your level and higher who are not doing their job.
    And what we are interested in is trying to create a system
    where the people who are screwing up are the people who pay the
    price and not the people who are sort of the victims or the
    folks who are ending up on the short end of the stick.
        So my question to you before my time and out is, give us a
    date. When will you all get better?
        Ms. Bailey. I believe that we will make incremental
    improvements beginning this year.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. That is great. And I look forward to
    the hearing next year, and if you are not last here, I will be
    the first to congratulate you. I would love to see you in the
    most-improved categories like DOL and HUD.
        I am sorry. I didn't want to focus on the negative, but we
    did just have this hearing this morning. But if you are last
    here or you haven't made--you know, if you are next-to-last,
    this hearing might be less fun than it was this year.
        Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, Mr. Connelly, for questions.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
        And I think my friend from South Carolina makes some very
    important points, and in listening to his questioning, I
    reflected on the 20 years I spent in the private sector in
    management. And one of the principles certainly that I think is
    applicable is that you have to differentiate between performers
    and nonperformers, people with stellar performance and people
    with adequate or sub-adequate performance. If you treat
    everybody's performance the same when it comes to recognition,
    you are saying to your stellar performers I can come in early
    and stay late, I can donate time on the weekends and it doesn't
    matter. I am going to be treated like Harry Houdini there who
    is a clock-watcher, shows up at 9:00 and leaves promptly at
    5:00 and never volunteers for anything. And as far as
    management is concerned, we are the same.
        And, Mr. Stier, I am looking at a statistic that says 73
    percent of private sector workers believe management recognizes
    superior performance, but in the public sector, only 44 percent
    believes that. That tells me there is a problem if we are going
    to get at what Mr. Mulvaney was talking about, which is, okay,
    give me a time frame where we want to see this improve. Part of
    the solution, it seems to me, or part of the problem is this
    recognition-of-performance problem. Do you want to comment on
    that, Max?
        Mr. Stier. I think you're 100 percent right. I think,
    frankly, you need definitely to be able to recognize good
    performance if you want to encourage that to be the norm. And
    we don't have a culture of performance recognition in
    government, and that's one of the reasons why I think Federal
    employees are risk-averse. They see real downside and no real
    upside. So you have to provide that upside in order to be able
    to get the innovation that you want. Again, I think--not to
    pick on NASA in this context, but that's an area that they
    focus a lot on, and I think that's extremely important.
        If I might also add, it's also very important not to roll
    up too much in the way of the data. So we talk about Department
    of Homeland Security being last. It's a very large organization
    and with multiple subcomponents, some of which are doing
    extremely well like the Coast Guard, which we heard about
    earlier. And so I think you need to disaggregate to some
    degree. Certainly, you need to hold top leadership accountable
    for the whole thing, but there are bright spots at DHS that
    ought to be, you know, recognized, as you're suggesting here.
        But your point is phenomenally important. We have the
    Service to America medals, the CMEs where we find extraordinary
    people. Next week, we have a breakfast--the 4th, the 3rd. I
    hope you'll be there, just awesome stories about what you get
    when government is doing really right.
        Mr. Connolly. I remember once in the private sector working
    with somebody, the head of a big division, and he had a bonus
    pool that year, at bonus time, and he decided to give everyone
    a $250 bonus rather than make the tough decision of Mr. Meadows
    gets one because of stellar performance and Mr. Connelly
    doesn't because we know what. He is a Democrat.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Connolly. No, no, that is not true. But if you don't do
    that differentiation, you are saying to everybody, we are going
    to dummy down to the mean, and that is not how to get high
    performance, and it actually has a morale effect on the high
    performers because I feel unappreciated.
        All right. I want to push back just a little bit, Mr.
    Stier, about you are saying, well, it is really about
    leadership more than mission. That is a little hard to believe.
    So, Ms. Leo, how many agencies were kind of put together to
    form NASA? How many agencies do you represent here?
        Ms. Leo. One agency.
        Mr. Connolly. One. You have got a lot of missions? I mean,
    you go to Mars, get a man on the moon--so I was a person--space
    shuttle is over, I mean, are you doing oceanographic research,
    climate change research. I mean, have you got a lot of missions
    that ----
        Ms. Leo. We're doing a plethora of missions.
        Mr. Connolly. Plethora ----
        Ms. Leo. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly.--of missions. Ms. Bailey, I guess you get a
    plethora of missions?
        Ms. Bailey. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Connolly. So you have got TSA, you have got Customs?
        Ms. Bailey. Correct.
        Mr. Connolly. You have got Border Control?
        Ms. Bailey. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. You have got Secret Service?
        Ms. Bailey. Correct.
        Mr. Connolly. What else did you get? You got 22 agencies
    when you were formed?
        Ms. Bailey. Yes, we have 22 agencies.
        Mr. Connolly. So that is a world of difference than sort of
    the cohesive mission that helps provide an organizing principle
    for NASA.
        Ms. Bailey. Well ----
        Mr. Connolly. Would that be fair?
        Ms. Bailey. That is fair.
        Mr. Connolly. How many employees you got?
        Ms. Bailey. Close to 240,000.
        Mr. Connolly. And how many have you got, Ms. Leo?
        Ms. Leo. About 17,000 civil servants.
        Mr. Connolly. A quarter of a million almost, 17,000.
        Well, I am going to accuse my friend Max Stier of
    oversimplifying. I think DHS has a much more difficult task
    from day one. That is not to let anyone off the hook, but many
    orders of magnitude different than NASA's wonderful success.
    And good for you. I would bet you Ms. Bailey is sitting there
    thinking I wish I had Ms. Leo's problems because trying to
    bring all this together in one happy family when it--and I was
    in the private sector, and we were a contractor to the
    administration trying to figure out this new thing called the
    Department of Homeland Security. I remember looking at the org
    charts and trying to figure out, well, what would go where and
    who would go where and what is the logic of it? And sometimes
    there was logic and sometimes there wasn't. So trying to cohere
    all of that and infuse it with mission and morale and
    productivity is a challenge. And, Max, you want to redeem
    yourself a little bit?
        Mr. Stier. I do. I feel like the ranking member ----
        Mr. Connolly. And then I will ----
        Mr. Stier.--has filibustered here and not offered me an
    opportunity to respond here.
        Mr. Meadows. That would never happen.
        Mr. Connolly We don't filibuster here in the House of
    Representatives, Mr. Stier.
        Mr. Stier. All right.
        Mr. Connolly. We are not the Senate.
        Mr. Stier. All right. Well, so if I might, Mr. Chairman,
    respond?
        Mr. Meadows. Yes, go ahead and respond quickly.
        Mr. Stier. Okay.
        Mr. Meadows. I think we have got votes pretty soon ----
        Mr. Stier. Okay.
        Mr. Meadows.--so that's why I'm ----
        Mr. Stier. Just very quickly in all seriousness, there's no
    question that an organization of 240,000 people is a much
    trickier proposition that an organization of 17,000. However,
    that's a different question about saying whether it's the
    mission or it's the leadership. If you look across this table
    and you ask each of these individuals, are they at their agency
    because they want to be at their agency, my bet is they'll say
    they care about housing, they care about labor, they care
    about, you know, homeland security, they care about the issues
    at NASA.
        The Federal workforce, if you look at the data, says that
    by and large the employees are as mission-committed across the
    board as any organization. Where you see the differential is in
    their perspective of their leadership, not in their mission
    commitment. And that is true, and to your point earlier in the
    private sector, same thing. People who care about NASA issues
    are at NASA. People who care about homeland security, law
    enforcement, whatever issues are at DHS. What differentiates
    their views about their work environment and whether they're
    engaged is whether they believe that their leadership is giving
    them the resources they need to do their jobs well, whether
    they can see from what they do how they're connected to the
    overall mission, whether they, you know--on and on and on.
    That's where the clear--that's what the data shows.
        I'd love to continue this conversation further. The
    turnaround issue is a separate one about the size that DHS has
    to deal with. That's one reason why I say break it into blocks,
    into the subcomponents. Thank you.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you. The chair recognizes
    himself for a series of questions.
        So I will give you a soft ball. So, Mr. Stier, is it always
    the large agencies that perform the poorest, or have we had
    examples of very small agencies that have had very poor
    rankings in the past, so like Chemical Safety Board?
        Mr. Stier. Well, or, you know, bluntly, I'm--you know, I
    will take a DHS example. Look at the Secret Service, which was
    an organization that actually had very high scores that you've
    seen decline over the course of the last 4 and 5 years. And I
    would posit that that's about leadership again. When you look
    at the--you know, the FDIC and the SEC, they swapped places in
    our rankings. I think that's about leadership. One was on the
    top, one was at the bottom. They flipped it, and that--so
    that's what you see.
        The large--I mean, this is a statistical issue. The larger
    you get, the more close to the mean you're likely to get, and
    so that's going to drive your ----
        Mr. Meadows. Is that why we rank them out as most improved
    for large agencies ----
        Mr. Stier. Absolutely.
        Mr. Meadows.--medium-size, small agencies, et cetera?
        Mr. Stier. Absolutely. And at some point you slice it too
    much so the reality is we keep getting asked, well, we're not--
    we're a large agency but we're 240,000, we're not like 15,000,
    but you can only do so much ----
        Mr. Meadows. Right. If you get it down small enough, you
    become the best and worst of the subsets.
        Mr. Stier. Super large, exactly.
        Mr. Meadows. So ----
        Mr. Stier. But I think the bottom line here is that you
    look at the data, leadership is like two-thirds of what's
    driving what we're seeing here. And that's, you know, political
    leadership--and there's things you can do, which is what I've
    suggested, to help encourage the better behaviors.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So, Ms. Leo, when you are on the
    top, everybody guns for that top position. So how have you
    managed to stay on the top for 4 years running? Because some of
    the most critical surveys in the automobile industry actually
    go towards Lexus and Mercedes-Benz and some of the ones that
    you would think of very high quality because the expectation
    rises along with that. So the expectations are that you are
    going to be number one from here on out. How do you manage that
    expectation and continue to deliver satisfaction to your
    employees?
        Ms. Leo. Well, thank you for the question. We are really
    focused on our trend, and so we want to see our trend continue
    to go up. And so I think--we think that if someone overtakes us
    because their trend goes--they increase more than ours, as long
    as we're still increasing and listening to the feedback of our
    employees, that's a good-news story because ----
        Mr. Meadows. All right.
        Ms. Leo.--it really is about the health of the Federal
    Government.
        Mr. Meadows. Valid point. All right. So, Ms. Rose, your
    energy was obvious in your testimony earlier, so, you know, I
    wish you would get a little energetic.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Meadows. But how do you make that energy--obviously you
    have--contagious in the Department of Labor? I mean, we have
    talked about engagement and other things, but how have you been
    able to do that, you know, other than town hall meetings and
    things? Why do they feel like they are important, your rank-
    and-file?
        Ms. Rose. I think it's because we're not just listening but
    we're doing as a result of our listening.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Now, that was the answer that I
    wanted to hear, and so thank you for that response.
        Ms. Rose. You're welcome.
        Mr. Meadows. Because here is the interesting thing is we
    can do a number of surveys, and I used to be in that business.
    You would send the surveys out. If you got the information, you
    checked the box, you did the surveys, and if nothing happened
    with those results, two things happened. One is employee morale
    went down. Two, I guess the participation rates in subsequent
    years went down.
        And so if you are doing that, I saw the recommendation is
    that the feedback gets quicker and then everybody started
    nodding and getting quicker. And I see some people in the
    audience nodding as well when I say that now. How do we do that
    effectively without making it a management--well, without
    making it laborious on management where then we are essentially
    surveying to survey to make sure that we are checking the box?
    And, Max, how do we make it quicker?
        Mr. Stier. I think, one, to recognize OPM has made it
    faster already but there's more that can be done. An example is
    the survey is held open for 3 months. It doesn't need to be
    that way in my view in today's day and age. There's a lot of
    technology and methodology that allows it to be done in a
    shorter time horizon.
        So if you start asking people in the beginning of April,
    which is what's happening right now, surveys in the field, and
    you're not done until the end of June, that already means that
    folks that got their opinion asked in April are waiting forever
    before their information is actually collected.
        I think that, like with a lot of things, this is a place
    where you can legislate and say this is our expectation, that
    this is the private sector benchmark and we expect the
    government to meet it. And if you did that, I think we would
    wind up with a faster turnaround and, as I might add, it should
    be public as well.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, and as you know, we are going to
    continue to highlight this not for the benefit of this
    committee but for the benefit of the workforce, the 2 million
    Federal workers that I continue to hear each and every day of
    both wonderful applause and frustration sometimes going hand-
    in-hand, and that is why we are going to do it.
        So let me close before I recognize the gentleman from
    Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
        Ms. Bailey, let me come to you, and one is a positive and
    one is a negative. So let me give you the positive first.
        I was able to hear from the Coast Guard here recently, and
    one of the wonderful parts of your group is the Coast Guard and
    their ranking being much higher than some of the others within
    your purview of 22 different agencies. So as we see the Coast
    Guard, one of the things that impressed me was the number of
    volunteer hours that the Coast Guard has put in place right
    here in the District. I mean, the numbers were mind-boggling,
    and in fact, the gentleman I saw had a sunburn because he had
    been out volunteering on a weekend to actually clean up a park
    here in D.C.
        And so I want to just publicly say thank you for--if you
    will pass along my thank you and recognition to the thousands
    of hours, not just with the Coast Guard but that was a
    particular example because it seemed above and beyond in terms
    of the average, but the thousands of volunteer hours that have
    been put forth from the Department of Homeland Security, so
    applause there.
        Ms. Bailey. Thank you.
        Mr. Meadows. My concern--and so we will come to the other
    second part of this--is that in March of this year the
    commissioner for CBP actually told agents, and I will quote
    when it was with regards to President Obama's Executive order,
    he says, well, if you don't like it, it is time to ``look for
    another job.'' Can you imagine in any place where that would be
    encouraging to employee morale?
        Ms. Bailey. Sorry about that. I wasn't sure with the
    button.
        I do understand with regard to that situation. We have had
    conversations with Customs and Border Protection, and they're
    working with them on ways to engage with the workforce with
    regard to the policies that they carry out and to ensure that
    everybody really kind of in some way sees engagement as a team
    sport and ----
        Mr. Meadows. So engagement means engagement at another
    agency?
        Ms. Bailey. No ----
        Mr. Meadows. Because looking for another job that would--
    and here is my concern, and so here I want to make the message
    clear. Secret Service, CBP, you know, when we look at some of
    those, the bottom four in terms of the component, we have to
    see improvement there. We get more whistleblowers and concerns
    from people out of those particular components under your
    supervision than any others in the entire Federal workforce.
    And because of that, it lets me know that there is a big
    problem.
        And so do I have your commitment that within the next 120
    days that you will have a plan on how we are going to address
    those four lowest in terms of improvement? Do I have your
    commitment to do that?
        Ms. Bailey. Yes, sir, absolutely, because we are actually--
    we have quite a few things underway right now.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you, Ms. Bailey.
        And I will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Grothman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Sure. I want to talk to Ms. Rose a little
    bit. You are kind of one of the stars of the day because your
    satisfaction scores are some of the biggest increases out here.
    Could you just give us a general background on some of the
    initiatives that you may have started in the last few years
    that are reasons for the big increase in your scores?
        Ms. Rose. Yes, I would be delighted to. The listening
    sessions which started the whole thing were extremely ----
        Mr. Grothman. See, that is the nicest question asked by any
    of them, so ----
        Ms. Rose. Which started the whole thing, and it goes back
    to what Chairman Meadows discussed with me. We gathered data
    and we looked for things that we could do, things we could do
    right away based on employee feedback and suggestions and
    things that were longer term. Employees told us we think you
    could do a better job training supervisors and managers,
    preparing people to be leaders at DOL. So we built a curriculum
    specifically to address that, and we call it Leading at Labor.
    And we just started an Emerging Leaders program, which gives
    people who have aspirations towards leadership roles at the
    Department a chance to start acquiring some skills in that
    direction.
        We did simple things. People said, can we have a microwave
    in the cafeteria? It would be really nice to have someplace to
    warm our food at lunchtime. We put microwaves in the cafeteria.
    We did small things, we did large things, we did long-term
    things, and then we kept telling people what we were doing. You
    said this, we did this. You suggested this, we're looking at
    this. So it's a continual dialogue with our workforce.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Is there anything you did in particular
    to address leadership styles among your folks?
        Ms. Rose. The leadership training that I mentioned is
    really focused more on soft skills. Most of our leaders are in
    the positions they're in because they are very good at the
    technical aspects of the work they do. But we decided to offer
    a curriculum that really addressed the soft skills, the soft
    side of leading, how to communicate, how to inspire, how to
    challenge, how to lead.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Now, I see on the screen next to me
    that they are calling votes on the Floor. That is what they pay
    us the big bucks for. Mr. Chairman, you want to take over?
        Mr. Meadows. Sure. If the gentleman yields back, the chair
    will recognize Mr. Jordan for a few questions, and then we will
    ----
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Chairman.
        Mr. Stier, the Partnership for Public Service, so here is
    what I want to know. So we got this survey and we are talking
    to Federal employees and we do it every year and we find out,
    you know, the satisfaction, what they think about their working
    environment and everything else. Is there work that you have
    done that actually looks at it from the taxpayer perspective,
    from citizens who have to interact with these Federal agencies?
        And do you see a correlation between agencies that have
    dissatisfied employees and the satisfaction or lack of
    satisfaction taxpayers and citizens experience when interacting
    with that respective agency?
        Mr. Stier. That's a terrific question, and the answer is
    yes, you do see that correlation. We don't have as much
    research done in the public sector as I'd like to see done, but
    in the private sector, there's a ton of data that show improved
    employee engagement, shows improved performance, increases
    bottom line ----
        Mr. Jordan. Which is what we would all expect.
        Mr. Stier. The VA actually has some good data that shows in
    those hospitals where they have higher employee engagement
    rates, you have higher customer service ----
        Mr. Jordan. Exactly what we would expect.
        Mr. Stier. Yes. It's what you would expect and it's there.
    What's also interesting is, subsequent to our starting the Best
    Places to Work rankings, the Government of Great Britain,
    Australia, Canada, you're now seeing this as a global
    phenomenon where other countries are recognizing that a good
    way to hold leadership accountable is to listen to the
    employees and to focus on employee engagement. So it ----
        Mr. Jordan. So the fact that DHS continues to be at the
    bottom, the worst, employee satisfaction is the lowest at that
    particular agency also most likely means that the taxpayers who
    have to interact with them, as Mr. Mulvaney pointed out today,
    specifically taxpayers have to interact with TSA probably also
    aren't too satisfied with the kind of service they are getting
    from that particular agency?
        Mr. Stier. I would say it is slightly differently, and I'll
    give you the reason why.
        Mr. Jordan. Okay.
        Mr. Stier. I think that there is an opportunity to improve
    taxpayer results by improving the quality of the leadership
    experience of the employees at DHS.
        Mr. Jordan. Well, that is good. I mean ----
        Mr. Stier. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan.--you said it ----
        Mr. Stier. But I say that because I think it's still the
    case--I mean, that's one of the reasons why I'm all for the
    best places to work and not the worst places. I still think
    that the American taxpayer is getting a lot of good service
    from DHS.
        Mr. Jordan. Well ----
        Mr. Stier. There's an opportunity to make it better is my
    only point.
        Mr. Jordan. Well, I am not saying--you said it in ----
        Mr. Stier. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan.--the glass-half-full way. That is fine.
        Mr. Stier. That's the way my mom taught me.
        Mr. Jordan. No, that is good, and I appreciate that. Some
    agencies I would use the glass half full, others I wouldn't.
    And one I wouldn't is the Internal Revenue Service.
        I notice on the list, Department of Treasury, 16 out of 19
    when it comes to the big agencies, and more specifically, an
    agency that every single taxpayer has to interact with, some of
    these--I bet I don't have that many people who have to interact
    with NASA, right, taxpayers, probably just doesn't. But I know
    I have got a bunch of folks I get the privilege to represent
    who have to interact with the Internal Revenue Service. And
    they are in the lower third when it comes to employee work
    satisfaction, and they are going down.
        And meanwhile, we have this same agency, when you talk to
    any taxpayer out there, the answer, lack of answers to
    questions, and you talk to some who have been systematically
    targeted by the Internal Revenue Service, I mean, this to me is
    an important correlation where IRS is way down the list and
    then when you talk to taxpayers, oh, my goodness, when they
    have to deal with that agency, their level of dissatisfaction,
    probably off the charts, too. Do you have any specific
    information or data on that particular one?
        Mr. Stier. Well, first and foremost, you noted, you know,
    IRS is part of Treasury. It's the biggest part of the Treasury
    Department.
        Mr. Jordan. Yes.
        Mr. Stier. It drives the numbers there. You know, one thing
    I would note is we think there's an opportunity to actually --
    --
        Mr. Jordan. And I would say this ----
        Mr. Stier. Yes, please.
        Mr. Jordan.--just to interrupt, when you look at the
    numbers of the lower four, DHS being the last, but the lower
    four, two of them are going up in satisfaction of employees.
    IRS is going down even--their employee satisfaction with their
    working environment is going down even faster and lower than
    DHS. So they are moving--if this continues, it will be a couple
    of years where Ms. Bailey won't have to take all the tough
    questions; it will be Mr. Koskinen from the IRS taking it. If
    he is not already gone, he will be the one having to answer the
    tough questions.
        Mr. Stier. Well, two quick things, the one is that we think
    there is an opportunity at the Partnership to do something
    around customer service similar to best places around employee
    engagement, and that would be to create a common customer
    service index for the Federal Government. And that would be a
    way that you would get more of your, you know, better
    correlations, but frankly, it would provide good accountability
    information for government agencies. That's a conversation that
    we would welcome to have. So that'd be terrific. Thank you.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Brooks, let me ask
    you one question because obviously you have got a long ways to
    go but you have made unbelievable improvements. So what one
    piece of advice maybe to Ms. Bailey or others who are watching
    saying what one piece of advice if we were to give them one
    thing to improve that you have seen make the biggest difference
    at HUD? What would that be?
        Ms. Brooks. Leadership involvement and looking at the data
    and understanding the data.
        Mr. Meadows. So getting leadership to actually look at the
    data and then actually having interaction with the team?
        Ms. Brooks. Yes.
        Mr. Meadows. Because I have experienced that in a personal
    way with Ms. Leo and the team there at NASA. I mean, we were
    teleconferenced all over. And we didn't have some of the
    leadership in there even though it was a leadership part
    because they wanted to free it up to allow for very candid
    discussions with a Member of Congress.
        But what you are saying is having leadership involved and
    then having it open and transparent where there is no
    retaliation with regards to what the comments that are made?
        Ms. Brooks. Yes. First and foremost, we wanted to make sure
    that we had full participation from employees, so we got the
    participation up so we could have the data. And then we had all
    leadership involved to be able to look at the data and metadata
    available to everyone. And we broke the data down to--for every
    organization within HUD and had employees at every level to be
    able to look at the data and broke it down into engagement
    plans for every organization.
        Mr. Meadows. Well ----
        Ms. Brooks. And I think that was the biggest gain for our
    organization was to be able to look at the data, understand it,
    and act on it.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, thank you, Ms. Brooks. I want to just
    say thank you so much. Does the ranking member have a comment?
        Mr. Connolly. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just wanted to follow up a little bit on the IRS, Mr.
    Stier, because, presumably, if your agency were called before
    Congress on real and bogus allegations for dozens of times, if
    over $1 billion of your budget was slashed, if people couldn't
    fill vacancies even through attrition because of those
    cutbacks, if your technology was getting more and more ancient
    every day and you have, you know, hard drive collapses and all
    kinds of problems integrating systems and so forth, and you
    couldn't even meet customer satisfaction standards because of
    inadequate resources, presumably, that might have an impact on
    your morale and your productivity every day and your job
    satisfaction if you worked for that agency. Fair enough?
        Mr. Meadows. I think a smile says all it needs to say. I
    thank the ranking member.
        Mr. Connolly. I have got to go vote.
        Mr. Meadows. I am thanking the ranking member.
        Mr. Connolly. But there can't just be one point of view
    about IRS around here, and as long as I am here, there won't
    be.
        Mr. Stier. And I think it's important to be focused on the
    employee engagement because all of us benefit with more
    engagement that way.
        Mr. Meadows. And I do want to stress that ----
        Mr. Stier. Thank you.
        Mr. Meadows.--I have had the opportunity to meet with IRS
    employees and found them very engaging and willing to look for
    real responses, and so on that, I think it gets back to
    management again. And all of you have said that.
        And so we are going to give you a few additional questions.
    We are going to vote right now, and that way we don't hold you.
    So we are going to go ahead and finish up this hearing.
        But I want to say thank you. Thank you for not only being
    here today, thank you for your testimony, but thank you to the
    great Federal workers that are out there that are serving the
    American taxpayer each and every day.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                     [all]