PROGRESS REPORT ON FEDERAL EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 26
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 9, 2013
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: August 15, 1984
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
3Y ?S GE\ERAL ACCO,ATING OFFICE
Report To The Chairman, Subcommittee On
Civil Service, Post Office, And General Services
Committee On Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Progress Report On Federal Executive
Development Programs
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and five
agencies GAO reviewed established and are operating
executive development programs required by the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978. Most program partici-
pants GAO interviewed believed the programs were
beneficial in preparing candidates for the Senior
Executive Service (SES) and in improving the ability of
SES members to do their jobs.
Officials in four of the five agencies GAO reviewed
believed OPM's executive development guidance was
difficult to use because it was fragmented and they
expressed concern about OPM's reduction in the level
of agency assistance following budget cutbacks in
fiscal year 1982. All five of the agencies were, in some
instances, not complying with parts of OPM's execu-
tive development program guidance and regulations.
OPM consolidated its program guidance, assigned
additional staff members to assist the agencies, and
reemphasized to the agencies their responsibilities
for compliance with OPM guidance and regulations.
These measures should alleviate the agencies' con-
cerns and improve their compliance with OPM's guid-
ance and regulations.
GAO/GGD-84-92
AUGUST 15, 1984
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Request for copies of GAO reports should be
sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
Document Handling and Information
Services Facility
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, Md. 20760
Telephone [phone]
The first five copies of individual reports are
free of charge. Additional copies of bound
audit reports are $3.25 each. Additional
copies of unbound report (i.e., letter reports)
and most other publications are $1.00 each.
There will be a 25% discount on all orders for
100 or more copies mailed to a single address.
Sales orders must be prepaid on a cash, check,
or money order basis. Check should be made
out to the "Superintendent of Documents".
Declassified and Approved For Release'2013/08/09 : CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
OMMIVALGOVIDINMOR
DIVISION
B-215813
UNITEDSTATESGENERALACCOUNTINGOFFICE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman, Subcommittee on Civil Service,
Post Office, and General Services
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This report responds to your request that we review
executive development programs for Senior Executive Service
(SES) candidates and members, established under provisions of
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. As agreed with your
office, we reviewed how the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
was fulfilling its agency assistance and oversight responsibili-
ties under the act and how executive development programs were
being carried out in five federal agencies--the Departments of
Agriculture, the Air Force, Education, and Justice; and the
National Science Foundation (NSF).
OPM and the five agencies we visited have established and
are operating executive development programs. OPM issued
guidance and regulations, provided assistance to the agencies,
monitored their progress, and administered an executive develop-
ment program for agencies that did not have enough SES positions
to justify operating their own programs. The agencies selected
SES candidates, assigned mentors to them, and provided training
and developmental assignments to both SES candidates and SES
members. Most agency officials, SES candidates, SES members
serving as candidates' mentors, and other SES members we inter-
viewed believed the programs were beneficial.
We found, however, that four of the five agencies we re-
viewed were concerned about OPM's guidance and its reduction in
assistance following budget cutbacks in fiscal year 1982. Offi-
cials of the agencies we reviewed--except for the Air Force--ex-
pressed concern that OPM's guidance materials were difficult to
use because they had been issued in piecemeal fashion, were fre-
quently changed, and lacked consistency. Officials of these
agencies were also concerned because, after budget cutbacks in
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified' and Approved For Release 2013/08/09 : CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
B-215813
fiscal year 1982, OPM reduced the level of assistance it had
provided earlier. Air Force officials said they did not rely
heavily on OPM's formal guidance and expressed satisfaction with
the assistance they had received from OPM. Our review also
showed that, in some cases, the five agencies visited were not
complying with OPM's executive development program guidance and
regulations. Some mentors were not providing assistance to SES
candidates in all OPM-prescribed areas, SES members often did
not have required individual development plans, and only one of
the five agencies--Agriculture--had formally evaluated its
executive development program.
OPM has taken several actions to address agency concerns
and noncompliance. As part of a revised and expanded approach
encompassing the development of supervisors, managers, and ex-
ecutives, OPM consolidated its program guidance into a new
Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Chapter 412, superseding the
various bulletins and letters previously issued. The new
chapter was issued on July 18, 1984.. OPM has also assigned 10
staff members to serve as agency liaison officers'in an effort
to improve its assistance to the agencies. Each of the 10 staff
members is responsible for a group of agencies. Five OPM staff
members were assigned to provide agency assistance before the
fiscal year 1982 budget cuts. Although the 10 OPM staff members
have other training and development responsibilities, OPM
officials believe these responsibilities will complement their
agency assistance duties.
OPM's new FPM chapter also specifically addresses the areas
in which we identified instances of agency noncompliance with
OPM guidance and regulations. The chapter states that agencies
must ensure that
--candidates' mentors are aware of their responsibilities
and are properly prepared to fulfill their roles,
--SES members prepare and regularly update their individual
development plans, and
--executive development officials establish evaluation
systems to assess both program and individual partici-
pant's success.
OPM's revised FPM chapter on supervisory, management, and
executive development has only recently been issued; therefore,
it is too early to begin assessing its effects. Organizational
and operational changes in OPM to implement the revised approach
to management development are still in process. We plan in the
2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
B-215813
future to assess OPM's and the agencies' progress in implement-
ing the revised approach.
Appendix I to this letter provides the details of our re-
view, including a discussion of our objectives, scope, and
methodology. Appendix II highlights the results of our execu-
tive development questionnaire administered to a total of 390
SES candidates, SES members serving as candidates' mentors, and
other SES members. Appendix III provides information, as of
March 1984, on the study or work activities of the 12 SES mem-
bers who have participated in sabbaticals provided for by the
Civil Service Reform Act.
As requested by your office, we did not obtain agency com-
ments on this report. Also, as arranged with your office we are
sending copies of this report to the Directors of OPM and the
National Science Foundation; the Secretaries of Agriculture,
Defense, Air Force, and Education; and the Attorney General. We
will also send copies to other interested parties and make
copies available to others upon request.
Sincerely yours,
3
illiam J. Anderson
Director
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
PROGRESS REPORT ON FEDERAL
EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Our objectives were to (1) assess executive development ef-
forts at OPM and selected agencies and (2) obtain the views of
SES candidates, their mentors, and SES members about their exec-
utive development experiences. We did not attempt to evaluate
the relevancy, substance, or quality of the training and assign-
ments provided in executive development programs; however, we
did obtain and analyze program participants' and officials' per-
ceptions on these matters. We did our review at OPM, which has
overall responsibility for federal executive development pro-
grams, and five selected agencies.
We selected five agencies' programs to review--the Depart-
ments of Agriculture, the Air Force, Education, and Justice; and
the National Science Foundation. We selected these agencies'
programs because we wanted to obtain information about programs
which varied in size and implementation. Because of the program
differences, the results of our work cannot be projected.
We also obtained information about a series of seminars and
policy discussions conducted by the Department of Treasury's
Executive Institute for Treasury's SES candidates and members.
We have included this information in our report because Treasury
is considering opening its seminars and discussions to other
agencies. We did not, however, evaluate Treasury's executive
development program.
We interviewed. executive development officials at OPM and
the five agencies reviewed to assess their executive development
roles and the policies, procedures, and practices used to de-
velop SES candidates and members. We reviewed applicable laws,
OPM and agency regulations, executive development plans, budget
data, and employees' individual development plans.
We interviewed by telephone a total of 390 SES candidates,
SES members serving as candidates' mentors, and other SES mem-
bers to obtain information about their developmental activities
and the roles of candidates' mentors. These interviews were
conducted during June and July 1983. The methodology used to
conduct the interviews is discussed in appendix II. Our review
was conducted primarily at OPM and the five agencies' headquar-
ters in Washington, D.C., although we interviewed SES candi-
dates, candidates' mentors, and SES members located in various
agency field installations in the United States. Our review
work was conducted from October 1982 to September 1983 in accor-
dance with generally accepted government audit standards except
that we did not obtain agency comments. We updated our
1
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
information on OPM's executive development efforts in March and
April 1984.
OPM'S ROLE IN EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT
Title IV of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 estab-
lished the SES and required OPM to set up programs for (1) the
systematic development of SES candidates and (2) the continuing
development of SES members. The act provided that OPM could
either operate such programs or require the agencies to do so
under OPM criteria, guidance, and oversight. In practice, OPM
has delegated to agencies the responsibility for planning, im-
plementing, and operating executive development programs under
OPM prescribed criteria.
OPM undertook a number of efforts to carry out its execu-
tive development responsibilities. These included establishing
competency areas as the basis for executive development, conven-
ing review boards to review the qualifications of SES candidates
in the competency areas, providing guidance and assistance to
agencies, overseeing the implementation of agency executive
development programs, and administering a candidate development
program for agencies that did not have enough SES positions to
justify operating their own programs.
These efforts dealt with the development of SES candidates
and SES members. OPM has recently revised and expanded its
management development approach to give greater attention to the
development of individuals as they progress through the career
levels from supervisor to manager to executive.
Executive competencies
OPM's initial research efforts focused on developing a data
base on federal managers' and executives' duties and competen-
cies, including a survey to distinguish between the duties of
federal managers and executives. After this survey, OPM inter-
viewed agency executives and identified six competency areas to
use as a framework to determine individual developmental needs.
The six areas are (1) integration of internal and external
program-policy issues; (2) organizational representation and
'liaison; (3) direction and guidance of programs, projects, or
policy development; (4) acquisition and administration of finan-
cial and material resources; (5) utilization of human resources;
and (6) review of implementation and results. Candidates must
be certified in these areas by OPM-convened qualification review
boards before they can be appointed to SES positions.
2
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Qualification review boards
OPM convenes qualification review boards to review applica-
tion packages which agencies submit as evidence that a person is
qualified to join the SES. The Reform Act requires that more
than one-half of each board comprise career executives. Board
membership rotates among agencies on an ad-hoc basis. The
boards are concerned primarily with an individual's qualifi-
cations to satisfy the six competency areas. They do not review
technical qualifications for a specific SES position, as this is
done by agencies' executive resources boards. Governmentwide,
between July 1979 and March 1984, agencies submitted 3,622 can-
didates to the qualification review boards for review. All but
51 were approved--23 were disapproved and 28 were returned
without action to the agencies, and were not resubmitted.
Agency assistance and oversight
After the Civil Service Reform Act went into effect in July
1979, OPM assigned five people to assist agencies with executive
development. They were in regular contact with the agencies,
providing technical information, answering questions, interpret-
ing OPM guidance, and overseeing agency executive development
efforts. To meet its oversight responsibilities, OPM periodi-
cally reviewed and granted provisional approval to agencies'
executive development plans. OPM also shared with the agencies
information on executive development through a publication
clearinghouse and various workshops and forums. Publications
included a periodic newsletter on OPM .and agency executive
development activities, and fact sheets and other issuances
about executive development. In addition, OPM issued various
Federal Personnel Manual bulletins and letters on executive
development.
An important part of OPM's executive development efforts
involved developing materials for the agencies to use in their
programs. In 1980, OPM awarded a $640,000 contract to Harvard
University to develop federal management case studies and simu-
lations that agencies could use in their executive-development
programs. In June 1982, OPM and Harvard sponsored a workshop on
how to use the case studies and simulations. OPM has circulated
the case studies and simulations to the agencies for use in
their programs. OPM has also begun integrating the case studies
into its training curriculum. Officials of the five agencies we
visited believe the case studies were useful.
After budget and staff cutbacks in 1982--a part of the
general budget reductions for nondefense agencies--OPM reduced
much of its assistance and oversight of agency executive
development programs. Although documentation of resources de-
voted to executive development was not available, OPM officials
3
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
estimated that staff years devoted to executive development re-
search, policy, and advisory service dropped from about 20 in
fiscal 1981 to about 7 in 1983. Contacts with agencies were
reduced; OPM stopped its periodic reviews of agency plans, dis-
seminated less information about executive development, and
sponsored fewer workshops and forums.
Executive development officials at the agencies we visited,
except for the Air Force, were concerned with OPM's curtailment
of service and with what they perceived as guidance that was
fragmented, at times inconsistent, and, consequently, difficult
to use. They believed that the information OPM had provided
through its publication clearinghouse and workshops was useful.
They also said they had difficulty obtaining responsive and ac-
curate answers to their questions from OPM. Air Force officials
said they did not rely heavily on OPM for guidance and expressed
satisfaction with OPM's program assistance.
OPM officials acknowledged that some of their executive
development services may have been impaired after the fiscal
year 1982 budget cuts. However, they believe recent actions
will alleviate the problem. For example, in March 1984, 10 mem-
bers of OPM's staff--compared with 5 in 1979--were assigned to
serve as liaison officers to the agencies. These individuals
have various training and development program responsibilities
and are expected to maintain close contact with their assigned
agencies. OPM has also consolidated its program guidance into a
new FPM Chapter 412, superseding the various bulletins and let-
ters previously issued and providing a single source of guidance
for the agencies.
OPM discontinued the periodic reviews of agencies' execu-
tive development plans in 1982 and, in the spring of 1983, began
granting final long-term approval of agency executive develop-
ment programs. OPM then planned to approve about one agency
program a month based on a review of agency records and a site
visit. This review process resulted in approval of three agen-
cies' executive development programs--Interior, Agriculture, and
Labor. However, OPM officials advised us that, in November
1983, they decided to discontinue the agency-by-agency final
approval process, primarily because it was consuming so much
time that they recognized several years were going to be re-
quired to approve all agencies' programs. Instead, as part of
its revised approach to executive development, OPM plans to mon-
itor agencies' progress by using existing data base systems,
periodic onsite agency reviews, and feedback from agencies re-
ceived as part of OPM's program assistance efforts.
4
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Small agency program
In 1980, OPM began an SES candidate program for agencies
that did not have enough SES positions to justify conducting a
program of their own. OPM established a criteria of less than
50 SES positions as the basis for participation in the first
class. The first class had 62 candidates from 22 agencies, 58
of whom graduated. The tuition was $4,000 a candidate. Parti-
cipants attended formal training and seminars and worked on de-
velopmental assignments for 1-1/2 years. When not involved in
these activities, candidates worked at their regular jobs.
In 1981, a second class started. Tuition for a candidate
in this class increased to $6,000. There were 15 participants
from seven agencies, although eligibility was increased to agen-
cies with up to 100 SES positions. We were able to contact and
interview 12 participants in this class about the extent to
which they believed the program had prepared them for entry into
the SES. Nine told us the program had prepared them to a great
or very great extent, two said to some extent, and one said to
little or no extent.
As part of its revised approach to management development,
in March 1984, OPM announced a broader version of its small
agency program. This program, consistent with OPM's plans to
integrate supervisory, management, and executive development, is
open to non-SES candidates at the GS/GM 14-15 level and, on an
exception basis, to the GS/GM-13 level, although priority will
be given to SES candidates.
The program is based on the six competency areas mentioned
earlier and is structured to accommodate "full participants"?
those who will be involved in the entire program--and "intermit-
tent participants"--those who wish to selectively supplement
their own agencies' training and development activities by par-
ticipating in portions of the OPM program. The program will be
limited to 40 full participants at a cost of $4,000 each. Costs
for intermittent participants will be prorated according to the
activities selected.
OPM'S revised approach
to executive, management,
and supervisory development
The OPM activities discussed in the preceding sections fo-
cused on developing SES candidates and individuals already in
the SES. As noted earlier, OPM is broadening its management de-
velopment program to provide for the systematic development of
supervisors, managers, and executives. This new approach, which
is outlined in the recently issued FPM Chapter 412, is based on
a conceptual model of managerial behavior that OPM calls the
Management Excellence Framework.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
This framework consists of three elements--competency
areas, effectiveness characteristics, and management levels.
The six competency areas are those described earlier which
resulted from OPM's research efforts. They describe what execu-
tives, managers, and supervisors do. The effectiveness charac-
teristics describe how successful supervisors, managers, and
executives perform their assigned tasks. According to OPM, the
need for these characteristics is generally cumulative as the
scope of an individual's management responsibilities increases.
The third element of the framework refers to who the executives,
managers, and supervisors are--three levels of managers with
differing levels of responsibility whose behavior the overall
framework describes.
OPM is also developing a Management Excellence Inventory, a
questionnaire directly linked to the framework, which can be
used by supervisors, managers, and executives to identify both
individual and organizational development needs and strengths.
OPM plans to incorporate the use of this questionnaire into its
management training curriculum.
OPM's new FPM chapter explicitly recognizes that, for many
federal employees who have come up through the ranks in techni-
cal or professional positions, management is a "second profes-
sion." Consequently, it distinguishes between developmental
needs for supervisors, managers, and executives. It also empha-
sizes that successful implementation of a management development
program requires top management support and a partnership
between OPM and the other agencies.
The new chapter does not make major policy changes. It
does, however, eliminate the prior requirement that SES candi-
dates attend OPM's Executive Development Seminar. Instead, the
new chapter provides a list of several formal, interagency, exe-
cutive-level training experiences--including OPM's Executive
Development Seminar--that have been approved by OPM for SES can-
didates. It also reduces from 5 to 3 years the period during
which candidates retain their certification for an SES position.
OPM is developing a plan to restructure and reorganize its
'training and development activities to reflect the change from a
separate focus on (1) training and (2) supervisory, management,
and executive development. In April 1984, OPM formed a task
group to identify organizational and operational changes needed
to integrate the two formerly separate functions and implement
the new FPM chapter.
6
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
AGENCY EXECUTIVE
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
While executive development is carried out under broad OPM
guidance, each agency has tailored its program to meet its par-
ticular needs. Agencies select candidates for the SES, assign
mentors to them, prepare individual development plans (IDPs)
with the employees, and enroll them in developmental programs,
which include training courses and assignments.
The SES candidates, their mentors, and SES incumbents we
interviewed generally believed the programs had been benefi-
cial. We found some instances, however, where the agencies we
reviewed were not complying with certain provisions of OPM's
guidance and regulations. OPM's new FPM chapter addresses these
matters.
SES candidate selection
According to OPM officials, the five agencies we visited
had, as of March 1984, selected 244 SES candidates. Ninety-
eight of the candidates had been placed in SES positions.
Selections were made by agencies' executive resources boards.
Screening and selection procedures varied with each agency but
included interviews, written appraisals, and self assessments.
OPM officials advised us that several agencies were reconsider-
ing the number of people to be placed in candidate programs
because of the relatively high number of certified candidates
compared with the relatively low percentages--in some cases less
than 50 percent--actually selected for SES positions. The OPM
officials stated that some agencies were not using certified
candidates as the primary source for filling SES positions, and
pointed out that agencies should take into account the rela-
tively small number of SES vacancies expected for the near
future in deciding on the size of their candidate programs.
They also noted that the new FPM chapter requires agencies to
use projected work force requirements and potential changes in
their missions and goals in planning for both short and long-
term management development needs.
Each of the agencies we visited based its candidate devel-
opment program on OPM's six competency areas. Candidates ad-
dressed their proficiency in these areas in written IDPs and
tailored their development activities to these areas. Each
agency also included competency areas based on its particular
needs, in addition to the six prepared by OPM. Two levels of
certification are required before a candidate is eligible for
appointment to an SES position. First, the candidates' profi-
ciency must be certified in both OPM's and the agency-specific
competencies by the agency's executive resources board. Second,
the candidates' proficiency in the OPM required competencies
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
must be certified by an OPM-convened qualifications review
board.
Mentors
Each SES candidate is assigned a mentor from the SES who
provides advice and counsel and monitors the candidate's devel-
opment. We asked candidates from the five agencies visited how
satisfied they were with their mentor's assistance. A majority
of the candidates from each agency said they were satisfied or
very satisfied. This ranged from 62 percent at the Department
of Justice to 100 percent at the Department of Education. The
responses are summarized in table 1.
Table 1
SES Candidates' Satisfaction With Their Mentors
Degree of
Agencies
Air
satisfaction
Agriculture
Force Education
Justice
NSF
(percentages)
Very satisfied
24
36
50
28
36
Satisfied
46
43
50
34
43
Marginally satisfied
14
21
0
26
7
Dissatisfied
11
0
0
6
7
Very dissatisfied
5
0
0
3
0
Other
0
0
0
3
7
A majority of the candidates responded that their mentors
were assisting them in the various areas prescribed by OPM.
Some candidates, however, reported they were receiving no as-
sistance in some of the required areas. Table 2 summarizes
these responses. Executive development officials of the agen-
cies we visited informed us that they were unaware that some
candidates believed their mentors were not fulfilling the
responsibilities prescribed by OPM guidance.
8
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Table 2
Percentage of SES Candidates Who Reported
Receiving No Assistance From Mentors
in OPM Prescribed Areas
Agencies
Prescribed Air
area Agriculture Force Education Justice NSF
Counseling in IDP
objectives 7 25
Advising on long-
term career
strategy 24 14 25
Assisting in arrang-
ing developmental
assignments and
training 24 36 25
Monitoring develop-
mental progress 19 7 25
Providing feedback
on problems
identified in
developmental
program 32 31 0
Individual development plans
31
7
40
14
29
36
43
21
40
29
OPM regulations require that each SES candidate and member
have an IDP. Candidates' plans specify the training and assign-
ments needed to achieve proficiency in both the OPM and the
particular agency's prescribed competency areas. SES members'
plans are linked to their performance objectives and focus on
enhancing existing competencies, as well as correcting defi-
ciencies identified in the performance appraisal process. ,
All SES candidates in our sample had plans. SES members,
however, often did not. Executive development officials at
Agriculture and Education said SES members were required to have
plans. On the other hand, Air Force officials said plans were
encouraged, but not required, unless SES members want to par-
ticipate in long-term training. Officials at Justice and the
NSF said they did not require plans, although NSF officials told
us they intended to begin doing so.
9
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
Training and assignments
SES candidates and members in our samples participated in
training and assignments from the sources shown in table 3.
Table 3
Source of Training and Assignments
Training:
SES SES
members candidates
(percentages)
Government, at home agency
27
17
Government, at other agencies
26
45
Private sector
22
5
College/university
7
4
Assignments:
Government, at home agency
13
22
Government, at other agencies
2
5
College/university
1
-
State/local government
1
1
Private sector
1
1
Total
100
100
Based on OPM's definitions for types of training and assign-
ments, 87 percent of the training and assignments for SES
candidates, And 60 percent for members, was management ori-
ented. The remaining was of a technical nature.
SES candidates, members, mentors, and executive development
officials that we interviewed felt that the training and assign-
ments had prepared the participants for the SES or had helped
them in their jobs. Details on the candidates', members', and
mentors' responses are provided in appendix II. SES candidates
Who had participated in such assignments believed that develop-
mental assignments in the private sector or elsewhere in the
government were more useful than federal government training
courses in preparing them for the SES; however, as indicated in
table 3, developmental assignments tended to be used less fre-
quently than training.
The Civil Service Reform Act authorized sabbaticals for SES
members with 7 years of SES service or with a combination of at
least 2 years of SES service and enough service in an equivalent
10
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIATRDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
position to make a total of 7 years. Over half of the SES mem-
bers believed that sabbatical assignments would be helpful to
them. However, of the agencies we reviewed, only the Air Force
had granted sabbaticals, to two SES members. OPM's records
showed that, as of March 1984, a total of 12 sabbaticals had
been granted. Appendix III provides more information on the 12
sabbaticals.
Although the Department of the Treasury was not one of the
agencies we reviewed, we noted that it has established the
Treasury Executive Institute to promote the development of its
SES members and candidates and to supplement more formal train-
ing offerings, such as those at OPM's Federal Executive Insti-
tute. The Treasury's Institute conducts a wide range of
programs, usually 2 days a month, featuring discussions with top
Treasury and other Administration officials, seminars by promi-
nent authors in various fields, and sessions using the Harvard
case studies referred to earlier. An Institute official advised
us that those attending have commented favorably on the pro-
grams. Institute staff has also discussed its model with OPM
and, with other agencies who may be interested in establishing
-
simalar programs.
Evaluation of executive development
Agencies are required by OPM's regulations to systemati-
cally evaluate their executive development efforts and use the
results to improve their programs. We found, however, that, of
the five agencies we reviewed, only the Department of Agricul-
ture had made the required evaluation. Officials of the other
agencies said they had not formally evaluated their programs
because of the absence of criteria, lack of time, or budget
reductions.
Agriculture's evaluation identified problems in both the
candidate and mentor selection processes, in program administra-
tion, and training. Agriculture officials told us that program
improvements resulted from the evaluation and that they planned
another evaluation in the future.
OPM's new FPM chapter addresses
areas of agency noncompliance
As noted earlier, OPM's new FPM chapter reemphasizes to all
agencies their responsibilities for ensuring that
--candidates' mentors are aware of their responsibilities
and are properly prepared to fulfill their roles,
--SES members prepare and regularly update their individual
development plans, and
11
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX I APPENDIX I
--executive development officials establish evaluation sys-
tems to assess both program and individual participant's
success.
12
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09 : CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
QUESTIONNAIRE METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
We conducted a telephone survey of 390 SES candidates, men-
tors, and SES members in the five agencies selected for review
to assess their views on training and development and on spe-
cific activities in these areas. We interviewed random samples
of SES members at all five agencies and of candidates and men-
tors at Agriculture and Justice. Because of their relatively
small number, we attempted to contact all candidates and mentors
in the remaining three agencies and all participants in the sec-
ond class of OPM's small agency candidate development program.
We interviewed participants in OPM's second class because it was
in session at the time of our review. .
We conducted the interviews between June 15, 1983, and
July 22, 1983. To increase response rates, at least three at-
tempts were made to contact prospective interviewees. Response
rates over 80 percent were obtained for all respondent groups
and all agencies, except for candidates in OPM's-small agency
program and for Agriculture's mentors and members, who had rates
of 73 percent, 74 percent, and 67 percent, respectively. Table
4 provides more details.
Sample sizes were initially designed to yield confidence
intervals of + 10 percentage points at most with a 90 percent
level of confidence when projecting to the various respondent
groups. Confidence intervals ranged from + 8 upwards to + 13
percentage points for findings concerning percentages of respon-
dents and between + 2 and + 17 percentage points for findings
concerning percentages of training and development activities.
13
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
..
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
APPENDIX II APPENDIX II
Table 4
Basic Questionnaire Statistics
Respondent
type! agency
Size of
universe
Number
sampled
Number
interviewed
Response
ratea
(percent)
SES candidates
Agriculture
92
39
37
94.9
Air Force
16
16
14
87.5
Educationb
4.
4
4
100.0
Justice
80
37
35
94.6
NSF
14
14
14
100.0
OPM's small
agency
program
11
11
8
72.7
Candidates'
mentors
Agriculture
92
38
28
73.7
Air Force
16
16
16
100.0
Education
5
5
5
100.0
Justice
80
35
30
85.7
NSF
12
12
12
100.0
SES members
Agriculture
272
54
36
66.7
Air Force
172
49
41
83.7
Education
39
25
24
96.0
Justice
203
51
49
96.1
NSF
102
41
37
90.2
aResponse rate equals number interviewed divided by number
sampled.
bEducation's four candidates were participants in OPM's small
. agency program.
14
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Table 5
Candidates' Views on Extent to Which Training and
Assignments Prepared or Will Prepare Them
for SES Positions a b
Air
Training Agriculture Force Education Justice NSF Totalc
Government, at candidates' home agencies
Government, at other agencies
Private sector
College/university
Assignments
Government, at candidates' home agencies
1-,
(xi Government, at other agencies
State/local government
Private sector
aScale:
1. A very great extent
2. A great extent
3. A moderate extent
4. Some extent
5. Little or no extent
3.0
2.6
3.0
2.9
1.0
2.8
2.7
2.2
2.1
2.9
2.6
2.7
2.0
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.6
1.6
1.4
3.0
1.4
1.8
2.1
1.6
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.2
1.0
1.2
2.0
1.0
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
bIncludes only activities that were started or completed by candidates--planned activities are not
included.
cWeighted average of the five agencies.
II XIGNEddV
II XIGNHddY
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Table 6
SES Candidates' Perceptions of Readiness for SES Positions and
How Program Prepared them for the SES
Air
Agriculture Force Education Justice NSF
Readiness before programa
Percentb
41
29
25
46
50
Mean
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.5
5.3
Readiness at time of interviewa
Percentb
95
100
100
91
93
Mean
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
One or more point change in readinessa c
Percent
78
93
75
71
79
Mean
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.2
1.3
Better prepared to a moderate or greater
extent by programa
Percente 81 100 100 63 71
aScale ranged from "definitely not ready" (1) to "definitely ready" (7).
bPercent includes only responses (6) and (7)--the highest degrees of readiness in our scale.
cChange in readiness calculated by subtracting readiness before program from readiness after
program.
dScale ranged from "to a very great extent" (1) to "little or no extent" (5).
ePercent includes responses (1) "to a very great extent", (2) "to a great extent", and (3) "to a
moderate extent".
II xi aNaaa/
II XICINaddV
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Table 7 0
Cl)
Mentors' Perceptions of Candidates' Readiness for SES Positions
and How Program Prepared Candidates for the SES
C-)
CD
w
w
=,i
Cl)
Air a_
m
Agriculture Force Education Justice NSF m
a_
>
Readiness before programa -o
Percentb
25
44
20
27
50
Mean
4.3
5.4
4.8
4.8
5.0
Readiness at time of interviewa
64
88
100
70
92
Percentb
Mean
5.9
6.8
6.6
6.2
6.0
One or more point change in readinessa c
H
Percent
82
69
80
80
50
--4o
Mean
1.6
1.3
1.8
1.4
1.0
-o
8
<
m
a_
-n
o
-, .
71
m
(T)
m
(f)
m
n.)
o
_.
w
m
o
co
Better prepared to q moderate or greater -
extent by program'-' 0
F.
Percente 93 75 100 70 83 71
0
m
aScale ranged from "definitely not ready" (1) to "definitely ready" (7). co
91
o
bPercent includes only responses (6) and (7)--the highest degrees of readiness in our scale. 0
CY,
W
CY,
cChange in readiness calculated by subtracting readiness before program from readiness after 71
program. o
o
o
w
dScale ranged from "to a very great extent" (1) to "little or no extent" (5). o
o
o
ePercent includes responses (1) "to a very great extent", (2) "to a great extent", and (3) "to a w
o
moderate extent". o
o
9)
H 01
H
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
SES Members' Views
Table 8
Assignments
on Extent to Which Training and
Have Helped or Will Help Them in Their Jobsa
b
Air
Training
Agriculture Force Education
Justice
NSF
Total?
Government, at members' home agencies
1.9 2.2 3.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
Government, at other agencies
2.1 2.2 2.4
2.7
3.3
2.5
State/local government
1.0
1.0
Private sector
2.0 2.3 1.4
1.8
2.0
1.9
..
College/university
1.0 1.6
1.8
1.9
1.7
Assignments
1--.
m
Government, at members' home agencies
1.7 1.0 1.0
1.6
1.9
1.7
Government, at other agencies
1.7 1.0
1.3
1.4
State/local government
2.0
2.0
Private sector
2.0 2.0
1.0
2.0
1.8
College/university
aScale ranged from "extremely helpful"
1.7
(1) to "little or no help" (5).
--
1.0
1.5
bFor SES members with individual development plans, includes only activities that were started or
completed--planned activities are not included. For SES members without such plans, includes
activities in which they said they participated during the last 18 months.
?Weighted average of the five agencies.
II xiaNaaav
II XIGNaddlt
60/80/C1-0Z 8S8I8I -101 penaiddv pue Pe!PsseloeCI
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
Agency/department
Air Force
Arms Control and
Disarmanent
Army
Defense Mapping
Agency
Equal Employment
Opportunity Comm.
Table 9
LIST OF SABBATICALS AS OF MARCH 1984
Position prior
to sabbatical
Assistant Deputy Chief
of Staff for Logistics
Operations
Dates
February 1, 1983-
August 16, 1983
March 15, 1984-
September 15, 1984
August 1, 1981-
July 1, 1982
Chief, Mechanics &
Surface Interaction
Branch, Wright
Aeronautical Labora-
tories
Deputy Asst. Director,
Multilateral Affairs
September 1, 1981- Chief, Technology Trans-
August 1, 1982 fer Group
September 1, 1981-
August 1, 1982
Director, Division of
Biochemistry, Walter
Reed
January 10, 1983- Comptroller
December 9, 1983
July 30, 1982-
June 30, 1983
Deputy General Counsel
Sabbatical course
of study or work
Royal Australian Air Force,
study maintenance and
logistics
Learn composite materials
design & develop user-
friendly design handbook
Visiting scholar, National
Security and Soviet
Affairs, University of
North Carolina
Visiting scholar,
Georgetown University,
study of Third World
domestic arms production
Visiting Professor of
Cellular Biology, Salk
Institute, University of
California, San Diego
Doctoral level program
in management, University
of Southern California
Legal Research on age dis-
crimination; presentations
on findings
XIGNaddV
II XICINadd`d
0 0?,
M
0 m
W M
cf)
i LA,
2)
(D
-n
(D
CD
(D
n.)
o.)
0 N.)
CO 0
(r)
. .
Agency/department
Dates
Position prior
to sabbatical
Sabbatical course
of study or work
Interior
National Aeronautics
& Space Administration
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Transkortation
October 1, 1983-
July 1, 1984
May 1, 1983-
April 1, 1984
September 1, 1983-
August 1, 1984
August 1, 1983-
June 30, 1984
May 1, 1982-
April 1, 1983
Assistant Director for
Economics
Chief, Biomedical
Research Division
Chief Scientist,
Geodynamics Branch
Deputy Director,
Division of Quality
Assurance
Acting Associate Admin-
istrator for Research
and Development
Research on marketing and
economics of water policy,
University of California,
Davis
Cardiovascular research,
Stanford University, School
of Medicine
Center for Seismic Studies
Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency,
geophysical research
Visiting fellow, Battelle
Corps., studies of
organizational development
Postdoctoral research on
motor vehicle safety,
Oxford University, England
II XIGNacicIV
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
UNITED STATES
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE,$300
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
THIRD CLASS
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/09: CIA-RDP95-00535R000300030006-5