[House Hearing, 115 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 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 6, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
25-749 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 Oversight and Government Reform
Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Blake Farenthold, Texas Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Ron DeSantis, Florida Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Val Butler Demings, Florida
Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Peter Welch, Vermont
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Mark DeSaulnier, California
Will Hurd, Texas John Sarbanes, Maryland
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama
James Comer, Kentucky
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Jonathan Skladany, Staff Director
Rebecca Edgar, Deputy Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Kevin Ortiz, Professional Staff Member
Kiley Bidelman, Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chairman
Jody B. Hice, Georgia, Vice Chair Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Jim Jordan, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Ron DeSantis, Florida Columbia
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Rod Blum, Iowa Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 6, 2017.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Ms. Roberta Jeanquart, Director of the Office of Human Resources
Management, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department
ofAgriculture
Oral Statement............................................... 2
Written Statement............................................ 5
Ms. Lacey Dingman, Director of the Office of Human Resources,
Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Ms. Angela Bailey, Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 17
Mr. Lee Gardner, Managing Director, US. Surface Transportation
Board
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Ms. Veronica Villalobos, Principal Deputy Associate Director,
Employee Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Acting
Executive Director, Chief Human Capital Officers Council
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 34
APPENDIX
Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Mark Meadows.......... 58
Statement for the Record of The National Treasury Employees
Union, submitted by Mr. Connolly............................... 59
Leadership Engagement Plan submitted by the Surface
Transportation Board at the request of Chairman Mark Meadows... 65
THE BEST AND WORST PLACES TO WORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Thursday, April 6, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Blum, 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.
Welcome to the, what this would be, our third edition of
the best and worst places to work in the Federal Government. I
might add that it was the director of the Department of
Homeland Security that originally encouraged us, along with
Max, to change the name of this from the worst places to work
to the best places to work. And so I acknowledge that we are
trying to emphasize on what is happening in a good manner, not
just in a poor manner, as we move forward.
And this hearing hopefully will provide a platform to
closely examine what the Federal employee engagement and
satisfaction levels are. The data being examined today comes
from the 2016 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, which was
taken by the Federal employees between April and June of last
year.
And after several years of decreasing scores, I'm pleased
to see that a governmentwide engagement scores continue to
trend positive for the second year in a row. For our hearing
purposes today, witnesses will come from agencies who have
shown either a great improvement or a large decrease in their
scores.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is the most improved
large agency, and while the Securities and Exchange Commission
is the most improved mid-sized agency. Congratulations on your
success. We look forward to learning more from each of you.
We also welcome the Department of Homeland Security, which
should be commended for finally reversing that negative trend,
Ms. Bailey, in the negative momentum and posting the second-
most improved employee engagement score for large agencies.
However, there's a lot of work, as we would acknowledge, that
remains. DHS has ranked last among large agencies in employee
engagement, and we look forward to hearing from you on what
additional steps could be taken to foster more positive
momentum.
The Surface Transportation Board experienced the steepest
decrease of any agency in the employee engagement and saw
employee satisfaction scores plummet, so I'm curious to learn
what steps the agencies will take to stem the bleeding and the
trend that is going in the wrong area.
And finally, the Office of Personnel Management and the
partnership are also here to offer their insights on the 2016
Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys. I welcome all of our
witnesses and look forward to learning more from you.
Mr. Meadows. As the ranking member will be making his way
here, when he gets here, we'll allow him to go ahead and do his
opening statement.
I would hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
member wishing to submit a written statement.
We'll now recognize our panel of witnesses. I'm pleased to
welcome Ms. Roberta Jeanquart, director of the Office of Human
Resources Management and the chief human capital officer for
the United States Department of Agriculture. Welcome. Ms. Lacey
Dingman, director of Office of Human Resources and chief human
capital officer for United States Secret Service--I mean,
Secret Service--Securities and Exchange Commission; Ms. Angela
Bailey, chief human capital officer for the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Mr. Lee Gardner, managing director for the
United States Surface Transportation Board; and Ms. Veronica
Villalobos, principal deputy associate director of the employee
services at the United States Office of Personnel Management
and acting executive director of the Chief Human Capital
Officers Council; and my friend, Mr. Max Stier, president and
CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Welcome to you all.
And pursuant to committee rules, we would ask that all
witnesses be sworn in before they testify, so if you would
please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Thank you. Please be seated.
Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
And in order to allow time for discussion, we would
appreciate if you would limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes;
however, your entire written statement will be made part of the
record. And so we will now recognize you for 5 minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF ROBERTA JEANQUART
Ms. Jeanquart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. And you need to hit the little button there.
Ms. Jeanquart. Sorry. Is that----
Mr. Meadows. That's----
Ms. Jeanquart. Okay. Thank you.
In 2016, USDA was the most improved large agency moving
from 16th place in 2013 to a tie for 9th place in the
Partnership for Public Service's best places to work rankings.
Getting to number nine was a multiyear effort. We started
out with USDA setting a target in our strategic plan to achieve
a top 10 ranking by 2018. We additionally set goals to achieve
a 70 percent participation rate in the survey, a 68 percent
positive response on the employee engagement index, and a 65
percent positive response on the global satisfaction index.
We used five key strategies to drive the improvements at
USDA, those included effective communication, employee
development, performance management, support for diversity and
inclusion, and worklife flexibilities.
With regard to communication, which was our most important
strategy, we asked leaders, managers, and supervisors to
communicate more frequently with their employees. We encouraged
members to hold--our leaders to hold townhall meetings, brown
bag sessions, and informal visits.
We asked that agency Employee Advisory Councils be set up
to get input and empower employees to take action on workplace
improvements. As a result of these listening sessions, action
plans were created in each of the subcomponent organizations,
and those--results of those action plans and progress on the
action plans were reported to employees.
Our second strategy was on employee development, and that
was identified as a need in one of the listening--in some of
the listening sessions. Employees were all given the
opportunity to have, at USDA, an individual development plan,
and that is a commitment that we make to the growth and
development of our future leaders and all employees.
When we started, we only had about 30 percent of employees
with IDPs. By 2016, over 86 percent of our employees had IDPs.
And to further contribute to their development, we created a
mentoring strategy, and that mentoring strategy included
individuals that were representative of our leaders, our
executives, our managers, our supervisors who supported those
employees through mentoring. We also created a 360-degree
assessment so that managers, supervisors, and executives could
all get feedback from their employees, their stakeholders,
their peers, and their leaders.
Our third strategy that contributed to our success was
performance management. We made sure that performance plans for
every employee linked the organization's mission to--so that
each person could see how they contributed to strategic goals.
We also incorporated employee engagement in the performance
plans of supervisors, managers, and executives so that their
progress, or lack thereof, could be used in the performance
appraisal process at the end of the year.
We also, in order to track all these efforts, we
established a USDA-wide employee engagement program manager who
works with representatives from each of our subcomponent
agencies to discuss progress, identify best practices, address
challenges and barriers, and share successful strategies for
improvement.
We asked each of our agencies to report monthly on their
progress towards our employee engagement goals, and we're able
to report any challenges we see or major progress to all
leadership in the organization. We're also able to support
those organizations where we see that don't have the progress
that we'd like to--we'd like to see.
So in summary, I'd say that we've not only achieved our
goal to be in the top 10 best places to work ahead of schedule,
but we've also increased our results in the ten workplace
categories. For USDA, we've made a business case that engaged
employees are more productive employees. We know that we've
made great progress, we know there's more progress to be made,
and we look forward to this year's survey.
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Jeanquart follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you. And if you would thank all the
employees at the Department of Agriculture for their service to
this country. A lot of times Federal employees get beat up in
the debates that happen here on Capitol Hill, and it's very
important that they hear this message loud and clear, that
they're appreciated not only by the American people but by
members of both parties for their service to the country. Thank
you.
Ms. Jeanquart. Thank you.
Mr. Meadows. Ms. Dingman, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LACEY DINGMAN
Ms. Dingman. Thank you.
Chairman Meadows and members of the subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me to speak today regarding the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey
results and the improved rankings of best places to work by the
Partnership for Public Service.
I am Lacey Dingman, the SEC's chief human capital officer,
and I am honored to have the opportunity to speak to you about
the SEC's efforts over the past 5 years to improve employee
engagement. We are very pleased by the SEC's improved employee
engagement scores as reflected in the most recent survey
results, and the recognition we received from the Partnership
for Public Service for being the most improved of any mid-sized
agency.
These positive results reflect the culmination of a
persistent multiyear effort by our employees, the National
Treasury Employees Union, and the SEC's leadership team in
working together to create an environment that engages
employees and supports their commitment to excellence on behalf
of America's investors and our markets.
The mission of the SEC is to protect investors, maintain
fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital
formation. To achieve this mission, we rely on an exceptionally
skilled and dedicated workforce of over 4,700 employees in our
Washington, D.C. headquarters and 11 regional offices located
throughout the United States.
The SEC's staff includes economists, accountants, security
compliance examiners, attorneys, quantitative analysts,
information technologists, and administrative and operations
personnel. Through their efforts our employees strive every day
to promote a market environment that is worthy of the public's
trust.
The Office of Personnel Management administered the 2016
survey at the SEC in May and June of last year. More than 76
percent of the eligible workforce shared their views by
completing the survey. The response rate was our highest
participation rate to date.
Notable results from the survey include the 2016 results
increased for 69 out of 71 questions, with the average increase
of four percentage points. The SEC now ranks in the top 10 in
most best places to work categories, including worklife
balance, training and development, strategic management, and
effective leadership.
The SEC also ranks in OPM's--third in OPM's global
satisfaction index, with an 18 percent improvement compared to
2012. We also saw an 11 percent increase in both OPM's employee
engagement index and the new inclusion quotient index.
The SEC's 2016 score is the highest in our agency's
history, and we are now ranked in the top 25 percent of mid-
sized agencies. It has taken 5 years of effort by SEC
management, our union representatives, and SEC employees at
every level and across every division and office to achieve
this progress. Our experience shows that any change of this
magnitude cannot begin nor succeed without significant buy-in
at the top and without significant involvement and constructive
engagement from rank-and-file staff and their representatives.
As a result of numerous meetings with senior managers,
listening sessions with employees, focus groups and employee
suggestions, the agency chose to focus on the following
initiatives: Improving communications across the agency and up
and down the management chain, greater recognition of employee
contribution to the mission, and better leadership development
and employee training opportunities.
While we are very pleased with our results, we know there's
always room to improve. We know that we still have work to do,
and we will continue our collective efforts to demonstrate our
values of integrity, effectiveness, fairness, accountability,
teamwork, and excellence; foster communication, collaboration,
and transparency; and empower our employees to carry out the
SEC's mission on behalf of American investors.
We believe that the annual Federal Employee Viewpoint
Survey is an important tool that provides a snapshot of the
opinion of our employees. While the results and rankings are
informative, they are only the starting point. The real work
begins when we hold meaningful discussions with leadership
teams to help them understand their results, create action
plans, and follow through on how those plans can help our
employees be efficient and productive.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share with
you the everyday efforts of my colleagues to make the SEC one
of the best places to work in the Federal Government. I welcome
any questions.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Dingman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you. And if you would please communicate
the same message to the employees at the SEC, that we
appreciate their service to our country and to those that they
serve each and every day. Thank you for your leadership.
So they have called votes, Ms. Bailey, so you're going to
get a reprieve for right now. And we've only got about 6
minutes left. There are two votes, possibly two votes, maybe as
few as one. So for planning purposes, if you want to go get
coffee, do whatever you need to do, you don't have to hang out
here. We'll reconvene, but we will not reconvene any earlier
than 10:40. And so at this point, I just wanted to let you know
that for planning so you can go get coffee, do whatever you
need.
So the committee will stand in recess, subject to the call
of the chair.
[Recess.]
Mr. Jordan. [Presiding.] The committee will be back in
session.
The gentleman from--and I apologize for my attire. I didn't
think I was chairing this. We were in another meeting, but the
chairman asked me to come in and get things started.
So the ranking member, Mr. Connolly, from Virginia, will be
recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. And this is what
happens when we have a hearing the morning of the last day of
the session.
I think I'm going to forego my opening statement, Mr.
Chairman, so we can continue with uninterrupted testimony,
other than to simply say, I think it is important that we have
this public hearing of best to worst places to work; but more
importantly, how can we improve, what can we do to try to
improve the workforce.
And I think looking forward, most of the agencies have, in
fact, made marked progress, and I hope that can be sustained in
the current environment. But as we look to the future,
something like 34 percent, Max, of the existing civilian
workforce is eligible for retirement in the next few years,
right? And so recruiting their replacements and being able to
retain them is, you know, a challenge. And I think that
requires streamlining personnel processes; I think it requires,
you know, bringing human resources into the 21st century; and I
think it requires some real reflection on our part up here in
the Congress in terms of how we make our workforce a better
workforce, a better environment in which to work where
employees feel valued and can seriously contemplate making a
career or at least part of their career in Federal service.
So I think that's really what this is about, and I look
forward to hearing from the testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to Ms. Bailey, I believe you're up next, and you
get your 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA BAILEY
Ms. Bailey. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Connolly, thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today to address our
efforts to enhance employee engagement at DHS. Last year, I
testified that we had a strong and pragmatic strategy and that
we would improve.
We analyzed the data and held discussions with leaders and
employees. And based on that collection of work, we focused our
efforts in three areas: One, select and empower high-performing
leaders; two, develop excellent leaders at all levels; and
three, communicate in a powerful way that connects the
workforce.
We implemented our strategies through top leadership
involvement, component-specific action plans, and the employee
engagements during committee. We hold component leadership
accountable, we review our progress and make adjustments
through our semiannual reviews, and, in fact, we just completed
our last review.
These efforts resulted in a 3 percent increase in the
employee engagement index scores. According to OPM, this level
of improvement is statistically significant. By contrast, the
governmentwide employee engagement index went up 1 percent.
All of our components, except one, improved their employee
engagement index scores: ICE up 7 percent, CBP up 4 percent,
U.S. Coast Guard up 4 percent, USCIS up 3 percent, FEMA up 3
percent, and U.S. Secret Service up 1 percent. Regarding the
best places to work scores, DHS increased by 2.7 points,
whereas the governmentwide average went up 1.3 points.
While some may say you're still at the bottom of the best
places to work rankings, it's important to put these rankings
into greater context. Some DHS components by themselves are
larger than the large agencies on the best places to work list.
U.S. Coast Guard, USCIS, and FLETC all have best places to work
index scores above the second-ranked large agency, Department
of Commerce.
In fact, USCIS is not much smaller than the top-ranked
NASA, and its index score is almost as high as NASA's. And when
the Partnership for Public Service further broke down the
rankings, the U.S. Coast Guard and USCIS are number one and
number two, respectively, in the law enforcement and border
protection categories of the best places to work mission area
rankings.
Other components, like the Secret Service, CBP, and TSA,
all have extremely difficult jobs that place them squarely in
the public eye, often under challenging circumstances. These
components also have populations with limited access to
computers, making it very difficult for these employees to
complete the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
This is not an excuse, but it serves as context. We are
focused on these components and are working with them and our
leadership committee to continue the upward trend that we
started last year. Our leadership committee is sharing
successful practices on how best to reach our field personnel
to increase participation in the survey and in understanding
their needs when they are so far away from Washington, D.C.
We are using our communications channels, including
messaging from the Secretary, leader alerts to supervisors and
executives, and listening tours to ensure leaders at all levels
act as a force multiplier for us to reach the workforce
throughout the year. And at the same time, we are focusing on
the 2017 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey rollout, which
begins next month.
Every single day, the men and women of DHS carry out
difficult and frequently 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 focused efforts to employee engagement, we are
determined to enhance their work experience, including their
worklife balance, and honor the contributions of our
hardworking and dedicated workforce. Thank you again for
supporting our employees who protect us and our great Nation. I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Bailey.
Mr. Gardner.
STATEMENT OF LEE GARDNER
Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Chairman Meadows, Congressman
Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. I am Lee Gardner,
managing director of the Surface Transportation Board. We
greatly appreciate your subcommittee's strong interest in ways
to ensure growth in employee engagement at agencies such as
ours.
From 2009 through 2014, the STB was ranked as the best
small agency in the government, according to the FEVS annual
survey. We even received accolades from entities outside the
survey, including a spot in Washingtonian magazine's 50
Greatest Places to Work for 2013. We took great pride in this
distinction.
After 6 years of being number one, our scores fell in 2015,
placing us fifth among small agencies. In 2016, our scores
declined further, placing the Board 16 out of 29 small
agencies. This decline is a concern to management at all levels
at our agency.
Comparing scores for specific questions asked in the 2014,
2015, and 2016 surveys, we found several key questions with
positive scores worth noting, including balance of worklife, a
willingness on the part of employees to put forth extra effort
to get the job done, and the overall quality of work. These
items scored in the 90 percent range or higher.
We've also seen high scores in areas that depict the high
level of professionalism and dedication of our employees,
including, ``my work gives me a sense of personal
accomplishment,'' ``I like the work I do,'' and ``the work I do
is important.''
With respect to negative responses, we fell in areas
including the relationship between pay raises and performance,
supervision in leadership, steps taken to deal with poor
performers, training, and diversity.
Over the last few years, the STB has been an agency in
transition. Our staff has experienced a significant amount of
change and uncertainty in the areas of leadership,
responsibilities, and resources. These factors have no doubt
contributed to the 2016 survey results.
In the span of 2 years, the agency underwent a change in
the chairmanship several times. Naturally, each change brought
a transition from--for staff and an adjustment to new
priorities.
Sustained periods of constrained resources have also been a
real challenge. Our FTE levels have been dropping, leaving the
agency with fewer staff to fulfill the agency's workload. The
STB's budget requests have gone largely unmet, which in turn
puts further strain on our workforce.
We currently have a staff of 128 FTEs, a significant
reduction from our highest employment level of 149 FTEs in
2010. These numbers are significant for such a small
organization.
Another factor that has affected the staff is the prospect
of relocating due to a recent expiration of our lease. GSA
notified us in 2013 that at the end of our lease in February
2017, we could be required to relocate to a new facility. This
has been very unsettling to staff, since during this time, we
have not known what the full impact of relocating might be on
their daily lives. Just this week, GSA informed us that a lease
award should be finalized within the next 30 to 40 days.
Finally, enactment of the STB Reauthorization Act of 2015,
which reauthorized the Board for the first time since its
inception in 1996, made the Board a fully independent agency
and imposed several important directives.
While independence has been invigorating, exciting, and
challenging, it also marks another transition to new and
expanded responsibilities but with expected additional funding
assistance held up as a consequence of the ongoing continuing
resolution.
The Board is exploring ideas to help improve our scores,
and most importantly, employee engagement and satisfaction. For
example, to better understand specific reasons for our recent
scores, senior managers exchanged insights into the possible
causes of and discussed ways to improve. We reached out to our
entire staff asking them to share their thoughts on issues
contributing to the Board's scores, as well as suggestions on
actions to improve the STB overall.
The Partnership for Public Service recently briefed the
board members and staff on the survey results and provided
useful insights into the key drivers of our recent scores. To
address scores regarding senior leadership, OPM delivered an
executive training course to 25 senior managers, which provided
an in-depth discussion and interactive sessions on developing
core leadership skills, including how to effectively lead,
communicate, build strong teams, and manage change.
Beyond actions taken to address the survey directly, we
have continued to provide staff with important training in
areas of concern to our agency as well as the government. For
example, in-person diversity training for the entire agency was
offered last fall, sharing information about equal employment
opportunity, increasing inclusion, respecting diversity, and
effective communications and problem solving.
Please be assured that as we work to fulfill the agency's
important mission, the STB is firmly committed to improving our
employee's work satisfaction as well. I would be happy to
respond to any questions. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Gardner.
Ms. Villalobos.
STATEMENT OF VERONICA VILLALOBOS
Ms. Villalobos. Thank you.
Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Federal Employee
Viewpoint Survey and employee engagement.
Since 2002, the Office of Personnel Management has
administered the FEVS. The survey is designed to provide
agencies with valuable information----
Mr. Connolly. Could I ask the witness to pull that
microphone much closer because----
Ms. Villalobos. Certainly. Is that better?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Ms. Villalobos. Thank you.
The survey is designed to provide agencies with valuable
information on employee satisfaction, commitment, engagement,
and ultimately, retention needed for driving change within an
organization.
Having an engaged workforce is critical to each agency's
ability to achieve its mission of providing excellent service
to the American people. OPM is committed to working with
agencies to provide tools they can use to improve employee
satisfaction and engagement.
To assist agencies, OPM provides results from the FEVS in
several ways. The FEVS governmentwide management report
provides an overview of survey results and highlights notable
agency achievements. The management report contains scores from
industries such as employee engagement, global satisfaction,
and the New Inclusion Quotient, or New IQ.
In addition to the management report, OPM provides agency-
specific FEVS reports to leadership in government agencies.
FEVS results are also made available through Unlock Talent, a
comprehensive dashboard used to help agency leadership make
data-driven decisions and design initiatives to improve Federal
agencies. Unlock Talent also allows users to view FEVS scores
across government for employee engagement and global
satisfaction. The dashboard is customized to each agency, and
Federal managers are able to access personalized pages for
their departments and agencies. This powerful online tool
assists agencies in better analyzing and understanding the data
in order to creatively use the information in their engagement
efforts.
In 2016, OPM surveyed approximately 889,000 employees from
80 agencies and over 407,000 employees responded. The 2016
scores on employee engagement continue to increase steadily
across government, with 65 percent of all respondents
expressing positive views on the employee engagement index.
The 2016 global satisfaction index results revealed
that 61 percent of respondents reported satisfaction with
aspects related to their work, and the 2016 New IQ overall
index score was 58 percent. These scores all increased from the
prior year.
For the 2016 management report, OPM incorporated a
comparison of the agencies by size. Because of the challenges
or opportunities the agencies faced based on their size, these
categories were created to further aid interagency
communication and sharing of promising practices. In addition,
the management report featured the key drivers of employee
engagement that are beneficial to agencies in building and
supporting employee engagement and performance improvement
efforts.
Finally, the management report highlighted promising
practices which provided practical advice on what works to help
agencies improve engagement and thereby performance.
While the FEVS has been a useful tool for agencies and
stakeholders, the full potential as a strategically responsive
instrument has faced some limitations. Because core survey
items were in regulation, 45 such items have not been updated
since 2007. This has limited the ability of our research
professionals to adjust items and make commonsense changes.
To address these limitations, OPM initiated a revision of
the regulation. Overall, the revised regulation permitted OPM
to modernize the survey in alignment with topics cited in
statute. Specifically, the effect of the revision was to reduce
the number of prescribed survey items and remove the definition
of leadership levels.
In the process of revising the regulation, OPM presented
plans for updates to multiple stakeholder groups. The final
regulation allows OPM's professional survey experts and
research psychologists to improve the survey while maintaining
agencies' abilities to monitor progress and analyze trends.
Agencies still maintain the flexibility to expand their own
surveys and add agency-specific questions, as appropriate, to
address their specific needs.
OPM does not intend to make changes to the 2017 FEVS. We
understand the reliance stakeholders and agencies have on the
survey results. Any future updates will be done with
stakeholder input and OPM's experts, along with survey testing
to preserve quality and trending.
As we prepare to release the next survey, OPM will continue
its efforts to support agencies with meaningful improvements to
the FEVS in order to assist agency leadership with improving
employee engagement and performance.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I
am happy to address any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Villalobos follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. [Presiding.] Thank you so much for your
testimony. My apologies, the administration had asked us to get
back to him on health care, so I apologize. I had to have a
real quick meeting. So----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Meadows. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. --before you call on our final witness,
just--I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
statement with respect to the subject from the National
Treasury Employees Union.
Mr. Meadows. Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Stier, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAX STIER
Mr. Stier. Thank you very much, Chairman Meadows, Ranking
Member Connolly. Thank you for your focus on such an important
issue. I know life is very full and busy with all kinds of
things, and it is a testament to your foresight and leadership
that you are, for the third time, having this hearing, because
it does require constant attention and oversight.
To begin with, I think it's important to focus on why this
matters. This is not about happy employees. This is about
employees that can do more and better for the American public.
And that's what employee engagement is about.
One of the really incredible challenges of actually
managing in the Federal Government is that you don't have real-
time performance information as you would in the private
sector, the for-profit sector. You don't have your P&L
statement, you don't have stock prices. The goals are public
goals; they're not financial goals. And as a result, actually,
employee engagement becomes even more important. In the private
for-profit sector there is tons of data that shows improved
employee engagement results and better performance, and that's
even more important in the public sector.
And we should be proud of the people that are here and the
good work that they're doing. It's 2 years in a row you've seen
increases. But we also need not lose sight of the bigger
picture. And in our view of the Partnership for Public Service,
we believe that the Federal Government should meet or exceed
the best in class in the private sector. And today, right now,
on the engagement scores, the Federal Government is 17 points
lower than a reasonable private sector average. And it's not
because Federal employees are not committed to the mission.
Federal employees are overwhelmingly committed to the mission
across the board in every agency.
Bottom line, it's almost inevitably about leadership, which
is the second root cause of challenge in the Federal
Government. You have short-term political leaders that don't
align to the long-term needs of the organizations they run.
And the data is frightening. If you look at some of the
numbers, just one-fifth of employees agree that pay raises
depend on performances; two-thirds of employees don't believe
promotions are based on merit; fewer than half of Federal
employees believe that good work is rewarded. And those are not
numbers that we ought to be proud of. These are numbers that we
need to work on and change.
And I would propose three things that you can do here in
Congress to make a big difference: Number one, we need to
modernize the FEVS statute. Very important. As I said, it gives
the one universal metric across the board. I think it ought to
be codified. OPM has done a phenomenal job. The statute doesn't
currently require that OPM do it every year. It's important
that OPM does it every year. It's cost effective. They do it
for everybody. And it also means that you got comparative data.
So that would be the first piece. And the second one is, in
today's age with improved technology, this is all done
digitally. The turnaround of the data is very important, so
getting that data out fast would be a second area of key
importance.
Number two, it's always about leaders, and we need to see
more attention paid to leadership's responsibility to manage
talent in the Federal Government. It starts with the top. It
starts with the political leaders. Today, the political leaders
do not actually have a requirement to have performance plans.
There's no transparency about what they're supposed to achieve.
And I would posit to you that it starts at the top. You ought
to have a requirement that all political appointments, all
leaders have performance plans that are clear and that are
transparent and that part of that transparency includes a
requirement that they focus on their most important asset, the
people in their organizations.
Secondly, that's something that's true not just for the
political leadership, it's true for the career folks. USDA is
an example of an organization that actually bakes into their
SES requirement that the SES focus on employee engagement, and
you've seen the returns that they get from that.
And third, I think it's incredibly important for this kind
of oversight to take place, to make sure that hearings in this
committee and otherwise actually ask questions of the political
appointees to make sure they know that you're watching them and
paying attention.
So first is modernize the statute; second is focusing on
the leadership issues; and the third piece, I think, is
modernizing our civil service system. We have a system that was
designed for a different age when government was doing
different things, when the talent market looked differently.
And we need to make sure that we have a system in place to
actually manage our talent in government, whether it's to bring
in the right talent to replace those that are leaving or to
manage those that are already here that reflects the current
society that we have right now.
The Federal Government in many ways has become an insulated
and isolated organization, and that's not good for any of us.
And elements of the change that need to take place are examples
like market-based pay. So you look at examples at VA, the
medical center directors. They're paid under the SES scales,
that means that they're making at top $170,000, $180,000. And
you have to pay, in a private sector, $700,000, $1 million to
find competing talent. It just doesn't work. And again, there
will be some employees that will be paid less, some paid more,
but it will be paid according to what the government actually
needs to pay to get the right talent, and that would be a big
change.
There are a whole set of other changes that ought to take
place in the civil service system itself, and we'd love to work
with you in making that happen.
I see my time is running out, but I want to say thank you
for, really, your incredible work.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, all. I want to thank all the
witnesses for being here.
The chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes. And so, Mr.
Stier, let me follow up on a couple of your questions, because
you talked about that market-based pay. And you're finding
someone who is very willing to make sure that people are
properly compensated, realizing that upper end sometimes is a
barrier to attracting good talent.
One of the big issues that we run into, and I'm highly
sensitive to it, because I don't even think, if you wanted to
change it, that it would be enough votes on either side of the
aisle by themself to change it, is really the union involvement
and what that may or may not do when you try to actually make
it more market based.
So can you speak to that barrier, and how do we do that
with so many different public service unions that are in place?
And, you know, sometimes--we all have a unified goal of
providing good service and a good quality workforce. At the
same time, sometimes there is a competing agenda in terms of
what may or may not happen, and we've run into that on Postal
and a few other areas.
But the biggest place I'm running into it, quite frankly,
is--I can use that--is maybe on WMATA and what we're facing in
a bipartisan way on WMATA, because we believe that it needs to
happen. And so I can use that as maybe a tangential evidence of
having to address something but with real complications,
because you've got union contracts, you've got competing--so
how do we do that?
Mr. Stier. Yeah. So not an easy job, and that's why----
Mr. Meadows. That's why you threw it to me, right.
Mr. Stier. But I think the answer, in my view, is, you
know, first, that a lot gets cured by conversation, and I think
that, you know, part of the need we have right now is to have
those critical stakeholders brought together. As you said, I
actually really believe there are common objectives. Once
you're able to get that agreement around common objectives, I
think that provides a framework for resolving, you know, how
best to get there. I also think there are going to be
opportunities, even if you don't get it done across the board
in special places----
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Stier. --and an example would be the VA, where, you
know, there are 160 of these folks. There are not that many.
They're the most important people. They run the hospital
systems.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Stier. It just makes no sense.
Mr. Meadows. So maybe do that as a pilot.
Mr. Stier. You do that--and I'd be careful--the only thing
about pilots in government is that in the ordinary course, the
logic is you try it, if it works, then you spread it around.
That doesn't happen in the government. You look at----
Mr. Meadows. Oh, tell me it's not so.
Mr. Stier. Yes. Well, no, but I mean--so you look at some
of the pay, you know, experiments that were done, you know, in
the military with the----
Mr. Meadows. I agree.
Mr. Stier. --they're 1980s, and they have good data to
suggest that the things they did made sense. So in any event,
though----
Mr. Meadows. So a pilot that actually would get implemented
systemwide if it worked?
Mr. Stier. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So let me go a little bit further. If we
look at this and we're looking at those objectives, would you
say the fundamental reason why we don't get it as at times
trust, the trust that if somebody's willing to give, that it
will only be cuts and not increases?
Mr. Stier. I think you put your finger on an important
point for sure. I think there's an expectation that, you know,
better to protect what one has than to take the risk of what
may come in the future, sort of Pandora's box. But the reality
to me is that the world is changing at an ever-increasing fast
pace, and it's a--you know, the erosion is really substantial.
The other trust factor here, which I think is really
important, is trust in the managers in government, and I think
that's a big issue. I think one of the things that you've got
to put your arms around is how do you actually improve the
capability of management so that there is improved trust. You
look at the Employee Viewpoint Survey numbers, that's a
problem.
Mr. Meadows. So how does OPM fit into that equation?
Because really, right now we have silos, is what I would say.
We have OPM that's overarching, but we have silos. And it's
kind of like in the corporate world where they look at HR in a
less than favorable way, let's put it that way. And so they
say, this is my domain, I'm going to operate it the way I
think. Thank you, OPM, for giving me your guidance, but by the
way, I've got to run it. So how do we do that?
Mr. Stier. So if I can still keep plugging forward here, I
would say the following: Which is I think there's way too much
finger pointing at OPM and not enough looking in the mirror.
Because if you point to the corporate sector, every successful
corporate executive I know--and I know a lot of them--they view
that talent is their job. They look to HR as being, you know--
--
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Stier. --there to support them, but their
responsibility.
I don't think you see that in the government. Agency
leaders don't understand that that's one of their primary
responsibilities. They're not around long enough. It's going to
be their successor or their successor's successor that deals
with their problem.
Mr. Meadows. Right. Okay.
Mr. Stier. So that's back to the performance plan piece.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So let me--picking up, Ms. Bailey, on
where--in terms of our attention. I want to let you know
something, that we were keenly aware of any statements that get
made that talk about employee satisfaction. And so you've been
there about a year. We've seen some good progress, and I want
to thank you for that.
But the other day, we got what I thought was a real
encouraging comment by who I refer to as General Kelly, but
Secretary Kelly, as he talked about, you know, what's going to
specifically happen in terms of job satisfaction. He says,
well, that's, you know, under my leadership.
And he went on further to say, is that when he elaborated
on it, he says that the employees feel hamstrung by former
leadership to not allow the employees to actually do their job.
Now, that's a theme. And I'm not trying to be derogatory
towards any previous administration or anything else, but would
you concur that the employees, some within DHS, feel like that
they've never been allowed to do their job? And would you agree
with Secretary Kelly?
Ms. Bailey. I think it's always smart to agree with my
boss.
Mr. Meadows. Well, you are smart. Well, we now know why
you've improved so much, but go ahead.
Ms. Bailey. Absolutely.
Mr. Meadows. So let me--would you--so let me rephrase it.
Obviously, since you agree with Secretary Kelly, would you say
within the ranks that you see some question among rank-and-file
employees that they are not allowed to do the job that they
were hired to do to its fullest capability?
Ms. Bailey. Right. And I think that you'll see that over
time. If you look at the FEVS scores, whether it's within DHS
or, quite frankly, within a lot of the Federal agencies, what
you will find is that by and large this idea around creativity,
innovation, or the ability to not be hamstrung, right, to be
able to do your job, I think that that's kind of with the--
almost with the age of time.
And so I think it's very encouraging that Secretary Kelly
recognizes that right upfront. It's not surprising to me that
he recognizes it. And I think it's, again, very encouraging
that we're going to actually tackle some of those issues.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Well, thank you.
I want to applaud both of our most improved best places
areas, and just say that what I typically have done in previous
hearings is ask for your commitment to actually work with other
agencies to share best practices. Is that something that you're
willing to do at USDA?
Ms. Jeanquart. Absolutely. In fact, we employed some of the
best practices we learned from other agencies to get where
we're going. So I really think we're a community among
ourselves, and we all--you know, we all want to see engaged and
productive employees.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Great.
Ms. Dingman?
Ms. Dingman. We are definitely committed to working with
our fellow colleagues in the HR community. We see this as we
all grow together and we learn as a Federal community.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So keeping the standard the way that
it's been and not changing, it is critical for benchmarks. And
so I would just--from an OPM standpoint, are we willing to keep
our standard?
Here's my concern: There was rumor out there that we were
going to change the way that we looked at some of these things
and different benchmarks. And for me, that's like changing an
SAT score to have a different benchmark. So my score from
generations ago can't be compared to, you know--they were much
harder back in the old days, I can tell you, so--but can't be
compared to SAT scores today because we changed the standards.
And so do we have a commitment from OPM to keep a standard
where we have a benchmark that we've had for the last 2 or 3
years and keep it in place?
Ms. Villalobos. So OPM intends to continue to work to
illuminate the topics that are within statute. As you know, we
did go through the regulatory change. We've done a better job
of matching the questions that are within the topical areas to
the statute. We want to make sure that we're able to modernize
based on survey science, but we are going to continue to work
with agencies and stakeholders as we move forward.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. That's a great answer. So let me be more
specific then. Don't change the standard, okay. And so I'm all
for modernization and all that, but I don't want a benchmark
that lets me have Ms. Bailey's score next year be different
than her score for the last couple of years. I have to have the
same benchmark. Can I get the commitment from OPM that they're
willing to do that?
Ms. Villalobos. We will continue to use the same indices
and work with our stakeholders moving forward to make sure that
we----
Mr. Meadows. That's a great answer to a question I didn't
ask.
Ms. Villalobos. Okay.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. And so let me be blunt. I need a
commitment to keep the same standards. And so if you can't give
that today, I would ask you to get with your staff and get back
with our staff within the next couple of weeks on how you plan
to help me understand how to look at it going forward.
Ms. Villalobos. Thank you, Chairman. We will get back with
you based on your request.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you so much.
I recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Connolly. I think you can understand the concern of the
chairman, and I share it. If we start changing the baseline
against which we measure best of work, you know, we all become
one happy paradise in the workers', you know, republic, and
everyone is happy, and we've got new standards that shows it.
And we don't really want to go there. The purpose of these
metrics is really to try to gauge where we are and make
appropriate improvements. So I would echo what the chairman had
to say.
Ms. Jeanquart, USDA showed marked improvement in the
indices in front of us, and it seems to me that one of the
things that improved was communication and also worklife
flexibility. So the creation of Employee Advisory Councils
seemed to foster a lot more dialogue in both ways, and I think,
frankly, your embrace of telework is symptomatic of a more
flexible workplace approach. Your comment.
Ms. Jeanquart. We--absolutely. What we heard from our
employees was worklife flexibilities were important for us. We
have increased the number of eligible employees that are able
to telework. At the same time, we've also trained our
supervisors to manage employees who telework to make sure that
they continue to remain as productive. So those flexibilities
have really contributed to our scores.
We have about 86 percent of our employees that are on
flexible work schedules as well. So the ability to meet the
worklife challenges has been helpful; but at the same time,
we're also seeing increases in productivity. And we've seen
that in the way that we delivered our last farm bill, on time,
early, in many programs, and all of that has contributed.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. I always felt in management in the
private sector that productivity at the end of the day is what
I care about. So for example, if your job is to write
proposals, and I'm looking at hit rates, and, you know, you're
getting 90 percent hit rates, when you write a proposal, we're
going to get it. I don't care if you do it in your PJs watching
soap operas at home, you know.
It's sort of the management principle of Lincoln. When
people criticized Grant for drinking, he said, really, I want
to know what brand of whiskey he drinks, and I'm going to send
a barrel of it to all of my generals, because he wins.
So there's a certain, you know, bottom line to what we do,
I hope, where we're looking at what matters, not the ephemeral.
I mean, you know, whether I'm there from 9 to 5 is a way of
getting to the productivity, but it's not a substitute for the
productivity.
Mr. Stier, thank you for the lozenge, by the way. One of
the criticisms--and one of those things I think from--when
people from the private sector look at the Federal Government,
not just the Federal Government, other governments too, it's
rule driven, it's rule bound. It's a very juridical environment
that seems to stifle sometimes creativity, seems to minimize
performance with all the protections. And over the years, for
all the best reasons, we've got even more protections for our
various classes of workers that sometimes allows them to escape
accountability.
And when you do that, it has a demoralizing effect on
people who want to be productive workers and see, witness, you
know, the protection of or turning a blind eye as a manager
because it's just too difficult, and I don't want to get into a
suit or an action or be known as the guy who cracked down on
somebody. I think that's a real problem in government.
And I fully support due process and I support a vibrant
civil service, but I think sometimes it's just become so
hidebound and rulebound that it's brittle, and it's not the
model we need moving forward. And I wonder if you could comment
to that.
Mr. Stier. I think you're 100 percent correct, and I think
a lot of it stems from the point you began with, which is
losing sight of what the objectives are. And one of the ways
that I think we need to move the Federal Government is to be
more focused on the customer experience and less on the
process.
And Ms. Bailey said something that I think is very
important earlier about the sense of employees being encouraged
to do things in a more innovative way. And if you look at the
data, again, so important, because otherwise it's just
anecdote, I feel encouraged to come up with new and better ways
of doing things.
Federal employees, it's 56.8. The private sector benchmark
on that is 77. And, again, there's no reason why we should have
that kind of discrepancy, other than, in my view, poor
leadership, and that's what we need to change.
We do live in a world in which it has become much more of a
spoke, and that's why the broader changes need to take place.
We have a pay system that's all about internal equity but not
connectivity to the larger talent market, and we need that. It
needs to be--Ms. Bailey, again, was talking about some of the
things that she's doing, which I think are very, very important
at DHS, that are allowing them to think more creatively about
how to address the individual as opposed to the broader class.
And interestingly, you know, there's a lot of discussion
about how regulation is stifling people on the outside of
government. I think it's stifling the employees themselves, in
that we ought to see the same kind of de-encrustation
internally that's necessary. The tendency is to put things on
top, not think about how they interrelate or whether they're
still valuable. It's--again, it's a legacy institution. So
that's why your engagement involvement is so critical.
And the people here, you know, there's no one who knows
what needs to change better than the people that are having to
experience it day in and day out. So getting that input into
your process, to me, seems vital.
Mr. Connolly. Can I just ask one skunk-at-the-picnic
question?
So we have made progress, but if you look at the budget the
President has submitted to the Congress--let's take USDA, Ms.
Jeanquart--it will cut 21 percent, $4.7 billion; reduce staff
at USDA Service Center Agencies throughout the country;
eliminate the water and wastewater loan and grant program; cut
$95 million from Rural Business-Cooperative Service; cut $200
million from Women, Infants, and Children nutrition; and cut
another $200 million from the McGovern-Dole International Food
for Education Program.
Do those cuts have any impact on what we're talking about
here? Could they influence these metrics when we meet again a
year from now?
Ms. Jeanquart. I think they can, but I also think employee
engagement can help us as we move forward. USDA's faced budget
cuts before, and we've used interaction with our----
Mr. Connolly. Ms. Jeanquart, just one second. You've faced
budget cuts. Have you ever faced a 21-percent budget cut?
Ms. Jeanquart. No, we have not.
Mr. Connolly. No. Right. We need to put it in perspective
here. Budget cuts are one thing.
Ms. Jeanquart. Right.
Mr. Connolly. I mean, of course--and you're a piker
compared to EPA.
Ms. Jeanquart. Right.
Mr. Connolly. Imagine the morale over there, with a 31-
percent cut.
Mr. Stier, final question. The chairman's allowed me to go
over my time. Impact magnitude of those kinds of cuts--and I
don't think Congress, frankly, is going to entertain them, but
nonetheless they're out there. They're a new baseline for
somebody; hopefully not Congress. But does it have an impact on
what we're talking about here?
Mr. Stier. So it clearly has an impact.
I think of even greater impact is the uncertainty that's
been created. And I think that is fundamental. And so, if you
don't mind me being the skunk in the picnic here, you know, the
last 6 of the last 7 years, you know, the executive branch
hasn't been able to operate on any budget; there has been no
budget. You know, we're talking, you know, 2018 right now.
2017, these agencies don't know how much money they have.
And so, if you think, again, about any other organization
in any other context, the idea that they could manage
effectively and achieve results without knowing what their
resource base is, is impossible.
And my view would be, you know, uncertainty is the most
corrosive of all in terms of diminishing, you know, capability.
And this is true right now with respect to budget, it's true
with respect to the hiring freeze. Just not--it's not--those
are not the effective ways to get best value for the American
people, in my view.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
So the chair recognizes himself for a few followup
questions here.
And so, Mr. Gardner, you've gotten off fairly easily so
far, and I know that you may be squirming in your chair. I'm
not going to let you off that easy, as you can well imagine.
Because I think part of this is, you know, carrot and the
stick. And the gentleman to my right is talking about the
carrot. And I'm willing to work in a bipartisan way.
Ultimately, I think the budget that we pass will be not as
impactful as perhaps some are concerned about today in those
areas, and yet we do have fiscal constraints.
And so, Max, your point of needing a budget, needing
direction, I've been one that believes that we need to do that
on a congressional basis, is do 2 years, so that, you know,
where you have that, where there's some--you know, long-range
planning in the private sector is 5 to 10 years, you know, and
long-range planning here is 9 months. And it just--it's
troubling. And so I get your point.
But, Mr. Gardner, I guess I'm--in spite of some of the
things that we're talking about, really this survey was from
back in last year, so the hiring freeze was not in place. This
was back, taking survey results from last summer. And yet we
saw a 21.9-point drop in your agency.
And I guess the two troubling areas was really more about
the employee involvement and empowerment and then leadership,
management leadership, and those two categories. So that's not
as much with financial/fiscal restraints as it is management
initiatives. So help me explain why we went backwards on that.
Mr. Gardner. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I said, we're very
concerned about the decline, and we were very surprised----
Mr. Meadows. That makes two of us, so go ahead.
Mr. Gardner. We were very surprised. And, on reflection, I
do----
Mr. Meadows. That concerns me even more, okay? So I'm going
to interrupt you.
Mr. Gardner. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. If you're surprised by the results, it shows
that we have a lack of understanding of the rank-and-file--I
mean, it's one thing to acknowledge that you have a bad
problem. Ms. Bailey does that. She acknowledged that they've
been at the bottom of the barrel, and so she recognizes that.
But to be surprised, you know, really concerns me. Why would
you be surprised?
Mr. Gardner. Well, to explain further, we had the drop
between 2014 and 2015, which was not a dramatic drop. It took
us to fifth place, and some of the results we saw were still
positive results.
But I guess to explain, I felt and I think most of the
management at the agency felt that we were continuing to do a
good job with engagement.
I agree with Mr. Stier that it starts with leadership, and
we did not do well on our effective leadership scores across
the board. I think that's an area where we definitely need to
focus. I think it also includes the need to do a better job of
communicating with our staff and keeping the staff informed. In
the followup that we've done, we found that that's one of the
things that staff were concerned about.
They're also very concerned, as I mentioned, about the
changes. And the changes I was referring to in my statement
weren't related to the freeze, but they were related to things
related to in terms of leadership, change in leadership. As I
mentioned, we had a change in chairmanship. Over 3 years, we
had three different chairmen.
We also have a lot of uncertainty associated with the move
and the relocation, which has been very unsettling to staff
because they're really not sure what's going to happen there
with regard to the relocation of the agency. And we still don't
know, even to this point. We've been working with GSA for over
3 years on this, and there's been a lot of uncertainty and
unsettled feelings about that.
Mr. Meadows. So help me understand. What uncertainty are
you talking about? The fact that you may get a new chairman?
Mr. Gardner. Well, I guess it's just the fact that we've
had the change--we've had three different chairmen.
Mr. Meadows. But, Mr. Gardner, with all due respect, this
has nothing to do with just one person.
Mr. Gardner. Understood.
Mr. Meadows. A 6.9- or almost 7-percent drop in employees
thinking that leadership is not fair is not a problem of one
person.
Mr. Gardner. No, I agree, sir. I agree. In fact, when I
talk to----
Mr. Meadows. So are you surprised by that, that they think
that leadership is not fair, that management is not fair?
Mr. Gardner. I am surprised at that, because I think we are
fair. I think, as a leader at the agency, I think we do a good
job.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me push back a little bit.
It doesn't matter what you think.
Mr. Gardner. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. It matters what the rank-and-file thinks. And
that's the whole reason why you have an employee survey. You
know, I can think I'm the most fair person in the world, and if
he says I'm not, his perception is reality to him.
And so how do we address that? I mean, if you're thinking
that everything is kumbaya, I mean, how do we fix the problem?
Mr. Gardner. Well, obviously, sir, we realize now that it's
not the way we would like it to be. And----
Mr. Meadows. So when did you realize that?
Mr. Gardner. Well, when we saw those scores.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
Mr. Gardner. When we saw the second set of scores.
Mr. Meadows. So when did you see the second set of scores?
Mr. Gardner. Well, I guess they came out in December.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Mr. Gardner. December.
Mr. Meadows. So what did you do?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we met with the Chairman; the senior
leaders met with the Chairman. We talked about the kinds of
things that we did poorly on and talked about things we might
do to improve the scores, including better and more
communication, better sharing of information. This was one of
the things----
Mr. Meadows. So if we did this new survey today, would it
be better?
Mr. Gardner. I think that it would. I think we have----
Mr. Meadows. Of course, you think everything is all right
already, so, I mean----
Mr. Gardner. I don't mean to say that, no.
Mr. Meadows. So what we have here is not a failure to
communicate. And that's what everybody runs backs to and says,
``Well, if we just had more communication, we would be okay.''
But you and I are having communication right now, and it
doesn't necessarily make it pleasant for either one of us.
So here's where we have to go, is we have to figure out how
to empower your rank-and-file, how to make sure that it's fair.
Normally, when I see scores like this dropping on fairness, it
has to do with promotions, bonuses. And, I mean, it comes down
to, really, are they feeling empowered, do they get special
assignments.
So this would indicate that there's a problem within your
leadership ranks of not actually responding appropriately to
the rank-and-file. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Gardner. I would. I would.
Mr. Meadows. So who's going to get--we won't say
``terminated.'' Who's going to get some correctional direction?
Mr. Gardner. Well----
Mr. Meadows. Have you already identified those people?
Mr. Gardner. Pardon me, sir?
Mr. Meadows. Have you already identified the people?
I mean, because if you do the surveys, you can probably
figure out where you have a problem. So have you identified the
areas where you have management problems?
Mr. Gardner. Well, I think--we don't do individual--we
don't get results back from individual components because we're
so small. So I would think that it would be the responsibility
of all of the senior executives, all of the office directors,
to take the lead----
Mr. Meadows. Very good.
Mr. Gardner. --bear the responsibility----
Mr. Meadows. So what have you done?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we have----
Mr. Meadows. Other than talking, what have you done?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we've asked employees for suggestions on
ways that we could improve----
Mr. Meadows. How many suggestions did you get?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we've gotten probably hundreds of
suggestions.
Mr. Meadows. How many have you implemented?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we haven't implemented any yet. We're
simply----
Mr. Meadows. Therein is the problem, Mr. Gardner. When you
get information from rank-and-file employees and you do nothing
with it, there is a problem. Then they think that their opinion
doesn't matter. Wouldn't you agree with that?
Mr. Gardner. Well, I would agree, sir, but we are trying to
convince the employees that their----
Mr. Meadows. So don't you think it would be a good idea for
the ranking member and I to come and have a visit with some of
your rank-and-file employees and maybe hear firsthand?
Mr. Gardner. That would be terrific.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So----
Mr. Gardner. You'd be more than welcome.
Mr. Meadows. --we're going to do that, and we'll get that
set up.
So at what point do you put in a leadership plan to make
sure that people feel like they're being treated fairly?
Mr. Gardner. Well, we're going to address that----
Mr. Meadows. When?
Mr. Gardner. --directly. Within the next month, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So you'll report back to this
committee within 30 days of a plan on how you're going to
address the fairness issue with regards to your management and
your rank-and-file. Is that correct?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir, we will.
Mr. Meadows. That's fair. Actually, that's a very
aggressive timeframe. You know, we'll give you--how about 45
days? I think if you're trying to do it in 30--I don't want you
to overcommit there.
Mr. Gardner. We could certainly give you a progress report,
but 45 days would be fine.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
And so, in doing that, here's what I need to see, Mr.
Gardner. I want to see these scores go up, but it's not for the
scores' sake. I want to see those employees become most
improved.
And just like Ms. Bailey is here today--I'm not celebrating
the fact that she is still low down on the totem pole. She's
got a huge organization, so, you know, it's like a big
steamship, trying to move it. But the fact is she's here today
because we're recognizing that she has made progress. And I'm
willing to do the same thing. In fact, I would love to eat crow
or humble pie, either one that you want to serve, when you
address these problems.
But we will have them addressed. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Gardner. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
So let me close with this. I want to make sure, from an OPM
standpoint, that my request of you is not to be derogatory in
anything. In fact, if anything, I think we need to update the
way we do surveys. In fact, I would love to see it where
they're going online, and the minute that they've finished it,
it gives them a percentage of where they are and how they're
doing.
I mean, I think that that would--we call it in the internet
``clickbait,'' but I can tell you, I will fill out a survey
more accurately if I see the results immediately after I finish
it, even though somebody may be finding, you know, information
on me personally.
And the same thing happens with employees. If they can fill
out all the surveys and they can say, Oh, my goodness, you
know, this is where it is, it does two things: If the trend is
going the wrong way, they will tell other friends, Can you
believe everybody thinks it's good when it's really bad? Or if
it's good, or bad, they will go the other way. So you get
better feedback. It's sometimes perverted a little bit because
people--you know, you may get somebody who wants to go and say,
Well, you know, they're saying leadership is good, it can't be
good. But I think you get better feedback if we can do that.
So I'm all with you on modernizing, and yet, at the same
time, let's make sure we keep the same standards.
And I'll give the last set of questions to my good friend
from Virginia, and then we'll close out.
Mr. Connolly. Just remember, if we go online, Ms.
Villalobos, it will be read in Moscow and Beijing.
Max Stier, I just wonder if you want to maybe use this
opportunity to just give us some parting thoughts here. What's
the utility of this kind of survey? And have we been able to
use the survey to make measurable progress, both in performance
and productivity and morale?
Mr. Stier. So, look, I think there are obviously things
that can be improved, and we've made some suggestions. But it's
worth taking a step back and remembering that you don't have to
go back many years in which the only information you had about
what was happening inside these agencies were some small number
of employees coming to you anecdotally and telling you what's
going on. The old saw ``you can't manage what you don't
measure'' is true. And it's one of the fundamental challenges
of managing in the Federal Government, is that lack of
universal, real-time performance information.
And I think Chairman Meadows has it right, that there are
some really interesting opportunities. This is a once-a-year
survey. It ought to be done once a year. It's a great way of
creating a benchmark. It's important for us to remember it's
not just about the Federal Government. The larger talent market
is the one that the government's fishing in, so you've got to
compare it to the larger talent market.
But there's opportunities to do poll surveys, to do things
that are real-time, not, you know, the 84 questions here, but
when an issue is identified, to be able to pull out two, three,
four things and then to ask your employees in real time whether
or not you're making progress so that you're not waiting, you
know, for that full cycle.
So there are ways to, I think, improve capability here and
consequence. You asked, is it making a difference, and I think
the answer is yes. I think if you look down this table, all
these folks here are working very hard because there is a data
point that they're being held accountable to, and it's actually
the right data point, what their employees have to say.
And, again, Chairman Meadows is right, is that it is not--
people sometimes--``Well, it's subjective data.'' But it is the
objective subjective data. Because it matters what employees
actually have to--what they think.
And this is a rich data set. Again, it's about whether
they're being supportive and being innovative, whether they're
getting the right talent into their organization. You know, I
think that OPM is right, they are opportunities to collect some
other different things, but we do need to have that common
baseline across the board.
I think if this kind of hearing was had across the board,
in all the different committees of jurisdiction who have
supervisory responsibility, you would see 10X impact. And so,
you know, one question would be, is there a way to help make
that happen?
I think the idea that you both might visit, you know,
Surface Transportation Board, you go out and visit other
agencies, is phenomenally important for you to get real
information about what's going on inside these agencies.
I mentioned earlier that I think that the lack of real-time
performance information, short-term leaders not aligned to
long-term missions are two of the root causes of dysfunction in
our government. The third one that to me is real is I don't
think Congress is doing everything it ought to do. And it's in
the oversight, it's in the budgeting. And kudos to you on
biennial budgeting. Giving some longer-term peace would be
hugely important. But that's another area of huge, huge impact
on what the government can produce for the American public.
So thank you for that opportunity.
Mr. Connolly. And one final question on this. You know, STB
is a small agency. How many people, Mr. Gardner?
Mr. Gardner. 128, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Okay. So if you do a survey of 128 people,
you probably get a pretty good picture from the survey in terms
of what's on people's minds, what's bothering them and so
forth.
But you look at DHS, and it is a many-splendored thing. I
mean, you know, after 9/11, we cobbled it together. I remember
it quite vividly. And you've got, you know, all kinds of
different agencies with different kinds of missions under one
roof--with how many employees totally, Ms. Bailey?
Ms. Bailey. It's around 230,000.
Mr. Connolly. 128; 230,000.
And how many agencies are cobbled together under that?
Ms. Bailey. I think originally it was 22 agencies.
Mr. Connolly. Twenty-two agencies.
So I worry a little bit about--I mean, there is a
difference between these two, not only in sheer numbers but
just the complexity of it. And is there some reason to be
concerned about the data we're getting from the one versus the
other, not because it's corrupted but just because it doesn't
really take cognizance of the differentiation of missions and
cultures?
Mr. Stier. Yeah. So one of the reasons why we do best in
class, best agency in large agency and medium agencies and
small agencies, is for the reason you identified: It is a very
different management proposition. And at the end of the day, I
think the ranking actually helps bring attention. This is a
society that cares about ranking; competition is actually a
good thing. But it is still the case, as you suggest, that
there are different management challenges depending on the
organization.
However, people are people. And if you listen to the kinds
of things that people are doing across the board here, they're
largely the same. The activity--it's harder to move your
steamship, the bigger piece, but the activities are the same.
And for DHS, they've got to break it down into their
operational components to make it work.
I do think the risk, though, is that everyone wants to
believe they're special and different. And while there is some
element of that, there's also a lot of similarity. And we don't
do enough in the Federal Government of actually learning from
each other. And part of it, we don't do enough on mobility of
talent. Because that's really the way you're going to actually
knit it all together, is getting people to be working and
moving, especially at the leadership side.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah. Fair point. We heard that a lot in the
IT sector. Mr. Meadows and I both worked on--you know, ``Our
mission is unique, and therefore we can't''--fill in the
blanks, you know, move from the legacy system, move to the
cloud, whatever it might be.
And you think, well, at a certain point, though, data is
data. And there are lots of, you know, confidentiality concerns
or classified concerns that have to be taken into account, but
the management of data is generally something that can be
applied across the board. So I take your point.
I thank you. Thank you all for being here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman.
And I'd like to thank all of our witnesses that are here
today and thank you, even those that, Mr. Gardner, are going to
put forth a plan to make things better.
Kudos to all of you who have really recognized the
importance of the Federal workforce and what they contribute.
And so, as much as you're here to testify on behalf of your
agencies and the progress that has been made, the real thank
you needs to go to the employees who not only participate in
the survey but also do the work each and every day.
And so I look forward to following--and I can tell you, I
do follow this. I follow it very closely. And part of it's just
I love to see the competitive nature, and I love to see how
everybody's waiting for those scores to come out and where they
are and the recognition that comes from that. You know, when
the schedule permits, we love to participate and celebrate a
success.
And so, from your predecessor, Ms. Bailey, who encouraged
me to look at this in a positive light, it has changed this
hearing, because we truly do try to focus now on the good
practices.
I think one of the matrix that might be interesting to add,
from an OPM and a survey standpoint, is how much agency-to-
agency participation there is, you know. And so, as we look at
that--so the fact that you've learned from other agencies, the
fact that you're sharing that knowledge with others, that
should be a score component that actually weighs in, because we
want to share those best practices.
And so, as I say that, I want to thank you.
I ask unanimous consent that all the members of the
committee have 5 legislative days to submit questions for the
record.
Without objection, so ordered.
So, if there is no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]