A New Civil Service Framework

Building the Enterprise

APRIL 2014 The Partnership for Public Service is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to revitalize the federal government by inspiring a new generation to serve and by transforming the way government works.

Booz Allen Hamilton has been at the forefront of strategy and technology consulting for nearly a century. Today, the firm provides services primarily to the US government in defense, intelligence, and civil markets, and to major corporations, institutions, and not-for-profit organizations. Booz Allen offers clients deep functional knowledge spanning strategy and organization, engineering and operations, technology, and analytics—which it combines with specialized expertise in clients’ mission and domain areas to help solve their toughest problems.

Booz Allen is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, employs approximately 25,000 people, and had revenue of $5.86 billion for the 12 months ended March 31, 2012. To learn more, visit www.boozallen.com. (NYSE: BAH)

b b PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP FOR FOR PUBLIC PUBLIC SERVICE SERVICE | BOOZ | BOOZ ALLEN ALLEN HAMILTON HAMILTON PREFACE

In 2013 the Partnership for Public Service and Booz Allen We have an opportunity and an imperative to plan for Hamilton articulated a vision for creating a federal gov- the future federal workforce, but to do it properly will ernment that acts as a single, integrated enterprise—not mean revamping the system that supports it. The Gen- a set of disconnected agencies and programs—in tackling eral Schedule, the pay and job classification system under the nation’s biggest problems and challenges. In no area which the majority of the federal workforce still operates, is this need for a unified, whole-of-government approach dates back to 1949. It reflects the needs and characteris- more critical than in the way the government manages tics of the last century’s workforce—not those required its talent. for today’s complex, interagency challenges. Throughout our discussions with numerous current The work of government has changed. The way we and former federal officials, academics and stakehold- work and the skills needed have changed. And the world ers about how to make government more effective, one has changed. Our civil service system has not kept pace. theme that emerged early and often centered on the in- To cope, some agencies, many of whom experienced a adequacy of the civil service system in helping our fed- crisis, were able to cut their own deals with Congress eral government recruit, hire, develop, retain and reward that enable them to operate under separate systems, with our nation’s top talent. higher pay rates and more hiring flexibilities. The result The Partnership is firmly committed to the idea that is a patchwork quilt of “have” and “have not” agencies, good government starts with good people. And to be where government competes with itself for high-caliber clear, our nation is fortunate to count some of the bright- employees instead of approaching talent at a strategic, est, most dedicated professionals among its ranks. But enterprise level on behalf of all of government. too often they succeed in spite of the current civil service In his 2015 budget proposal, President Obama reiter- system, not because of it, and it is getting harder to attract ated a commitment to taking executive actions that will highly qualified and skilled employees in this age of pay “attract and retain the best talent in the federal workforce freezes, ad hoc hiring freezes and tight budgets. and foster a culture of excellence.” These steps are critical. Only 9 percent of the federal workforce is made up But we are long overdue for fundamental reforms that go of people younger than 30—compared to 23 percent of beyond executive action for the civil service system. No the total U.S. workforce. By 2017 nearly two-thirds of the reform effort will be successful, however, without strong Senior Executive Service, our nation’s career leadership leadership to drive its successful implementation. corps, will be eligible for retirement, and about 31 percent Our hope is that the broad framework offered in the of the government’s permanent career employees will be pages that follow ignites a conversation on how to mod- able to head out the door. Given the state of the economy ernize our federal civil service and brings stakeholders over the past several years, government has held on to its together to create a system that our public servants de- experienced employees for longer than anticipated, but serve and that will produce the results our country needs. retirements are back on the rise.

Max Stier Lloyd W. Howell Jr. President and CEO Executive Vice President Partnership for Public Service Booz Allen Hamilton

Federal Workforce by the Numbers Today’s federal workforce is composed largely of knowledge-based, professional occupations—a much different picture than the largely clerical occupations that dominated the previous century’s workforce. The entire federal government is made up of 2.1 million civilian employees, 1.8 million of whom work in full-time, permanent, nonseasonal positions. Nearly two-thirds of these employees work in professional and administrative positions. But what does this portion of the overall federal workforce look like today? Which agencies do these employees work in, and in which fields? The figures in the following pages focus on federal civilian employees in the executive branch, excluding the intelligence community and U.S. Postal Service.

The nature of the work performed by federal employees has evolved over time. The percentage of FEDERAL WORKFORCE BY OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY the federal workforce in professional and administrative occupations—those focused on knowledge- based work and often requiring college education—has risen steadily for the past 15 years. At the same time, the percentage of employees in clerical occupations—those that primarily require mastery of a specific task or skill—has fallen 4.6 percent.

PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICAL BLUE COLLAR CLERICAL OTHER WHITE COLLAR

70 PERCENT 60 50 40 30 20 10

1998 2013 1998 2013 1998 2013 1998 2013 1998 2013

SINCE 1998 the PERCENTage of professional and the PERCENTage of CLERICAL administrative employees has risen 9.8% employees has dropped 4.6%

SIZE OF THE TOTAL FEDERAL WORKFORCE Top Employers: PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OCCUPATIONS

Defense and security-related agencies dominate the composition of the professional and 2013 FEDERAL administrative workforce. Employees in these agencies account for 62.8 percent of the professional 2010 WORKFORCE and administrative workforce, with civilian employees at Department of Defense agencies alone accounting for 34 percent. 2.1 MILLION 2000 VETERANS AFFAIRS 14.1% % PROFESSIONAL 62.8 OF EMPLOYEES WORK AND ARMY 12.0% ADMINISTRATIVE FOR DEFENSE AND 1990 SECURITY-RELATED EMPLOYEES NAVY 9.4% AGENCIES MILLION 1980 1.2 HOMELAND SECURITY 8.4%

AIR FORCE 7.4% 1970 JUSTICE 6.3%

DEFENSE 5.2% 1960 TREASURY 4.7%

1950 TRANSPORTATION 4.2%

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 4.2% 1940 0.5 1.5 2.5 MILLION OTHER 24.1% TOP 10 GROUPS: PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OCCUPATIONS

ADMINISTRATION, MEDICAL, OPERATIONS AND DENTAL AND INVESTIGATION ENGINEERING AND GENERAL MGMT. PUBLIC HEALTH AND INSPECTION ARCHITECTURE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL WORKFORCE BY OCCUPATIONAL GROUP 17.1% 11.2% 9.4% 8.4% TOTAL EMPLOYEES 203,756 134,097 112,487 100,793 A profile of professional and administrative federal employees This new civil service framework proposes reforms that would affect the professional Employees under 30 years of age account for only AGE about 6 percent of the professional and administrative and administrative workforce, which comprises 65 percent of the federal workforce. The workforce. This stands in contrast to the civilian work- figures in this spread focus on the 1.2 million civilian, full-time, permanent employees in force (including the private sector), where 23 percent of professional and administrative occupations and are designed to provide an overview of employees are under 30 years old. Many of the reforms in this proposal could help government better attract the characteristics of this workforce segment. and retain younger talent.

While the racial diversity of the federal workforce varies from one segment of the < 25 0.6 RACE AND ETHNICITY workforce to another, the racial diversity of the professional and administrative workforce closely mirrors that of the entire federal workforce. For example, 30 per- 25-29 5.3 cent of the professional and administrative workforce is composed of individuals of a minority racial group, compared to 33.2 percent of the entire federal workforce. 30-34 10.0

WHITE 70.0 35-39 10.1

BLACK OR AFRICAN 15.9 15.9 40-44 12.2 AMERICAN

ASIAN 6.3 45-49 15.8

HISPANIC OR LATINO 4.9 50-54 18.7 AMERICAN INDIAN 1.3 OR ALASKA NATIVE 55-59 14.9

MIXED RACE 1.3 60-64 8.6 NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR 0.3 PACIFIC ISLANDER > 65 3.8

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20

GENDER DISABILITY STATUS Data Sources: Unless otherwise noted below, all data are from FedScope (fedscope.opm.gov), from the Office of Personnel Management, for Women account for 43.7 percent of the entire professional Nine percent of all professional and administrative employees all full-time, nonseasonal, permanent employees and administrative workforce. report having a disability. (Sept. 2013). FEMALE EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES Veteran Status: Partnership for Public Service analysis of the Central Personnel Data File (now MALE EMPLOYEES WITHOUT DISABILITIES called the EHRI-SDM) for full-time, nonseasonal, permanent employees (Sept. 2012). Disability Status: Partnership for Public Service 9.0 analysis of the Central Personnel Data File for full- time, nonseasonal, permanent employees (Sept. 2011). 43.7 Data on the civilian labor force: “Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, 56.3 http://1.usa.gov/1geGOD3 (accessed Feb. 25, 2014). 43 57+ 90+91.0 10

BIOLOGY AND ACCOUNTING SOCIAL SCIENCES INFORMATION BUSINESS AND LEGAL AND NATURAL AND BUDGET AND PSYCHOLOGY TECHNOLOGY COMMERCE CLAIMS SERVICES RESOURCES MGMT.

7.1% 6.8% 6.7% 6.5% 5.3% 3.1% 84,368 81,759 80,101 77,947 63,208 36,741

The General Schedule (GS) is a 15-level, government-wide GS LEVEL pay and classification system used for the majority of the Education Level federal workforce. Currently, the professional and adminis- ENTRY LEVEL trative workforce is predominantly composed of mid- and While the education level of current employees primarily represents the education senior-level grades, with 88.8 percent of professional and level when hired, there is a marked difference in average education level between MID LEVEL administrative employees working at the GS-10 level or the entire workforce and the professional and administrative workforce, where oc- SENIOR LEVEL higher. We propose a simplified classification system with cupations often require a more advanced level of formal education. In 2013, 58.5 five work levels (see pages 17-19, SES 35-38). percent of the entire federal workforce had some form of college degree when hired. SES In contrast, a full 68.2 percent of the professional and administrative workforce in 2013 had a college degree when hired.

GS 1-6 < HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.2%

SES GS 7 HIGH SCHOOL 24.2 0.8% 1.6% GS 9 GS 15 GS 8 9.2% ASSOCIATES 7.4 6.0% 0.2% GS 10 BACHELORS 42.6 GS 14 0.9% 12.1% MASTERS 21.3

11.2 DOCTORATE 4.3 GS 11 18.1% 10 20 30 40 50 42.3

45.7 Average years of service GS 13 24.2% Average years of service refers to the average number of years of federal civilian employment, including creditable military service. The average for all professional and administrative employees has remained steady for the past three years, and in 2013 was higher than the government-wide average of 13.9.

20 YEARS GS 12 26.7%

15 14.6

Individuals who have served in the active uniformed veteran status military service constitute a significant segment of the federal workforce. Currently, 26.3 percent of employees in professional and administrative occupations are veterans. 10 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 VETERAN NON-VETERAN TOP 5 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WITH THE LONGEST AVERAGE YEARS OF SERVICE

1. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 19.8 YEARS 26.3 2. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 19.5 YEARS

3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 19.4 YEARS

73.7 4. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 19.2 YEARS 26+745. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 19.1 YEARS 6 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INTRODUCTION

The American federal civil service system, the foundation for effective government, is in crisis.

Designed more than 60 years ago, the personnel system governing more than 2 million workers is a relic of a bygone era, reflecting a time when most federal jobs were clerical and required few specialized skills, and when the government’s role in society was smaller and far less complicated. The world has changed dramatically, but the civil service system has remained stuck in the past, serving as a barrier rather than an aid to attracting, hiring and retaining highly skilled and educated employees needed to respond to today’s domestic and global challenges. The American public expects federal employees to competently handle a wide array of critical matters on a routine basis, from making Social Security payments, ensuring air safety and caring for veterans to maintaining a strong military, protecting the food supply and the air we breathe, and securing our borders—each one of these tasks requiring the work of skilled professionals and presenting complex organizational challenges. Americans also expect government employees to tackle long-term challenges, such as finding cures for diseases, ensuring energy security and pro- viding the building blocks for economic growth, while guarding against and responding to the unthinkable, whether it’s a terrorist attack, a devastating hurricane or a financial collapse. We seldom consider the complexity of these tasks or the people who must handle these matters. We just take it for granted. While the vast majority of the government’s employees are dedicated professionals who seek to make a difference, the civil service system in which they operate is so out of touch with the complexities these employees face and places so many obstacles in their way that it puts at risk the government’s ability to accomplish all that we expect of it. And we only see the evidence when it’s too late, after something has broken or failed and there are dramatic consequences. It’s long past time for a change.

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 7 The federal personnel system is while other agencies remain saddled ability to bring leadership and man- disconnected from the broader with the outdated General Schedule agerial expertise to a wide range of labor market (GS) system created in 1949.1 As a national problems, has become in- In many respects, the federal work- result, agencies wind up competing sular and agency-centric, with most place has become an island discon- among themselves for critical tal- executives staying in the same orga- nected from the larger talent market ent, as well as with the private sec- nization for their entire careers. As for knowledge-based professional tor, and those organizations with the a result, while their knowledge is and administrative occupations that added flexibilities end up having a deep, their perspective can be nar- are mission-critical. This is where distinct advantage. row and many lack the experience being competitive for talent really The hiring system itself is slow, of handling complex, multi-agency matters, but the government has complex, a mystery to applicants and government-wide missions and fallen behind the private sector in and imprecise in identifying the functions. that competition. Today these jobs best-qualified candidates. Job de- account for about 65 percent of the scriptions typically are complicated, full-time, nonseasonal federal civil- arcane and out-of-date. Employees ian workforce. frequently are stymied from moving Federal employee pay for pro- among agencies, and the entry of ex- fessional and administrative occu- perienced and qualified applicants pations, for example, is not tied to into government from the private the broader labor market, making sector is often difficult. it hard for government to compete The civil service system has with the private sector for talent. become a maze of rules and proce- That disconnect is exacerbated by a dures that are not perceived as ra- job classification system (the basis tional by the people who serve in for comparing public- and private- government or by the general public. sector jobs) that describes a work- Rigid policies that were designed to place from the last century. encourage long-term tenure and in- Unable to compete for and re- ternal equity, for example, are now a tain some of the high-end skills and burden on a government that needs lacking the capacity to handle many to encourage flexibility and innova- critical day-to-day tasks, the govern- tion to meet rapidly changing and ment often has to look to outside difficult challenges. contractors for the intellectual capi- In addition, the government tal and know-how that is needed. faces a leadership crisis. A very high There also is an absence of percentage of senior career execu- clarity and consequence regarding tives are nearing retirement, and individual and organizational per- there is a lack of diversity in the formance. Top performers seldom leadership corps and an inadequate receive sufficient rewards, poor per- pipeline for new talent. Many who formers are rarely fired or demoted, are chosen to lead are technical ex- and managers are not held account- perts rather than seasoned manag- able for how well they manage em- ers. Federal employee surveys rou- ployees or the outcomes of the work tinely show that only about half of they oversee. the workforce has a high level of re- What was once a unified civil spect for their senior leaders. service system with a set of common The Senior Executive Service rules and procedures has become (SES), created by a 1978 reform law deeply fractured, with numerous as a unified career executive corps agencies having obtained special whose members would have a broad exemptions from Congress that give perspective of government and the them greater leeway in setting pay, classifying jobs, hiring and reward- 1 See Appendix One for a list of federal agen- ing top-performing employees, even cies with their own compensation systems.

8 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON The way forward: missions, cultures and constituents. the Congress and such critical stake- A transformed civil service The system should be designed holders as federal employee unions, Unlike the private sector, the gov- to more easily attract, hire, promote professional associations and veterans ernment’s success is judged by how and retain the best qualified employ- groups, we can begin a serious con- it serves the broader public interest, ees, and place greater attention on versation, flesh out the details, reach promotes the general social welfare the development of leaders. It should compromises and successfully imple- and protects society and its citizens. be based on state-of-the-art human ment important changes that will The federal government also aspires capital practices and have a total com- lead to improved government perfor- to be a model employer and an ex- pensation system that is occupation- mance that better serves the needs of ample for others, with a long and re- specific and market-sensitive. And it the American people. spected tradition of placing a high should have career paths that support There are legitimate differences value on merit, nonpartisan indepen- progression and job mobility, and be of opinion about what government dence, preference for our veterans, designed to reward performance, not should do, but none about wanting equal employment opportunity and just time on the federal payroll. whatever government does to be done nondiscrimination, due process and The pages that follow offer a well. This requires a civil service sys- collective bargaining. framework for reforming the out- tem that attracts competent, high- A modernized civil service system dated federal civil service system with quality candidates to public service, should continue to be based on these these goals in mind. Taken together, pays public servants in a way that long-held principles. It should have these proposals represent truly trans- reflects the broader labor market, re- the consistent policies and procedures formational change, but nearly all wards high performance and devel- and level playing field that are charac- of them have been tried—and more ops and utilizes top-notch leadership teristics of a single enterprise, but also importantly, proven—in one or more at all levels. That is our aspiration and be flexible and adaptive enough to ac- agencies. We are confident that with our goal. America deserves no less. commodate the wide variety of agency the commitment of the White House,

Merit System Principles 1. Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should The nine merit system principles, codified in be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge and skills, after fair and open law, are the foundation of the civil service, competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity. have stood the test of time and should be an 2. All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment integral part of any modernized federal per- in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, sonnel system. religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights. 3. Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance. 4. All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest. 5. The federal workforce should be used efficiently and effectively. 6. Employees should be retained on the basis of adequacy of their performance, inadequate performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not improve their performance to meet required standards. 7. Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance. 8. Employees should be protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism or coercion for partisan political purposes, and prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election. 9. Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information which the employees reasonably believe evidences a violation of any law, rule or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 9 Recommendations The Partnership for Public Service and Booz Allen Hamilton arrived at the following recommendations to reshape the system for managing white-collar professional and administrative federal employees after a lengthy examination of past reform efforts and the current state of the civil service, and in consultation with dozens of government and union leaders, former federal executives and academics. We propose:

Creating a unified civil service that Establishing a simplified, streamlined operates under a set of common job classification system for core principles and policies to level professional and administrative the playing field across the federal positions that condenses the General landscape in the competition for Schedule’s 15 grade levels (GS-5 talent, while giving high-performing through GS-15) into five work levels agencies flexibility to adapt aspects that more closely align with the of their personnel systems to meet knowledge work that most federal mission needs; and establishing employees currently perform, and that in law the National Council on enable them to progress based on Federal-Labor Management their technical expertise, not just the Relations as the primary vehicle for number of people they supervise. consultation between the executive PAGE 16 branch and employee unions on civil service policy decisions. PAGE 13 Adopting an occupation-specific, $ market-sensitive system for professional and administrative jobs that takes into account total compensation roughly comparable to what is offered by major private- sector employers as well as state and local governments. This system would account for geographic differences in salaries and levels of responsibility. PAGE 16

10 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON Improving today’s performance Ensuring greater accountability management system by ensuring that and speedier justice for employees supervisors and managers have the disciplined or fired for poor skills necessary for it to work, and performance or misconduct by making it consequential by awarding consolidating the multiple complaints above-market base pay raises only and appeals channels into a one-stop to those employees and managers process managed by a reconstituted who perform above expectations, Merit Systems Protection Board. and no pay increases to those whose PAGE 32 performance is unsatisfactory. PAGE 23 Creating a single, four-tier executive service that would better prepare Changing the hiring process by accomplished career civil servants expanding the use of flexibilities now for high-level agency and enterprise available to only certain “excepted” leadership positions. The top tier agencies, without compromising would be reserved for specially such core principles as veterans developed and deployable enterprise preference, merit-based selection, executives who possess interagency, diversity and equal opportunity; intergovernmental or private-sector holding managers accountable for leadership experience to manage major bringing the right talent into their cross-cutting government initiatives. agencies; charging the Office of Candidates for the senior executive Personnel Management to lead the corps, with few exceptions, would development of valid assessment need to demonstrate the capacity tools capable of identifying the best to lead in a complex, interagency, qualified from among large numbers intergovernmental environment. We of candidates; allowing direct-hire also propose filling key government authority whenever agencies can management positions with senior show a shortage of highly qualified career executives instead of political candidates; and permitting former appointees to provide a long-term high-performing federal officials to perspective and leadership continuity, reenter government service more and reducing the overall number of easily and at levels that match their political appointees. skills and experience. PAGE 35 PAGE 27

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 11

Unifying the Civil Service

What We Propose means taking advantage of the many lessons learned by Create a unified civil service system for the entire those agencies that have broken free from the rigid, out- federal enterprise that balances bedrock principles dated system and developing a new civil service system and common policies across the government with that is up to the challenges of 21st-century government. agency flexibility to tailor their personnel systems to This system should strike a balance between core prin- support their separate missions. ciples and common policies that apply to all agencies on the one hand, and provide agency flexibility to configure and even customize those human resources policies on The Problem the other. The federal civil service system has become increasingly obsolete, with most of its major components last retooled How It Would Work more than six decades ago. As that system has aged, agencies both large and small have broken from its ranks, cut- The enterprise human capital system must be anchored by ting deals with Congress for agency-specific personnel the core values and operating principles that have defined flexibilities, including separate compensation systems, the American civil service since its inception, and have to further their own unique missions and circumstances. made that system the envy of the world when it comes The net result is a balkanized, disjointed system with to steady, incorruptible continuity in the face of partisan some agencies exempted from all or part of general civil turmoil and transition. That core, common to all agencies service rules to create their own more modern agency- regardless of mission, funding mechanism or enabling specific systems, and other agencies still mired in an an- statute, would be composed of such bedrock principles tiquated 1949 law. Agencies end up competing not only as merit, nonpartisan political neutrality, veterans prefer- with the private sector, but also with each other for talent, ence, due process in terminations and other adverse ac- and those organizations without the personnel flexibili- tions, collective bargaining, diversity and the goals of be- ties are placed at a great disadvantage. ing a model employer and serving the public interest. These are all ideals to which every agency should as- pire, but many of these operating principles and core val- The Solution ues largely have become background noise. These ideals We need to build a civil service system that is far more should be reaffirmed and firmly grounded in a new civil unified than it is today if the federal government is to act service system. The same must be true for the current set as an integrated enterprise, one that operates under a of prohibited personnel practices that bar discrimination common core framework, levels the playing field across based on race, sex, age, national origin, political affiliation the federal landscape in the competition for talent, and or disability, and that protect whistleblowers from retali- enables agencies to acquire and leverage that talent to ation. They serve as the alter ego to the core civil service deal with the complex challenges that face our nation. values. These core values, both principles and prohibitions, This does not mean creating a system that surrenders are inviolable and must govern every federal agency. They to the lowest common denominator, mandates one-size- are the foundation upon which all other aspects of the sys- fits-all rules or forces agencies now operating with their tem are based, and they would serve as the glue that binds own personnel flexibilities back into the box. Instead, it all the federal government’s agencies together.

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 13 A New CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

CORE CIVIL SERVICE PRINCIPLES

Merit-based Nonpartisan Veterans preference Non-discrimination Due process

COMMON AGENCY-SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL/ ENTERPRISE SYSTEM CONFIGURATION CUSTOM

Job classification and Recruitment, assessment Earned autonomy for high qualification standards and selection performing agencies Streamlined appointing Promotion process Customizable except authorities for core principles Performance appraisals Occupation-specific and and awards programs OPM certification and review market-sensitive salary ranges Internal grievance procedures Subject to bargaining Pay-setting process Special salary rates Performance management Unified senior executive service Independent complaint/ appeal adjudication Core benefits (e.g., health insurance, retirement and leave)

14 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON Common, enterprise-wide human ize the system’s core principles—like Service received them as a result capital policies to level the field equal pay for substantially equal of allegations of abusing taxpayers. In addition to the core principles, a work—but this is not intended to When the Department of Homeland reformed civil service system must force agencies to default to a less Security was established in 2003 in be bounded by a set of government- flexible common denominator. response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, wide human capital policies and Rather, it would mean institutional- it was given personnel flexibilities to procedures that are common across izing for all agencies those flexibili- design a more modern system. Each all agencies—policies and practices ties that have proved effective for case came in response to perceived that are so fundamental that they those few fortunate enough to have mission failures on the part of the must apply regardless of mission or acquired them. agencies involved, and the changes circumstance. This commonality is And to ensure that rank-and-file were justified as part of the fix for necessary in part to serve as the con- civil servants have a say in the sub- that failure. nective tissue that binds the federal stance of those common policies, the The opposite dynamic should enterprise and its civil servants to- National Council on Federal Labor- be the case, with human capital flex- gether, and in part to level the play- Management Relations should be ibilities afforded to those agencies ing field for today’s agencies stuck codified in law as the principal plat- that have demonstrated the highest with the outdated personnel and pay form for consultation between the performance, not the lowest. These policies that have left them at a com- executive branch and the unions relatively few departments and petitive disadvantage with the pri- that represent most of its employ- agencies—by virtue of their superior vate sector and other federal organi- ees. The council, established by an performance, high ethical standards zations in the search for talent. This executive order issued early in the and exemplary stewardship of core would include those common, core Obama administration to facilitate civil service principles—could earn benefits—health insurance, leave greater cooperation between federal the autonomy to develop their own and pensions that are best provided unions and agency leaders, is the customized human capital systems. at government-wide scale, as well latest edition of the original Labor- The human capital flexibili- as other fundamental aspects of the Management Partnership Council ties available would be much like employment relationship. created by a 1993 Clinton admin- those already available today via the For example, there should be a istration executive order that was largely underutilized demonstra- common classification system, with later rescinded by President George tion project authority authorized by common job evaluation standards W. Bush. The council should be the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. and occupational series, to ensure given permanent institutional status To earn such autonomy to imple- a measure of internal unity across and a substantive advisory role to ment innovative personnel manage- the federal enterprise, but one that the director of the Office of Person- ment policies and procedures, an is far simpler and more flexible than nel Management (OPM), the Presi- agency would have to meet certain exists today. Similarly, there should dent’s Management Council (PMC) performance-based criteria estab- be a single pay-setting process and the president in major govern- lished by the Office of Management for the entire federal civil service ment-wide civil service policy deci- and Budget (OMB) and OPM, with to ensure an enterprise view and sions—including pay-setting. appropriate congressional oversight. good decision-making, but one that And just as that existing authority is far more market-sensitive and Earned autonomy for top is subject to collective bargaining occupation-based than the current agencies if an agency’s workforce is union- system. A common senior federal A few exceptions notwithstanding, ized, those agencies that earn the executive service should be estab- recent civil service reforms have opportunity to customize their own lished (today there as many as seven been incremental and limited to in- human capital system in the future senior executive and equivalent sys- dividual agencies or groups of agen- would have to negotiate the details tems) to foster interagency mobility cies rather than government-wide of that system with their resident and the development and deploy- in nature. Ironically, many of these unions. ment of that cadre of elite enterprise reforms have been in response to executives who can be dispatched some more general organizational to handle major government initia- fiasco. The personnel flexibilities -af tives and multi-agency missions and forded financial regulatory agencies functions. in 1989, for example, came about as In many cases, the common a result of the savings-and-loan cri- policies would serve to operational- sis and in 1998 the Internal Revenue

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 15 Matching the Market: Classifying Jobs and Setting Pay

about that determination is archaic. The General Sched- What We Propose ule, once the state of the art in personnel management, is Modernize the decades-old federal General Sched- now more than six decades old. The job classifications in ule (GS) job classification system to better reflect the General Schedule reflect a time when more than 70 the work of today’s federal professionals and admin- percent of federal employees performed clerical or low- istrators, and use it to match federal occupations— level administrative work, and it has little connection to and federal pay—to comparable jobs in the private the knowledge work performed by a majority of today’s and nonprofit sectors, as well as in state and local civil servants. governments. Worse, statutory distinctions between those classifications—represented by the 15 General Schedule pay grades—are arbitrary and arcane. For example, a civil The Problem service position may be classified at grade GS-11 because The federal workforce is treated as a single entity for its work is of “marked difficulty and responsibility” or at purposes of compensating professional and adminis- GS-12 if its duties are judged to be of “a very high order of trative personnel, rather than as employees engaged in difficulty and responsibility.” As a consequence, the abil- a set of highly differentiated occupations—an approach ity to evaluate the relative value of federal jobs internally that is unheard of among successful private-sector or- and externally—for example, to set benchmark salary ganizations. This federal pay-setting process under- ranges for comparable work—is close to impossible. mines the ability of the government to attract and retain The bottom line: It is difficult to know how federal high-quality, white-collar talent because it treats the jobs—and federal salary rates—compare with the compe- workforce as a unified mass, and it bears little relation- tition, and as a consequence the current system for mak- ship to the compensation rates paid for similar work in ing adjustments to those rates is fatally flawed. the broader labor market. Each year, for example, the Federal Salary Coun- Determining what the labor market is paying starts cil posits a double-digit salary gap between the federal with classifying jobs. That is how employers determine and private sectors and recommends government-wide the relative value of jobs—internally compared with one salary rate adjustments, only to find them received with another and externally with respect to positions in other skepticism and suspicion from all quarters. Even in times organizations. The federal government’s way of going of budget plenty, many on Capitol Hill argue that they

16 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON are too high, the unions counter that eral salaries and benefits on an should not require detailed, rigid they are too low, and experts inside occupation-by-occupation basis, pro- definitions for those levels. Instead, the executive branch privately con- poses a change in the government’s OPM would be empowered to flesh cede that, paradoxically, they are a total compensation costs based on out and, when appropriate, adjust little bit of both. those comparisons and, given an those levels administratively, in And each year, the president de- overall compensation budget en- consultation with the PMC and the clares yet another economic emer- acted by Congress, provides far National Council on Federal Labor- gency so as to trigger an escape greater discretion to the executive Management Relations. OPM also clause that according to the 1990 branch to actually manage those would be authorized to issue more Federal Employees Pay Comparabil- costs. Under this plan, funds from detailed, occupation-specific clas- ity Act (FEPCA) allows the adminis- the total compensation budget could sification standards for each level as tration and Congress to pick a num- be used to more precisely target ben- necessary. It would issue standards ber for a pay increase that typically efits and pay rate and pay range in- for classifying supervisory and man- doesn’t satisfy anyone. Bad enough creases by occupation, work level agerial positions within all the work in good times, but in times of real and location, to keep the federal gov- levels at full performance or above, economic emergency, the net result ernment on par with its labor market with those who are entrusted to lead is no across-the-board pay increase competition. federal employees receiving a pay at all, no matter how justified. To At the same time, the General differential. Here is what those lev- be sure, FEPCA tried to get it right. Schedule as it applies to profes- els would look like: It operationalized the principle of sional and administrative positions geographic market-based pay for that are today classified at GS grades Entry / Development civil servants in statute, and it relied 5 through 15—and account for 65 This level would be reserved for profes- on a pay-setting process that, given percent of the workforce—should be sional and administrative employees just the data available at the time, was replaced by a far simpler, five-level beginning their federal careers, from their both analytically reasonable and po- classification framework, with each initial career-conditional appointment litically palatable. Now we need to level representing a much wider and examination period through gradua- complete the job by adding occupa- range of duties and responsibili- tion from trainee to full-performance, ca- tional market sensitivity for pay. ties to more closely reflect the work reer status. The entry and development However well intentioned the of a modern civil service. Further, level would accommodate new under- General Schedule and FEPCA may Congress should legislate only the graduates without significant work expe- have been, they are now obsolete. broadest contours of that frame- rience as well as entrants with advanced Dramatic changes in the nature and work, empowering OPM—in close education and some relevant experience. stature of federal work, wide fluctu- consultation with the President’s ations in the labor markets in which Management Council (PMC) and Full Performance I the federal government competes for the National Council on Federal This encompasses employees who grad- talent and even changes in the kinds Labor-Management Relations—to uate from the entry/development level of salary data available to the Office define and, as necessary, refine the or demonstrate they can meet all of the of Personnel Management (OPM) all details of those work levels and performance requirements for a particu- have contributed to pay grades and occupation-based classification stan- lar job at full performance level. Promo- pay rates that are suspect. Attempts dards administratively in order to tion to this level would be noncompeti- to match the market through annual, keep pace with the changing nature tive but not automatic. The employing across-the-board salary adjustments of government work. agency would be required to make an do little more than further fuel the affirmative, competency-based assess- wrong debate over whether federal How It Would Work ment in that regard. External candidates civil servants are paid too much or Classification who meet those standards could be ap- too little, rather than the real issue pointed directly into Full Performance I of whether they are being paid in the For white-collar professional and status. right way. administrative positions currently classified at GS-5 to GS-15, a new Full Performance II classification system would replace The Solution This category is intended to accommo- those grade levels with five distinct date positions that require competen- The current pay-setting process classification levels, from entry to cies comparable to those classified at should be replaced with one that executive. While Congress would Full Performance I but involve greater compares federal and nonfed- establish this framework in law, it complexity, scope or responsibility. For

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 17 A New Job Classification System For white-collar professional and administrative positions, GS levels 5 to 15

FULL PERFORMANCE II (GS 12–13)*

Jobs that require employees to have competencies comparable to those classified as Full Performance I, but involving greater complexity, scope or responsibility

FULL PERFORMANCE I (GS 11–12)*

Employees who have moved up from the entry/development level or have demonstrated they can meet performance requirements for a particular journey-level job

ENTRY / DEVELOPMENT (GS 5–11)*

Professional and administrative jobs for employees just beginning their federal careers

*GS grades are for reference only and may not align with final design or salaries

example, a budget position classified at Expert or Manager in other words, a dual track that gives Full Performance I in a field office may Where classification at the first three agencies and employees more choices. be classified at Full Performance II at levels would be based on the duties and Unlike today’s General Schedule system, an agency headquarters because of its responsibilities of a particular job, clas- those with superior technical qualifi- agency-wide scope. Promotion to this sification at the Expert or Manager level cations could be promoted and com- performance level would be competitive. would be individualized and awarded pensated accordingly, without forcing Supervisors and managers of Full Per- on the basis of an employee’s supe- them to become a manager to progress. formance I and II employees also would rior technical or functional expertise or On the other hand, those that aspired receive a pay differential. broader management responsibilities— to and demonstrated the aptitude for

18 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON SENIOR EXECUTIVE / SENIOR PROFESSIONAL (SES, SL AND ST)*

Positions currently in the Senior Executive Service or the senior would shift the focus of job classifi- technical and senior leader ranks cation away from semantic debates over grade level to meaningful distinctions regarding the labor market MANAGER (GS 12–15)* and performance. In that regard, it would enable the federal government to better match the market Jobs assigned management and supervisory responsibilities by facilitating the comparison of its work and pay levels with those of its competitors. EXPERT (GS 14–15)* How It Would Work Individuals with superior technical or subject-matter expertise Setting Pay We advocate a system in which Con- gress and the White House decide what the federal government’s total compensation budget ought to be for each year, with salary ranges FULL PERFORMANCE II (GS 12–13)* for individual occupations and locations set administratively by the Jobs that require employees to have competencies executive branch through a process comparable to those classified as Full Performance I, but that is based on measurable market involving greater complexity, scope or responsibility data and other factors, just like any large private-sector organization. Individual agencies would then apply those occupation-based salary ranges to determine the best mix of grades and occupations, all within their separate appropriations. Es- tablishing a clear pay-setting process based on market data will improve managerial and, eventually, executive Similarly, we are not recommending the transparency and credibility of ranks could pursue that track. any change to the current classifica- the system and will ensure that the tion or pay system for clerical and federal workforce stays competitive Senior Executive / lower-graded technical jobs. These with the broader labor market for its Senior Professional positions are a rapidly declining per- key occupations. This level would encompass today’s centage of the federal civil service Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior and are generally filled from local la- An occupation-based approach to Level (SL) and Senior Scientific and bor markets. If recruiting and reten- pay comparability Technical (ST) positions, as well as com- tion rates are any guide, their pay is The system we propose would be- parable senior service systems such as relatively competitive in those local gin with OPM comparing federal those in the FBI and the Drug Enforce- labor markets. salary data for benchmark profes- ment Administration (see pages 35-38). This simplified five-level sys- sional and administrative occupa- tem would be far more fluid than tions—that is, occupations that are This new system would not today’s etched-in-statute General common to the federal government, alter the current federal wage sys- Schedule, a fluidity that is consistent such as information technology spe- tem for assigning grades and pay with today’s workplace. Having this cialists, accountants, procurement for blue-collar jobs in the trade and framework will help employees un- professionals and engineers—with crafts such as carpenters, plumbers, derstand how they can progress in their private-sector, nonprofit and mechanics, machinists and ware- their careers. While this system and state and local counterparts. Com- housemen, which is already rela- all of its standards would be comparisons would be limited to first- tively market-sensitive compared mon to the entire federal enterprise, tier, Fortune 500 companies as well to the General Schedule system. a key element of this framework as large state and local governments

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 19 and nonprofits that meet certain and managing the true cost of the cil on Federal Labor-Management size or gross revenue standards, as civil service, and is standard operat- Relations for review and comment those are the federal government’s ing procedure for virtually all other and, ultimately, to the PMC. The principal competitors in the pro- large employers. PMC would make a final recommen- fessional and administrative labor While a more occupation-based dation to the director of OMB and market. There are some occupations approach to setting and adjusting the president for approval. Unlike for which market data will be more the salary rates and ranges for gov- the current pay-setting process, an challenging because the government ernment professionals would be occupation-based approach doesn’t essentially makes the market for used, a standard government ben- lend itself to a single, across-the- those jobs, such as air traffic control- efit package and a standard govern- board pay adjustment. There are just lers or intelligence analysts, but we ment contribution to that package too many possible permutations, but expect tailored approaches that will would be retained to take full ad- the sum total of those permutations seek to best approximate what the vantage of its enterprise-wide scale. would be aggregated along with market requires. For example, the balanced, strong benefit cost increases in the presi- Occupation-specific private-sec- risk pool supporting the Federal dent’s annual budget submission to tor salary data could be purchased Employees Health Benefit Program Congress. from private-sector compensation is what keeps its costs manageable. firms that regularly conduct sophis- However, the cash-equivalent value No more economic emergencies, ticated salary and benefit surveys of of the government’s benefit pack- just budget and judgment the labor market. The Bureau of La- age would be taken into account The new system would abandon bor Statistics (BLS) used to collect in comparing the federal govern- the practice of determining and an- occupation-based salary data but ment’s total compensation levels, nouncing a pay gap each year be- stopped because of budget cuts; it occupation-by-occupation compared tween the public and private sec- could be funded to do so again. In ei- with the private sector and state and tors. That practice has eroded the ther case, the BLS ultimately should local governments. credibility of FEPCA and has never be responsible for certifying that the served its intended purpose—to market data collected for federal sal- Targeted, occupation-specific drive annual across-the-board in- ary comparison purposes, whether pay increases instead of across- creases to close that gap. FEPCA’s by them or by a private compensa- the-board raises escape clause, the declaration of a tion firm, is accurate and meets the Based on the data, as well as national economic emergency, also highest professional and method- other relevant factors such as should be abandoned as a means of ological standards. The cost of col- offer/acceptance and attrition rates, avoiding an automatic across-the- lecting or certifying such data is rel- OPM would develop a notional sal- board increase. That clause has been atively minor compared to the cost ary rate and range adjustments for exercised as a matter of course re- of over- or under-paying hundreds each benchmark occupation by clas- gardless of macroeconomic condi- of thousands of federal employees. sification level as necessary. This tions, leaving it to the administration would represent OPM’s best judg- and Congress to reach an agree- Taking total compensation ment based on both qualitative and ment on whether to provide a single, into account quantitative considerations. For ex- across-the-board pay increase, typi- Based on that BLS-certified data, ample, OPM could recommend that cally without much thought to its OPM would compare the cash- the maximum salary rate for expert- labor market considerations. equivalent value of the benefits level engineers be increased by 4 Instead, Congress and the White provided by the federal govern- percent based not only on the mar- House should decide what the federal ment with those offered by private, ket for engineers, but also higher- government’s total payroll budget nonprofit and other governmental than-normal attrition, while the ought to be for the budget year, and employers. There will be method- salary rates for full performance en- allow the executive branch to admin- ological and other challenges to gineers might remain flat. As noted, istratively determine salary rate and making such comparisons, but if the annual benefit increases, such as range increases and decreases occu- federal government’s pay-setting the cost of average annual premium pation-by-occupation, according to process is to have credibility with increases to the Federal Employee the market. Agencies would then be Congress and the American public, a Health Benefit Program, would also left to manage within their separate total compensation approach to sal- be taken into account. payroll appropriations, adjusting the ary and benefits is imperative. Such These recommendations would size and mix of their workforces to an approach is critical to knowing be submitted to the National Coun- optimize that budget.

20 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON Administrative discretion to set are at that minimum. If an upward bonus above the salary range’s maxi- occupation-specific pay ranges adjustment is made to the market mum. The last thing we want to do is within budget point within the range for a particu- demoralize high performers. Once the federal government’s to- lar occupation, all employees who Employees entering federal tal annual compensation budget is are at that market point and whose service would have their pay set established, the executive branch performance meets or exceeds ex- somewhere between the minimum would have administrative discre- pectations, would have an automatic and maximum salary for their clas- tion to set and adjust the salary adjustment made to the new mar- sification level. The specific amount ranges for each of the various bench- ket point. All other employees in in that range would be at the hiring mark occupations within that bud- the salary range would be eligible agency’s discretion and judgment, get. OMB—in consultation with the for an adjustment based on their depending on such issues as the crit- PMC and the National Council on performance. icality of its need, its personnel bud- Federal Labor-Management Rela- An employee who fails to meet get and the employee’s qualifications tions—would allocate that budget by performance expectations would and experience, even if it means that occupation and classification level, receive no pay increase. Even if that competition between agencies for factoring in locality adjustments employee is being paid at the salary the same candidate could drive up and benefit increases. OMB could range’s minimum amount and that starting salaries. Entry-level em- issue a separate salary schedule for lower limit is increased, a pay adjust- ployees without significant experi- each benchmark occupation, with ment would not be granted. Rather, ence would have their pay set closer salary ranges for each occupation’s employees would remain frozen at to the range minimum, with entrants five classification levels. Depending a below-the-line salary level unless with superior qualifications brought on an analysis of the market, it could and until their performance meets in at a salary level at, or potentially group those occupations with sepa- expectations. Similarly, an increase even above, the market rate. rate salary schedules into larger job in the maximum amount of an oc- families such as budget and finance, cupation’s salary range would not Locality pay and salary caps human resources, procurement, in- necessarily mean that employees al- The new system would not change formation technologists, scientific ready paid at that maximum would the current process for making gen- and engineering jobs and medical automatically receive that increase. eral locality pay adjustments in the professionals. Instead, they would still have to form of add-on differentials to each In addition to setting mini- exceed expectations to earn an in- salary schedule. While that process mum and maximum salaries for crease up to that new limit. has some flaws, it generally has al- each benchmark occupation, OMB lowed the federal government to in consultation with the PMC and Conversion and entry keep pace with increases in the cost the labor-management council, also Current employees would be placed of labor in various locations. Those would set the market point for each into one of the five classification increases would not be measured by salary range within an occupation. levels established by the new clas- occupation and work level. While The market point or midpoint rep- sification system according to locality pay increases by occupation resents the competitive position of occupation-specific job evaluation would be the ideal, location-specific that federal occupation’s salary level standards issued by OPM. If their salary schedules for each of a dozen compared to the rest of the market— current salary upon placement ex- or more occupations—for each of in other words, the going rate for ceeds the maximum pay for the sal- five work levels—is just too complex, professionals in comparable private- ary range associated with their clas- at least for now. The idea is to keep sector and state and local govern- sification level, they would not lose the system relatively simple to start, ment jobs. That adjustment would pay. Instead, they would retain their even if it comes at the expense of be independent of any adjustment salary at the time of conversion, and some precision. to the range’s minimum or maxi- further adjustments would depend In theory, a market-based pay mum salary rate. In other words, the on their performance. Thus, an system should be bounded only by market point could be increased or above-range employee who meets the limits set by the labor market decreased even while those mini- performance expectations would for a particular family of occupa- mum and maximum rates remain not be eligible for any pay increases tions. However, no matter how sci- unchanged. triggered by adjustments to that sal- entific and objective that pay-setting An increase in the minimum of ary range’s market rate. However, an process may be, the reality is that a salary range would result in an au- employee who exceeds expectations the American public and our politi- tomatic increase for employees who could still receive a performance cal system most likely will insist on

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 21 some reasonable limits to federal pay. Few elected officials would support salaries in the mid-six-figure range, even if that’s the going rate for senior executives and professionals with comparable responsibilities in the private sector. Accordingly, limitations on federal pay are inevitable, especially for senior executives. Nonetheless, the upper limit for the very top career executives, as well as highly technical non-executives like physicians, attorneys, scientists and engineers, should be to Executive Level I or the pay of the vice president—at least for those newly designated enterprise executives in our proposed Tier 4.2

2 The IRS has the authority to set the salary of certain critical pay executives at a level equivalent to the vice president and has used it to bring in experienced private-sector executives. However, most of these individuals still had to take a significant pay cut.

22 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON Expecting and Rewarding Excellence

effectively select, train and hold managers accountable What We Propose for working with their employees on performance issues. Make today’s performance management system— For the most part, employees and managers view which is conceptually sound but flawed in execution— performance management as a paperwork exercise, an more effective in practice by ensuring that supervi- annual necessary evil that has little tangible impact on sors and managers have the skills necessary to make their working lives. An employee’s annual performance it work. And make it more consequential by limiting rating has little bearing on promotion prospects and al- base pay raises above the market to employees and most none on pay, even though logic suggests that pro- managers who exceed performance expectations, motions should be based on how well employees do their subject to appropriate oversight and protections, jobs. This is contrary to the merit principle that calls for to ensure that those increases are based strictly on appropriate incentives and recognition to be provided merit. for excellence in performance. But even the relatively meager monetary performance awards that used to come with high performance ratings have been canceled for The Problem budget reasons, not the best signal to send an organiza- While the government’s current legal and regulatory tion’s highest performers. framework for performance management is sound in In addition, supervisors often are reluctant to make theory, it has never realized its full potential in practice. difficult performance distinctions. On one hand, they fear There are a number of reasons for this. For one, agencies litigation when they hold poor performers accountable, do a poor job of describing organizational performance and on the other, they lack the tools to reward their best requirements and translating them into meaningful indi- performers—and they are not rewarded for doing either. vidual and team performance expectations. For another, The net result is a ratings distribution where large num- there are few consequences—positive or negative—when bers of employees are rated above average because it’s the those expectations are not met or when they are exceeded. most expedient way to check the box. There have been a And to compound these problems, agencies often do not number of efforts to improve performance management,

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 23 including Office of Personnel Man- servants are motivated by financial riod for newly promoted supervisors agement’s (OPM) Goals, Engage- incentives. The research is ambigu- would be continued to ensure that ment, Accountability and Results ous in this regard, and anecdotally they are able to translate their po- (GEAR) pilot project, but that initia- most would argue that money is not tential into performance on the job. tive suffered from the same flaws in what brings individuals to public In addition, a requirement would be implementation. Thus, much more service or keeps them there. How- added for an affirmative decision to work remains to be done. ever, the government’s ability to be made at the conclusion of the pro- The results of the 2013 Federal recruit and retain talent depends at bationary period that the individual Employee Viewpoint Survey bear least in part on paying salaries that has demonstrated fitness to continue this out. Large numbers of civil ser- are competitive. It also depends on in the supervisory role. vants believe that high performance its willingness to make and reward And once an individual has been is neither recognized nor rewarded, performance distinctions, especially selected to be a supervisor or man- and that poor performers are not with respect to its top performers. ager, agencies should be required to held accountable. Some 70 percent While money may not be a primary do everything they can to ensure his of employees surveyed do not be- motivator, it is a differentiator—a or her success. This means manda- lieve promotions in their work unit way for employees to gauge relative tory training. This training should are based on merit. When employ- performance equity. Top perform- not just apply to the classroom, but ees were asked how satisfied they ers will be discouraged if they see should include coaching and men- were with the recognition they re- their extraordinary efforts go unrec- toring programs as well. ceive for doing a good job, only 43 ognized and unrewarded or, worse, Annual performance plans also percent answered in the affirmative. treated the same as those whose ef- would be required for every supervi- In addition, only 26 percent of em- forts are perceived as less, all in the sor, manager and executive, and in- ployees agreed with the statement, name of feel-good fairness. In addi- clude a standard set of level-specific “In my work unit, steps are taken tion, many top performers will have people-management expectations. to deal with a poor performer who other options, so if their contribu- For example, supervisors, manag- cannot or will not improve.” In 2013, tions aren’t recognized and appreci- ers and executives would be held less than half a percent of federal ated, they will leave. accountable for Federal Employee employees were terminated.3 Viewpoint Survey results, especially How It Would Work on those survey items that deal di- The Solution Performance rectly with managing performance. Management This would include holding poorly Managers and employees will take performing employees accountable performance management more se- Good performance management be- and rewarding those that exceed riously if it matters—if managers are gins with good supervisors and man- expectations. The eligibility of su- rewarded for setting high expecta- agers. If their performance improves, pervisors and managers for pay in- tions for their employees and if they so too will that of their employees. creases and bonuses would be tied have the tools to hold them account- In a break with long-standing tradi- to their performance ratings. In ad- able for meeting those expectations. tion that is largely the product of the dition, political appointees would be This will be reinforced if there are General Schedule’s industrial-age required to have performance plans, consequences associated with per- rigidity, agencies should stop pick- be given training to conduct perfor- formance distinctions, especially for ing the best technicians for promo- mance reviews for the career execu- high performance. When employees tion to first-line supervisor. The tives that they supervise and be held and those who manage them exceed new classification system we’ve accountable for meeting their goals. high expectations, they should be re- proposed will still let them promote warded with base pay increases that employees who demonstrate supe- Hold managers accountable exceed the market point, as well as rior technical acumen—just not to for employee satisfaction and other forms of recognition for their supervisory or managerial positions. commitment contributions. Instead, the new classification Improving employee satisfaction This is not to suggest that civil system would enable agencies to iden- does not mean that management of- tify and promote people into manage- ficials must worry only about keep- 3 FedScope (fedscope.opm.gov) from the ment who actually want to be managing their employees happy—man- Office of Personnel Management for all full- ers, and who have demonstrated the agement cannot become a popularity time, non-seasonal, permanent employees (Sept. 2013) and for termination or removal potential and aptitude to lead. contest, and survey results cannot (fiscal 2013). The one-year probationary pe- be linked to a particular appraisal

24 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON rating in a formulaic way. Nor does be locked before performance pay performance classification level and it mean that survey results should be calculations are made, and the re- receive annual base pay increases of a manager’s only measure of merit— view board would be precluded approximately 3 percent (compa- obviously, bottom-line results are from adjusting them once finalized rable to within-grade increases from just as important. However, it does except in the case of a successful Step 1 to Step 4 under today’s Gen- mean that both should be examined grievance or appeal. However, a eral Schedule), up to the market rate by a supervisor or manager’s rating review board conceivably could re- set for their particular occupation. chain—especially from one year to mand ratings for a particular sub- However, they would receive those the next—by setting expectations at unit or supervisor on grounds that increases only if they receive a per- the beginning of a rating cycle and those ratings are inconsistent with formance rating of at least “meets then again at the end, so that prog- overall organizational results or expectations.” ress on these important indices can merit principles. Employees who receive a rat- be gauged in relative terms. ing that exceeds expectations How it would work would progress to the full per- Oversight to assure Performance Pay formance market rate even more transparency, credibility quickly. Moreover, if the market To ensure the overall credibility With a credible performance man- rate is administratively adjusted of the performance management agement system in place, our pro- upwards as part of the annual pay- process, departments and agencies posed system would eliminate setting process, all employees paid would establish performance re- tenure-based pay increases for man- at that rate who receive a rating view boards modeled after those es- agers and employees, and instead of “meets expectations” or better tablished by law to oversee admin- make pay progression within a par- would see their base pay increased istration of the Senior Executive ticular salary band based strictly to keep pace with that market Service performance management on performance—up to an occupa- rate. Employees who do not meet system. These review boards also tion’s market rate for performance expectations would not receive would be established at subordinate that meets expectations, and above an increase unless and until their levels—for example, at the bureau, that rate only for performance that performance improves, but not major command or even the facil- exceeds expectations. Employees retroactively. ity level where it makes sense. The who fail to meet their performance boards would analyze rating pat- expectations would not be eligible High performance for terns by occupation, grade level and for a base pay increase until their above-market increases demographics in order to assure performance improves to satis- Only those employees whose per- that they are consistent with orga- factory levels. Employees at the formance exceeds expectations nizational performance and merit entry/development level would re- would receive annual base pay in- principles, especially with respect ceive set base pay increases as they creases above the market rate for to nondiscrimination and adverse achieve certain pre-established de- their occupation. Those percent- impact. In addition, they would velopmental milestones, at a per- age increases would be derived by evaluate whether the agency’s percentage rate basically comparable to a mathematical formula, with the formance management system is career ladder promotions under to- amount of an employee’s increase aligned with and supports its mis- day’s General Schedule (that is, pro- calculated based on his or her share sion requirements, and also exam- motions from GS-5 to GS-7, GS-7 to of the agency’s high-performance ine and oversee efforts to improve GS-9, and GS-9 to GS-11), except that pay pool. That pay pool would be Federal Employee Viewpoint Sur- performance against developmen- agency-wide, as would the share vey results. tal standards would replace time in calculation, in order to take advan- An agency’s review board grade as a basis for progression. tage of the law of large numbers would not be able to change an in- and ensure relative predictability in dividual employee’s performance Rapid progression to the performance payouts. This will en- rating after the fact unless it market rate sure that high-performing employ- found that that rating was tainted When a professional or admin- ees across the agency are treated in some way by nonmerit factors. istrative employee successfully equitably and mitigate the vari- The performance rating process completes a developmental pro- ability associated with small pay would be completely firewalled gram and graduates from the pools where demographics and im- from the performance pay process. entry/developmental level, that em- balanced ratings distributions can Employee appraisal ratings would ployee would be placed in the full have a disproportionately signifi-

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 25 cant impact on share values. And as Under this system, the Office of noted, the entire process would be Management and Budget (OMB)— overseen by an agency performance on the advice of the President’s review board to add even more Management Council (PMC), OPM, transparency and credibility. and the National Labor-Manage- ment Relations Council—would The mid-point principle have the administrative discretion Technically speaking, we are pro- to adjust that market point annually posing that pay progression within with appropriate notice to Congress a salary range be based on the mid- based on the data from occupational point principle—the standard for- salary surveys for that level of work. mula used by private industry for They also would take other factors placing and progressing individual into account in considering such ad- employees through a particular justments, such as attrition/reten- work level’s salary band or range. tion rates for the occupation, recruit The midpoint of that range repre- quality and criticality. In this regard, sents the median market salary for we do not advocate a strict formula a particular occupation, and under approach, but instead rely on the our proposal, an employee entering good judgment of the PMC and, ulti- that salary range below that market mately, OMB to make those occupa- rate would receive incremental an- tion-based market adjustments. nual salary increases designed to OMB also could raise or lower move that employee to the market the minimum or maximum amount rate relatively quickly. For example, of a particular occupation’s sal- it should take no more than three or ary range based on market data four years for an employee starting and other factors. However, unlike at the range’s minimum salary to get today’s pay-setting process, this to the market, assuming satisfactory would not result in an automatic, or better performance. across-the-board salary increase for This is not unlike the way the everybody in that occupation. Ad- General Schedule works today. Sat- justments to the minimum and/or isfactory employees at a particular maximum amount of a given salary General Schedule grade receive a range would impact only the poten- substantial within-grade step in- tial earning power of employees in crease every year until they reach that occupation. On the other hand, Step 4 of that pay grade, which is if OMB administratively increases supposed to serve as a market rate the market rate for a particular occu- for that grade. However, the federal pation, that would result in an auto- pay system has been broken so long matic salary increase up to that new that for professional and adminis- rate, but only for those employees trative jobs, Step 4 no longer bears already at the market rate. And since any relationship whatsoever to the the overall cost of those automatic going rate for any particular white- adjustments still would have to be collar occupation in the labor market. managed within an agency’s overall Under the revised system, high-per- payroll appropriation, there are suf- forming employees could reach that ficient checks and balances to war- market rate sooner, but the salaries of rant such administrative discretion. those who fail to meet performance expectations would be frozen below the market rate until they demonstrate satisfactory performance. Only employees who exceed their performance expectations would see raises above that market rate.

26 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON Hiring the Best and Brightest

principles such as merit-based hiring, veterans prefer- What We Propose ence, diversity, nondiscrimination and political indepen- Level the playing field by giving all agencies the same dence, the government must fundamentally alter the way “excepted” hiring flexibilities that some enjoy—with- it hires for professional and administrative positions. out compromising on core principles like veterans For 130 years, a foundational goal of the federal civil preference and merit-based selection. Charge the service system has been to hire individuals who are the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with lead- best qualified and the best fit for the jobs to be done. In ing a government-wide initiative to develop sophis- 1978, Congress codified the basic merit system principle ticated, state-of-the-art assessment tools that will that guides hiring practices in the federal government. It identify the very best candidates for the job. Allow states that “recruitment should be from qualified individ- agencies to share those “best-qualified” candidates uals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a with other agencies, and when they can’t find enough workforce from all segments of society, and selection and of them using regular procedures like category rat- advancement should be determined solely on the basis of ing, give them direct-hire authority. Permit former relative ability, knowledge and skills after fair and open high-performing civil servants to reenter govern- competition which assures that all receive equal oppor- ment service more easily. Make better use of entry- tunity.” This principle is still valid, but the current fed- level internship programs, and require supervisors, eral hiring process does not adequately or fully support managers and agency leaders to take greater ac- its implementation. countability for hiring talent. Over the years, various laws and process requirements have greatly complicated the federal hiring process. In addition, there have been a growing number of excep- The Problem tions or special provisions for specific agencies, jobs or The country needs a federal civil service system that en- situations along with a growing array of procedural safe- ables government to compete successfully for top talent, guards that are to be followed and reported upon. As a but the current hiring system often fails to identify and result, the federal hiring process over time has become advance the best candidates. While honoring long-held so slow, complex, opaque and imprecise in its ability to

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 27 identify the best candidates that it is of-the-art assessment approaches. who are recent graduates, without more likely to impede than facilitate Additionally, civil service laws gov- compromising veterans preference. the government’s ability to hire well. erning hiring were written in a Early feedback from federal agen- Recent efforts by the OPM to reduce pre-Internet era. Today electronic cies, however, is that hiring under time to hire have met with some communications have made it pos- the Pathways Program still hasn’t success, but more progress needs to sible for individuals to easily apply solved the problem of effectively take place. to a large number of job openings and objectively assessing thousands One consequence of the gradual online— even for jobs for which they of candidates, particularly among ossification of the federal hiring sys- are minimally qualified. For entry- recent graduates. tem is that it has become the prov- level jobs suitable for recent college Another problem centers on ince of the human resources staff graduates, it is not uncommon for some agencies having special hiring and not federal managers, who fre- there to be hundreds and sometimes advantages that others do not have. quently are insufficiently involved thousands of online applicants for The Nuclear Regulatory Commis- in the process and not held account- a single position. As a consequence, sion, Federal Aviation Administra- able for the outcomes. Past attempts almost all agencies have resorted to tion, Consumer Financial Protec- to more fully engage federal manag- some degree to the use of software tion Bureau and the CIA, among ers in the hiring process have had tools that use experience and/or others, have been granted the right very limited success, in part because proprietary code-word algorithms to develop hiring procedures that managers typically do not have the to screen applicants, opting for ef- are different or “excepted” from the tools or the resources needed. ficiency at the expense of more pre- normal rules because of the unique Effective, merit-based human cise candidate evaluation. nature of their jobs, such as nuclear resources practices that are stan- Another development that engineers or high-level financial dard in well-run private-sector needs to be taken into account is the analysts and economists, or because companies are often not available 2002 law that allowed the use of al- their conditions of employment re- to federal managers. This would ternative ranking and selection pro- quire extreme security clearance include the use of valid assessment cedures so that job applicants could requirements, dangerous working tools capable of making meaningful be rated in quality categories (for environments or overseas deploy- distinctions among large numbers example, qualified, well-qualified, ments. However, these positions are of candidates, and the ability for one and best-qualified) rather than in not “excepted” from the core merit part of an organization to select a numerical order. Under this law, any principals, including merit-based highly qualified candidate from a list applicant in the top category is eligi- hiring, veterans preference and non- of applicants developed by another ble for selection, with the provision discrimination. Approximately half part of that organization. While the that veterans entitled to veterans of all new hires into permanent po- use of student internships has been preference be selected before any sitions in the executive branch are shown to be an effective way to as- nonveterans. This law was a positive now made under excepted hiring sess and hire entry-level talent, this development, but it also required procedures, creating a system that source has become underutilized as each department and agency to de- gives some agencies needed hir- some agencies and managers have velop a robust and valid assessment ing flexibilities while denying it to struggled to cope with a revamped process that ensured that applicants others. intern hiring process. rated in the top category were well A large part of the problem is matched to the job to be filled. This The Solution that both the nature of the hiring presumption has turned out to be process and federal workforce needs problematic. The federal government’s hiring have changed dramatically, chal- In May 2012, OPM issued regu- problem isn’t a lack of talented lenging OPM and agencies to keep lations implementing the Pathways candidates. Collectively, agencies pace. While development of valid Programs authorized by presiden- get tens of thousands of applica- tests and other applicant assessment tial Executive Order 13562. True to tions every day from some of the tools were originally developed on its name, Pathways was designed to most talented individuals in our a centralized basis in the federal facilitate the entry of students and country. The problem is identify- government, that authority was recent college graduates into the ing the very best of those candi- delegated to each individual agency federal service through internships dates and matching them to the in the 1990s. Yet few agencies have and Presidential Management Fel- federal job that maximize their the specialized staff expertise or lowships, and by limiting the ap- talents and aspirations. The so- resources needed to develop state- plicant pool for some jobs to those lution is not to change the merit

28 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON system principle or to back away Level the playing field regarding Expand the role and from well-established public pol- statutory hiring requirements accountability of federal icy objectives regarding workforce The law should be amended to al- managers and leaders diversity and veterans preference. low every agency to use, when con- Federal managers and leaders Rather, the solution is to change ditions warrant, the same recruit- should bear the ultimate responsi- existing hiring procedures and ment flexibilities now available to bility for ensuring their agency is practices that do not adequately only some “excepted” agencies or attracting, assessing and selecting support, and which even unin- positions. highly qualified and motivated indi- tentionally impede, adherence to Federal agencies increasingly viduals. What managers should not those principles and objectives. are finding that for many occu- be held accountable for, however, is pations, including some of their getting the job done with a broken most mission-critical positions, it system. It’s no wonder that manag- How It Would Work is difficult to apply standard rules ers have become detached from and Build state-of-the-art job to evaluate, differentiate and hire disenchanted with a system that applicant assessment systems top-notch applicants. The federal relies on the impersonal, formulaic There needs to be a concerted, workplace demands highly techni- processing of mass applications to government-wide effort, led by cal competencies, as well as hard- produce a list of candidates who may OPM, to develop and use state-of- to-measure skills such as analytic be best qualified only in a procedural the-art applicant assessments that and critical thinking, and these sense. go beyond simply looking at the often require a more flexible ap- When reexamining the mechan- education and/or years of experi- proach to assessment, including ics of the federal hiring process, ence of the applicants. Initial prior- face-to-face interaction between particular consideration should be ity should be given to assessment candidates and government ex- given to changes that will enable tools and practices that can effec- perts who are in the best position federal managers to be involved in tively and efficiently screen large to evaluate them. These require- a more productive way in meeting numbers of applicants. It ultimately ments do not comport with a sys- the responsibilities for recruiting will be more effective for a core set tem that attempts to assess, usually and selecting highly qualified, mo- of assessment tools to be developed via a computer program, thousands tivated and productive employees. and validated centrally by OPM of applicants against the blunt in- Better assessment tools, for exam- with active involvement by other strument of education and expe- ple, could help managers in their federal departments and agencies. rience. As noted above, that is the decision-making. Agency leadership Individual agencies would have the reason some agencies have been also should ensure that managers option of adopting these assess- “excepted” from regular require- should have specific responsibilities ment approaches or developing and ments. But their circumstances are for recruiting top talent, especially validating their own. We believe no longer unique—they’ve become for hard-to-fill, mission-critical that most federal agencies would the norm. occupations, and this should be a opt to use the core assessment tools. Accordingly, the flexibility as- specific part of each manager’s per- For example, a Partnership for sociated with today’s excepted hir- formance standards where it makes Public Service and PDRI August ing authority should be available sense. This is the case for a few 2010 report, The Weakest Link: How to all agencies, under appropriate federal organizations, but it should Strengthening Assessment Leads circumstances, to fill their profes- be common to all in the federal to Better Federal Hiring, notes that sional and administrative jobs, par- enterprise. job/profile matching technologies ticularly at the entry level. And just offer an opportunity for a quantum as the agencies currently excepted Create cross-agency best- leap in connecting applicants with from normal hiring rules must still qualified applicant pools jobs that fit their experience and comply with merit principles, vet- Another common-sense opportunity interests, while also helping agen- erans preference and the prohibi- to create enterprise-wide efficien- cies get more value from their US- tion against nondiscrimination, cies for the federal government in- AJOBS.gov postings. Demonstrat- so too would those who would be volves reducing the number of times ing the viability and the validity of encompassed by this expanded an applicant has to apply for and this technology in the federal space flexibility. It is time to rationalize undergo an assessment for similar could bring substantial benefits to what has become a dizzying array jobs. For example, establishing a na- both agency staffing specialists and of literally dozens of individual ex- tional best-qualified applicant pool hiring managers. cepted hiring authorities. for a major occupation or specialty

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 29 such as financial management or clude an intent-to-share notice in job and gained several years of valuable, information technology could give announcements to alert potential ap- higher-level experience outside of agencies the option to hire individu- plicants that unless they opt out, ap- government, the individual still may als from that list in lieu of doing an plying for a job in one agency could not be considered for reinstatement individual search. This would be es- result in their being referred to an- at a level above that last held in the pecially effective for entry-level jobs, other agency with a similar need. government. For example, a junior where qualification requirements software programmer who leaves as are more general and the number of Amend the criteria that must be a GS-7 and goes on to become a lead applicants can be in the thousands. met before a direct-hire authority programmer for Google can be rein- Thus, if a candidate applies for and can be approved stated only as a GS-7, even though he makes the best-qualified list for a se- Current law and regulation should or she may qualify at a much higher nior budget analyst position but isn’t be amended to allow direct-hire au- level. It is in the interest of the gov- selected, the application and other thority to be granted when there is ernment and the public to allow assessment materials could be de- a shortage of “highly qualified” can- agencies to have the option to rein- posited, with the candidate’s consent, didates, as opposed to a shortage of state former federal employees to in a central, searchable database ad- those who are just “basically quali- positions at any level for which they ministered by OPM. The policies and fied.” Under current law, OPM can qualify. In effect, these individuals assessment standards used to create give direct-hire authority—literally, should be given a passport for reen- that applicant pool could be estab- the ability to hire on the spot—to a try into government that recognizes lished by OPM or by another lead federal agency so long as it can show and rewards their added experience. agency willing and able to accept that that it is faced with a critical hir- responsibility. ing need or if it can show a severe Expand the role and use of For those more specialized, mid- shortage of candidates. OPM has in- internships in the federal level and senior positions that may terpreted the latter requirement as government not be suited for candidates pulled meaning a severe shortage of mini- The role and use of internships in from a government-wide roster, mally qualified candidates. This is the federal government should be agencies also should be authorized to an inadequate standard: It is almost reexamined and expanded. Observ- share best-qualified candidates with impossible to show a shortage of ing the quality of an intern’s work one another. Currently, federal agen- candidates who can meet minimum provides an opportunity for an ex- cies do not have the legal authority to qualification requirements. But does cellent assessment of the individ- do so, even for hard-to-fill jobs. For the government really want mini- ual’s fitness for permanent federal example, an agency may invest in an mally qualified candidates to meet employment. Allowing a federal extensive recruitment and screen- its most pressing needs? By amend- agency to noncompetitively con- ing process to identify several highly ing the current law and regulation vert promising interns to perma- qualified candidates for its chief fi- to allow the use of direct hiring nent federal employment after they nancial officer or chief information authority when there is a demon- have amassed a certain number of officer position, but it can hire only strated shortage of highly qualified work hours and they have demon- one of them. Why require another candidates, federal agencies would strated their potential to be a highly agency with a comparable position— be able to focus on both the quality successful employee simply makes not to mention the highly qualified and the quantity of the individuals sense. Some recent changes under candidates who weren’t selected in being considered. the Pathways Programs developed the first place—to start the process by OPM have been a move in the all over again? That’s inefficient and Allow agencies to rehire former right direction, especially for col- can lead to the loss of highly qualified federal employees to any lege students potentially interested candidates. position for which they qualify in permanent federal employment Absent a specific statutory au- Currently, former federal employees after graduation. thorization, OPM should explore who have held a career or career- However, there still are restric- alternative methods for applicant conditional position may be non- tions on the conversion to perma- sharing among agencies, perhaps competitively reinstated to a posi- nent employment for interns who by encouraging formal joint staffing tion within the federal government, work in the federal agency but agreements between agencies that but only to a job that is at or below the who are paid by a third party un- commit them to recruit, assess and grade level they last held in the fed- der contract to government. Those share highly qualified candidates for eral government. What that means is restrictions should be modified or comparable jobs. They also could in- that if an employee left government removed. Similarly, agencies also

30 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON should have the option to convert to permanent employment unpaid interns engaged in substantive work for the government. Finally, federal agencies should be encouraged to place greater emphasis on the use of internships and conversions from internships as part of the planned pipeline of talent into government.

Expand the use of stipends, scholarships and ROTC-like programs The federal government already has demonstrated the value of scholarships in attracting talent that might otherwise be unavailable. The Schol- arship for Service program, for example, is increasing and strengthening the ranks of federal information assurance professionals protecting the government’s critical information infrastructure. The Reserve Of- ficers’ Training Corps (ROTC) has long provided competitive, merit- based scholarships covering all or part of college tuition in return for an obligation of active military service after graduation. Approximately 30 percent of all active-duty officers in the Depart- ment of Defense commissioned in 2010 came through an ROTC program, and based on that experience, Congress authorized an ROTC-like program as a way to recruit talented civilian professionals for the intelligence community. Although the intelligence community has never exercised that authority, it could serve as a model. The use of such scholarship programs to attract and recruit highly talented individuals into mission-critical occupations— especially for occupations for which there is a projected shortage of highly qualified candidates—should be expanded.

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 31 Accountability and Workplace Justice

performance-based adverse actions—were enacted to What We Propose ensure that any decision to remove a federal employee Create a unified dispute resolution process for all in- would be for just and sufficient cause. dividual employee complaints and appeals that will For managers, the process of removing or disciplin- preserve due process rights and speed decision-making ing an employee is daunting in terms of the time and ef- in a way that serves the interests of managers and fort required, and often discourages managers from tak- employees alike. ing appropriate actions. They are not properly trained in handling these situations and often lack the will and the top-level support to act because of the concern about the The Problem personal toll and disruptive impact it may have on the The current federal process for dealing with employee work unit. complaints and appeals is fundamentally flawed and For employees who have been terminated, face dis- does not adequately serve the needs of either managers ciplinary action or have some other appealable dispute, or employees. Federal employees have access to multiple it can take many months or well over a year to achieve and sometimes overlapping dispute resolution forums on resolution. This system leaves employees in limbo and is a wide range of issues and it can routinely take over a year demoralizing for the large majority of workers who are or more to receive a final answer, confusing both manag- performing well. The 2013 federal employee survey data ers and employees and delaying resolution. show only one-fourth of employees believe managers in When it comes to poor performance or misconduct, their work units take appropriate steps to deal with poor private-sector companies dismiss or seek to rehabilitate performers. an employee based on whether it serves a legitimate busi- One major aspect of the problem lies in the ability of ness interest to do so. In the case of the federal govern- employees to use multiple avenues for contesting an ad- ment, it has long been recognized that partisan politics verse decision, a system that facilitates delays and is ripe could influence the decision to remove a career federal for possible abuse. employee. To protect the public’s interest in a federal Employees have a menu of choices. These include fil- workforce that must operate in a neutral and competent ing a grievance under a negotiated procedure if the em- manner, due process protections—for both conduct and ployee is part of a bargaining unit and, if the union agrees,

32 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON can go to an arbitration hearing and administrative law judge, the aver- ployee disputes involving discipline an appeal to the Federal Labor Rela- age processing time was another 378 or termination and ensure that due tions Authority (FLRA); filing an ap- days. So, the filing of a complaint of process rights are maintained. Fur- peal with the Merit Systems Protec- discrimination within the agency to ther, there should be limited judicial tion Board (MSPB), which normally a final decision by the EEOC can take review of an appeals authority in a includes an evidentiary hearing, ad- an average of 561 days, or more than single venue: the U.S. Court of Ap- ministrative review by the full board 18 months—and often much longer. peals for the Federal Circuit. and judicial review by the U.S. Court In fiscal 2011 there were 16,974 com- Negotiated grievance and arbi- of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; plaints filed with the EEOC, and find- tration procedures would be left in- and if an employee is a member of a ings of discrimination were reported tact for unionized employees, but an protected class, filing a discrimina- in 222 cases—or about 1 percent.5 arbitration decision, including but tion complaint, which starts with not limited to a decision involving an an internal agency investigation but The Solution adverse or performance-based action, can go to the Equal Employment would be appealable to the MSPB. Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Greater accountability and workplace justice can be achieved by and the courts. Individual employ- How It Would Work ees who believe they are the victim establishing a one-stop-shop that of a prohibited personnel practice would simplify the employee com- Employees would file their com- or retaliation for otherwise law- plaint and appeal processes and ex- plaint or appeal either through the ful whistleblowing can have their pedite final resolution of these cases negotiated grievance procedure cases investigated by the Office of to the benefit of both agency manag- if applicable or the reconstituted Special Counsel (OSC). In addition, ers and employees. MSPB, but not both. If an appeal an employee can pursue a matter in Our proposal would leave due contains a formal complaint of dis- multiple forums concurrently. For process rights and protections in- crimination or raises an allegation of example, an employee can raise alle- tact, including the right to advanced discrimination in connection with gations of discrimination and/or re- notice of a proposed adverse action, some other management action, the taliation in any one of these forums. the right to see the evidence upon case would fall under the jurisdic- A mixed case can bounce back and which that action is based, the right tion of the MSPB, not the EEOC as is forth between the MSPB, the EEOC, to reply to and contest the charges the case today. and, eventually, the courts for an ex- contained in that notice and the The new MSPB would have intended period of time. right to a final decision made by an creased resources and be empow- The two most heavily used chan- official other than the one proposing ered to investigate disputes and nels are the MSPB and the EEOC. the action. hold evidentiary hearings only if Most appeals filed with the MSPB in Administrative appeals of agency necessary, and would be required fiscal 2012 were decided in less than decisions to remove or discipline to render a final administrative de- 120 days unless a second-level review federal employees that are cur- cision within 120 days, a standard was requested.4 This second review rently filed with the MSPB and/or met today by the board in the cases added an average of 245 days to the the EEOC would now be handled it handles. process, meaning that full resolution by a single adjudicatory body, a Individual employees who be- can take on average about a year. reconstituted MSPB, with the excep- lieve they are victims of an unfair If an employee alleges that tion of cases that have been brought labor practice (today filed with the discrimination is involved in a to the OSC. FLRA) would also have recourse, performance-related dispute, a dis- The MSPB is best positioned to only to the reconstituted MSPB. Al- crimination complaint can be filed expertly handle cases now brought to leged instances of a prohibited per- with the EEOC. In fiscal 2011 the the EEOC and has an excellent track sonnel practice or retaliation for average processing time for an in- record of expeditiously and fairly otherwise lawful whistleblowing vestigation of an EEOC complaint dealing with employee disputes. would continue to be investigated was 183 days. If, after the investiga- The revamped board would investi- and handled by the OSC. tion, an employee requested a deci- gate and render decisions on all em- Thus, for the vast majority of sion on the merits of the case by an employee-management disputes, 5 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity there would no longer be an oppor- 4 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Commission, Annual Report on the Federal tunity for an employee to file com- Annual Performance Report (FY 2012) and Work Force Part I: EEO Complaints Processing Plan (FY 2013 (Final) – FY 2014 (Proposed)) (Fiscal Year 2011) (Washington, D.C., 2011), iii plaints and appeals before multiple (Washington, D.C., April 10, 2013), 13, http://1. and II-3, http://1.usa.gov/1fI7nAt (accessed 19 agencies and thereby delay final res- usa.gov/1mhFxn7 (accessed 19 March 2014). March 2014).

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 33 olution. There would be one com- prehensive bite of the apple. The relatively small number of highly specialized, multiparty and institutional disputes such as class action complaints of illegal discrimination, negotiability disputes between labor and management, and petitions for a union representation election would remain with EEOC or FLRA, respectively.

Streamlined adjudication system will speed decision-making Employees with legitimate griev- ances against their agency, as well as managers who act in good faith to hold employees accountable will benefit from this simplified system. They need only file and prove or de- fend their case once, no matter how many corollary allegations may be at issue. A single appeals authority and a single judicial venue for appeals would provide due process external to the agency and would reduce forum-shopping, delays and incon- sistencies in rulings. In addition, this approach would save money. Not only will merging the federal employee complaint process eliminate significant redundancy—today each agency has its own budget and personnel opera- tion, case management system, administrative infrastructure and geographic footprint—but it would also provide employees with a single adjudicatory system that resolves complaints and appeals far more quickly and with greater finality.

34 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON Investing in Leadership

The career leadership has become agency-centric, What We Propose with most executives staying in the same organization for Build long-term management focus by creating their entire careers, never gaining an outside perspective a single, four-tier senior executive service with and lacking the managerial experience needed to handle increased responsibility and pay, with the top tier complex, multi-agency and government-wide challenges. and top pay reserved for those who will be given Recent data, for example, show that 92 percent of high priority, multi-agency missions and functions. Senior Executive Service (SES) members have been pro- Reevaluate the role and use of political appointees moted from within government, 81 percent come from by reserving certain key management positions for the same agency they had been working in prior to join- career executives and by reducing the overall number ing the leadership ranks, and only 8 percent have moved of political appointees. to a different agency once in the SES. This agency-centered focus is reinforced by the fact The Problem that senior career leaders at some law enforcement, defense intelligence and other organizations are part of The government has struggled to sustain high levels of separate agency executive systems, creating obstacles to effective leadership. The 2013 Best Places to Work in the moving to positions in other agencies operating under Federal Government® rankings, for example, found that the SES. only 38.5 percent of employees government-wide an- The narrow agency outlook throughout the govern- swered in the affirmative when asked whether senior ment runs contrary to the intent of the 1978 Civil Service leaders generate high levels of motivation and commit- Reform Act that created the SES. The law envisioned a ment in the workforce, while just 49 percent have a high unified federal career executive corps whose members level of respect for their organizations’ senior leaders. would have a broad perspective of government and the Leadership has consistently been one of the lowest rated ability to serve in different agencies as needed and to workplace categories in the Best Places to Work analysis. bring leadership and collaboration skills, expertise and By design, the top leadership in the federal govern- strategic thinking to a wide range of issues. ment is transitory, with political appointees serving for In addition to lacking a government-wide orientation relatively short periods of time. This makes having a high- and broad experience at different agencies or outside of caliber, sustained career leadership corps all the more government, many executives are selected and promoted imperative, yet the current system falls short of building typically for technical expertise rather than executive or senior executives who are accountable for the manage- managerial excellence and people skills. This needs to ment and the long-term health of our government. change. What is in short supply are career senior executives Career executives are the individuals who help set who have varied job experiences within and outside of the leadership tone in the departments and agencies and government and who are seen, see themselves and are they are the ones best positioned to provide long-term managed as, leaders with responsibilities that encompass management focus across the government. It is impera- not only the success of their individual organizations, but tive that a new civil service system invest in building ca- also the success of the federal enterprise as a whole. reer leaders who can play these critical roles.

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 35 to possess a broader perspective and Reevaluate the use of political The Solution to have the ability to create relation- appointments To provide a long-range perspective ships and collaborative networks C-suite positions, such as chief fi- for agency operations and continu- across organizational boundaries. nancial officers, chief human capital ity in management and leadership, officers, chief information officers and the chief acquisition officers, there are certain senior government How It Would Work positions which could logically be should be filled by career rather filled by nonpartisan career execu- The challenges facing the federal than political appointees for renew- tives instead of political appointees. government are increasingly com- able terms of six years to ensure con- Our proposal would strengthen plex and cut across agencies, lev- tinuity between administrations. the career executive workforce, in els of government and sectors. It is The number of political ap- part by creating enterprise execu- critical to expand the field of expe- pointees has grown substantially tives at the top level who would be rience expected of career executives over time and now stands at more experienced and capable of assum- so they can bring new thinking and than 4,000.6 In reevaluating the role ing some of the management posi- a broader, enterprise-wide perspec- played by political appointees, this tions now held by political appoin- tive to their leadership roles. Build- number should be reduced. There tees, and who could be deployed ing that perspective will require that also should be a 10 percent cap throughout the government based incentives, including pay, be aligned placed on non-career SES mem- on need. with these needs. Executives at the bers at each agency to ensure that At the same time, it is important top level (Tier 4), for example, not no agency becomes a repository for to create greater unity in the senior only would have to demonstrate the political favors and to promote bet- executive corps. The current system ability to manage the larger federal ter selection of individuals whose includes multiple, separate senior enterprise, but they also would be skills match agency missions. Cur- executive services that should be paid for the effort and the results. rently, the percentage of political replaced by a single, four-tier sys- The new federal senior execu- non-career members of the SES is tem that would better prepare active system would encompass all limited by law to 10 percent govern- complished career civil servants for current senior service systems and ment-wide, but individual agencies high-level agency management po- career senior executives including, can and do exceed this percentage. sitions and produce leaders capable to the extent feasible, those federal of being assigned to government’s organizations that currently operate New senior executive system will most important projects. parallel systems for their senior ex- have four levels Entry into the executive corps ecutives, such as the several defense The revamped federal executive would require the capability to lead intelligence agencies, the Transpor- service would consist of four lev- complex organizations or operations. tation Security Administration, the els, with entry requiring possession Successful candidates could dem- FBI, the Drug Enforcement Admin- of the current five Executive Core onstrate this ability in various ways, istration and the Federal Aviation Qualifications. In addition, candi- including, but not limited to, actual Administration. The executive corps dates should possess the capability on-the-job experience in multiple still would preserve some agency- to work effectively across organi- agencies, functions or sectors. Once specific variations but allow for an zational and functional boundaries. in the SES, opportunities would be executive interchange between sys- This would help ensure that agen- available for executives in the first tems in order for the government to cies select new executives who al- three tiers to have diverse experi- more easily tap into a richer leader- ready have varied experiences and ences in different agencies and jobs. ship talent pool for challenging as- outlooks. To meet the new require- However, there will be some SES po- signments. The purpose would be ment, for example, rotational assign- sitions where mobility may not make to have top career leaders from all ments could be incorporated into in- sense. The top tier however, would agencies available as a government- dividual career development plans. be reserved for specially developed wide resource, not just as individual Agency executive resource boards and deployable enterprise execu- agency assets. Current differences should be responsible for identify- tives who have demonstrated a very in executive compensation among ing developmental opportunities in high level of expertise in managing federal agencies, such as the higher multiple organizations or sectors. At salaries paid by the financial regula- 6 U.S. House of Representatives, United this level, performance expectations tory agencies, would need to be dealt States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- and standards would explicitly take with to minimize disincentives for ment Printing Office, 2012), 200, http://1.usa. into account the need for executives mobility. gov/1dqLqGi (accessed 19 March 2014).

36 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON A New SES Classification System

Reserved for a small number of enterprise executives who have demonstrated the skills necessary to take on government-wide TIER 4 responsibilities and lead cross-agency initiatives

Portfolio is among the broadest and most demanding in the organization; typically serve as direct TIER 3 reports to bureau and department appointees

Entails broader responsibilities with a greater variety of functional TIER 2 programs under their control

Entry level to the SES, SL and ST positions for current TIER 1 TECHNIC federal employees T EXPERT AL GENERALIS S LEADERS

SELECTION BY AGENCIES (PROCESS AUDITED BY OPM)

EXPERT MANAGER AND EQUIVALENT AND EQUIVALENT EXTERNAL CANDIDATES EXTERNAL CANDIDATES

cooperation with the Office of Per- decisions annually to ensure agen- from Tier 1 through Tier 3, they sonnel Management (OPM). cies are acting appropriately. would be expected to take on in- Agencies would be delegated Each of the four tiers would creased responsibilities, have the the authority to certify that their include separate tracks for both potential to receive higher salaries selected SES candidates in Tiers technical and managerial experts. and gain wider experience. Execu- 1 through 3 possess the Executive This would allow agencies to pro- tives hired from outside government Core Qualifications rather than rely- mote skilled professionals for their would be eligible for entry into any ing on the current OPM-run Qualifi- technical value and not force them of the four tiers as long as they meet cations Review Board that now must to become something they’re not— the qualifications. approve those chosen for executive supervisors and managers. positions. OPM would review hiring As executives are promoted

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 37 Tier 1 Pay for Tier 3 executives and techni- to include many more missions and The foundation of the SES cal experts would be capped at Level administrative functions. The enter- pyramid II of the federal Executive Schedule. prise executives would be appointed Tier 1 typically would be the entry as cross-agency goal leaders or serve level to the SES for current federal Tier 4 as deputy goal leaders. They also employees. Individuals would be The enterprise executives could be assigned to manage other promoted competitively upon a de- The top tier would be reserved for major initiatives involving multiple termination that they meet the ex- a small number of enterprise ex- agencies outside the framework of ecutive competencies and have the ecutives who have demonstrated the government performance law. requisite breadth as well as depth the skills necessary to take on of experience. Individuals who are government-wide responsibilities Enterprise executives will be or who currently could qualify un- and lead cross-agency initiatives. selected by a new enterprise der the current senior leader (SL) There would be special provisions review board or senior technical expert (ST) des- for the management of this cadre of These elite enterprise executives ignation also would be qualified to senior leaders and world-class tech- would be selected for the top tier by hold a position at the Tier 1 level. nical experts as described below. a newly created Enterprise Execu- The Tier 1 responsibilities would Tier 4 pay would be capped at the tive Resources Board (EERB) that be smaller in scope than Tier 2 and vice president’s salary or, at mini- would operate under the purview of would report to senior executives at mum, Level I of the federal Execu- the President’s Management Coun- a higher tier. Pay for Tier 1 executive Schedule. cil (PMC). The board would deploy tives and technical experts would The enterprise executives the enterprise executives to specific be capped at Level III of the federal would be required to have worked cross-agency missions and functions, Executive Schedule.7 at different agencies and perhaps and monitor and evaluate their per- undertaken rotations within their formance. Those chosen for the top Tier 2 own organizations during their time executive level would compete for Executives with increased in the executive service, or worked prestigious enterprise leadership responsibilities at other levels of government or positions. Compared with Tier 1, Tier 2 execu- in the private sector. They would The enterprise board would be tives would have broader responsi- need to display strong managerial chaired by the OMB deputy direc- bilities with a greater variety of func- and collaborative skills, an abil- tor for management and consist of tional programs under their control. ity to lead across organizational members of the PMC, the OPM di- They frequently would have one or boundaries, to lead without formal rector and some of government’s more Tier 1 executives under their authority, to build and leverage most respected former career exec- supervision. Pay for Tier 2 execu- inter-organizational networks to utives. Enterprise executives drawn tives and technical experts would exercise influence, and to facilitate from career SES ranks, as well as be capped at a level that is at a mid- interagency collaboration through a those selected from outside govern- point between Level III and Level II shared sense of mission. ment, would serve five-year term of the federal Executive Schedule. A primary role for these new appointments, be compensated up Tier 4 enterprise executives would to the vice president’s salary or at Tier 3 be to fulfill the leadership needs a minimum Level I of the federal Executives with increased for the cross-agency priority goals Executive Schedule and have per- mobility expectations and required by the Government Per- formance contracts with the PMC. scope formance and Results Moderniza- At the conclusion of their terms, en- Compared with the first two tiers, tion Act of 2010. This was discussed terprise executives with career SES the portfolio of a Tier 3 executive in detail in our August 2013 report, status could remain in their current or technical expert would be among Building the Enterprise: Nine Strate- enterprise executive positions, be the broadest and most demanding gies for a More Integrated, Effective assigned to other such positions or in the organization. Typically they Government. returned to Tier 3 career SES posi- would be direct reports to bureau As noted in the 2013 report, this tions in their home agencies. and department appointees, or in law requires that the Office of Man- some cases occupy those positions. agement and Budget (OMB) appoint leaders to head the teams for the 7 See Appendix Two for the salary levels under the federal Executive Schedule as of Dec. administration’s cross-agency goals, 23, 2013. which over time could be expanded

38 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON IMPLEMENTATION

Designing a better civil service system is only the start agency heads accountable. The Office of Personnel of the change process that our government desperately Management (OPM) will need the resources and staff needs to undertake. The more daunting hurdle is imple- to work with the PMC on the overall strategy and to menting it effectively, and it is critical that this challenge write regulations that will support any legislative re- be understood and accounted for in the design process. forms. The implementation process should be subject We have seen well-designed laws fail to meet expec- to major milestone reviews so that individual agen- tations because of poor planning and execution. We do cies do not proceed until they are ready for execution. not offer a full implementation blueprint in this docu- ment, but recommend that the changes begin with the • The strategy and implementation plan should allow following principles: agencies to carry out the changes at different paces, depending on their readiness and other factors. For • There must be an overarching government strategy example, performance-sensitive pay can be effective that includes input from top federal leadership, unions, only if an agency has an effective performance man- career managers and other stakeholders. There also agement system in place. Moving on the one phase needs to be constant communication among the par- without the other would be a recipe for failure. How- ticipants and information technology support. The ever, each agency should develop an implementation President’s Management Council (PMC) should drive plan with key phases and milestones clearly mapped, this strategy with the support of designated Tier 4 so that the PMC can ensure all agencies are making enterprise executives and teams of career executives progress and can communicate at which point all and employees who can help drive the change effort agencies should be operating under the new civil ser- across the government. In addition, deputy secretar- vice system. ies and chief operating officers should assemble teams of executives in their agencies to oversee a full change • Every major change brings speed bumps and turbu- management effort and communicate to their organi- lence. The law and implementation plan should be zations. flexible enough to allow for adjustments, and OMB and OPM should be given sufficient administrative • There need to be clear objectives and metrics to hold authority to make those adjustments without requir- the PMC, the enterprise executives and individual ing legislation, but subject to congressional oversight

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 39 and approval. In an institution as complicated as government, there will be clear successes and instances when problems arise, and help will need to be provided to agencies that struggle. OPM will need the capacity and knowledge to be able to provide that technical assistance.

• Stakeholder groups, including unions, management associations, congressional staff, veterans organizations and civil rights groups, will need to be engaged to inform both the government-wide strategy and agency-specific plans.

• In implementing the pay reforms, there must be a presumption that current employees will not suffer a loss of pay as a result of implementation. For example, if employees are found to be paid at a salary above market rates for their occupation, they would retain their pay until the market caught up.

While we have attempted to offer a balanced, compre- hensive plan, this package could be legislated piecemeal and implemented incrementally. However, we caution that many elements are interrelated, and it is important to understand and take into account those relationships. For example, it would be very difficult to alter the pay- setting elements as we propose without also addressing the job classification system. With action urgently needed, we see this proposal as a way to ignite a serious and long overdue dialogue with Congress, the White House, employee unions, veterans groups, universities, the business community and others to begin addressing many of the fundamental flaws in the civil service system. The goal is to create an environment that supports the federal workforce, that will lead to better government performance and that will gain the trust and respect of the American public.

40 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON Appendix ONE Federal agencies with their own compensation systems

According to a GAO report, Congress has granted 10 federal financial regulatory agencies the flexibility to establish their own compensation systems so they can recruit and retain employees critical to their organizational missions, placing them at an advantage over other federal entities in the hunt for talent.8 The agencies are the Commod- ity Futures Trading Commission, the Farm Credit Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Board, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the National Credit Union Administration, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In addition, a number of other agencies have been given the authority to establish their own pay systems for selected occupations, including law enforcement agencies, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Internal Revenue Service, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. For more information on pay flexibilities, see the Office of Personnel Management’s Human Resources Flex- ibilities and Authorities in the Federal Government.9

8 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Financial Regulators: Agencies Have Implemented Key Performance Management Practices, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist (Washington, D.C., June 2007), 1-2, http://1.usa.gov/1dpYNft (accessed 19 March 2014). 9 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources Flexibilities and Authorities in the Federal Government (Washington, D.C., Aug. 2013), 41-51, http://1.usa.gov/1gAUBEa (accessed 19 March 2014).

Appendix TWO EXECUTIVE ORDER 13655 ADJUSTMENTS OF CERTAIN RATES OF PAY THE WHITE HOUSE, December 23, 2013

SCHEDULE 5—EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE Effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2014

Level I...... $201,700 Level II...... $181,500 Level III...... $167,000 Level IV...... $157,100 Level V...... $147,200

SCHEDULE 6—VICE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2014

Vice President...... $233,000 Senators...... $174,000 Members of the House of Representatives...... $174,000 President pro tempore of the Senate...... $193,400 Majority leader and minority leader of the Senate...... $193,400 Majority leader and minority leader of the House of Representatives...... $193,400 Speaker of the House of Representatives...... $223,500

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 41 Appendix THREE SPECIAL THANKS The individuals listed below generously offered their input regarding the federal civil service system. We greatly appreciate their time, effort and insights. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of those who provided their advice and counsel.

Technical Advisory Committee Pay and Compensation Reform Discussion Group Jonathan Breul Tim Barnhart Former Executive Director President IBM Center for the Business of Government Federal Management Partners, Inc. Steve Cohen Andrew Biggs Former Acting Director and Senior Advisor Resident Scholar Office of Personnel Management American Enterprise Institute Adam Cole Dustin Brown Senior Director Deputy Assistant Director for Management Corporate Executive Board Office of Management and Budget Doris Hausser Stephen Condrey Former Senior Advisor President Office of Personnel Management American Society for Public Administration Jennifer Hemingway Chairman Deputy Policy Director, Committee on Oversight and Federal Salary Council Government Reform Chris Dobyns U.S. House of Representatives Manager, Office of Human Resource Strategies Don Kettl Department of Defense Dean, School of Public Policy John Donahue University of Maryland Faculty Chair, Master of Public Policy Program Gail Lovelace Harvard Kennedy School of Government Former Chief People Officer Joshua Franzel General Services Administration Vice President, Research Jean Martin-Weinstein Center for State and Local Government Excellence Executive Director, Human Resources Practice Sheldon Friedman Corporate Executive Board Chair and Senior Advisor for Pay Reform Christopher Mihm Office of Personnel Management Managing Director, Strategic Issues Maury Gittleman Government Accountability Office Research Economist Larry Novey Bureau of Labor Statistics Associate Staff Director and Chief Counsel for Robert Goldenkoff Governmental Affairs, Committee on Homeland Security Director, Strategic Issues and Governmental Affairs Government Accountability Office U.S. Senate Charles Grimes Hannah Sistare Former Chief Operating Officer Former Executive Director Office of Personnel Management Volcker Commission Doris Hausser Robert Tobias Former Senior Advisor Director, Institute for the Study of Public Policy Office of Personnel Management Implementation Michael McManus American University Former Senior Compensation Analyst National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Senior Advisor Federal Management Partners Christopher Mihm Managing Director, Strategic Issues Government Accountability Office

42 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON Neil Reichenberg Tom Gilbert Executive Director Assistant Director, Strategic Issues International Public Management Association for Government Accountability Office Human Resources Chelsa Gurkin Howard Risher Assistant Director, Strategic Issues Private Consultant on Pay and Performance Government Accountability Office HRSolutions Jenny Mattingley Paul Rowson Legislative Director Director, Human Resources Business Partners Senior Executives Association Verisign Ulyana Panchishin John Schmitt Senior Analyst, Strategic Issues Senior Economist Government Accountability Office Center for Economic and Policy Research James Read Dennis Slagter Special Advisor to the Board Chief Human Capital Officer Merit Systems Protection Board Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Tyler Robinson Jane Weizmann Chairman of the Board and Director of YGL Institute for Senior Consultant Public Policy Watson Wyatt Young Government Leaders Executive Board Cara Welch Debra Roth Vice President, Public Policy, News and Publications General Counsel WorldatWork Senior Executives Association John Salamone Other Briefings AND MEETINGS Former Executive Director Chief Human Capital Officers Council Shea Bader Vice President Senior Analyst, Strategic Issues Federal Management Partners, Inc. Government Accountability Office David Uejio Dan Blair Former President President and CEO Young Government Leaders National Academy of Public Administration Carol Bonosaro President The Partnership and BAH also consulted many other experts Senior Executives Association and stakeholders in the design of this framework and wish to extend our gratitude to those not listed. Jason Briefel Legislative Assistant Senior Executives Association Thomas Burger Executive Director Professional Managers Association William Dougan National President National Federation of Federal Employees James Eisenmann Executive Director Merit Systems Protection Board Rex Facer Council Member Federal Salary Council Committee Karin Fangman Deputy Assistant General Counsel Government Accountability Office

BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 43 Appendix FOUR PROJECT TEAM

Partnership for Public Service Benjamin Bennett, Research Associate Bob Cohen, Writer/Editor Nathan Dietz, Senior Research Program Manager Sally Jaggar, Strategic Advisor Bevin Johnston, Creative Director Stephanie Mabrey, Fellow William McConnell, Fellow John Palguta, Vice President of Policy Audrey Pfund, Associate Designer Lara Shane, Vice President of Research and Communications Erin Simpler, Research Associate Max Stier, President and CEO

Booz Allen Hamilton Ron Sanders, Vice President Dave Mader, Senior Vice President Andrew Smallwood, Lead Associate Emily Ecklund, Senior Consultant

44 PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE | BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON BUILDING THE ENTERPRISE: A NEW CIVIL SERVICE FRAMEWORK 45 1100 New York Avenue nw 13200 Woodland Park Road Suite 200 East Herndon VA 20171 Washington DC 20005

(202) 775-9111 (703) 984-1000 ourpublicservice.org boozallen.com CFC# 12110