Human Capital: DOD Needs to Improve Implementation of and Address Employee Concerns about Its National Security Personnel System
GAO-08-773
Published: Sep 10, 2008. Publicly Released: Sep 10, 2008.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
The Department of Defense (DOD) has begun implementing the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), its new human capital system for managing civilian personnel performance. As of May 2008, about 182,000 civilian employees were under NSPS. DOD's implementation of NSPS will have far-reaching implications for DOD and civil service reform across the federal government. Based on our prior work looking at performance management in the public sector and DOD's challenges in implementing NSPS, GAO developed an initial list of safeguards that NSPS should include to ensure it is fair, effective, and credible. Congress required GAO to determine (1) the extent to which DOD has implemented internal safeguards to ensure the fairness, effectiveness, and credibility of NSPS; and (2) how DOD civilian personnel perceive NSPS and what actions DOD has taken to address these perceptions. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed relevant documents and employee survey results; interviewed appropriate officials; and conducted discussion groups with employees and supervisors at 12 selected installations.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | To better address the internal safeguards and improve employee trust in the NSPS performance management system, the Secretary of Defense should direct the National Security Personnel System Senior Executive to require a third party to perform predecisional demographic and other analysis as appropriate for pay pools. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD did not concur with our 2008 recommendation to require a third party to perform an independent, predecisional demographic and other analysis as appropriate for pay pools. The department did not feel that integrating such analyses as part of the predecisional pay pool deliberation process was warranted. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 subsequently repealed DOD's authority for the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and required that NSPS be terminated and all employees be transitioned to the pay and personnel system that last applied or would have applied if NSPS had not existed. Thus, given the termination of NSPS, coupled with DOD's nonconcur, this recommendation is no longer valid and is closed as not implemented.
|
| Department of Defense | To better address the internal safeguards and improve employee trust in the NSPS performance management system, the Secretary of Defense should direct the National Security Personnel System Senior Executive to require commands to publish the final overall rating results. |
Closed – Implemented
DOD concurred with our recommendation and, in November 2008, amended its NSPS regulations and implementing issuances to require commands to publish the final rating results to employees. Under DOD's revised guidance, commands are required to communicate the general pay pool results to the NSPS workforce in writing. At a minimum, this includes the number of pay pools (if aggregate pay pool results are necessary), the number of employees rated, the rating and share distributions, the average rating, the average share assignment, the share value (or average share value), and the average payout expressed as a percentage of base salary. Further, during the course of GAO's audit work for our 2009 review of NSPS, we found that at the eight locations we visited, this information was shared with employees, in accordance with DOD's amended guidance. Having taken these steps, we believe that DOD has addressed our recommendation and has taken an important step towards helping ensure that NSPS is a fair, effective, and credible system.
|
| Department of Defense | To better address the internal safeguards and improve employee trust in the NSPS performance management system, the Secretary of Defense should direct the National Security Personnel System Senior Executive to provide guidance to pay pools and supervisors that encourages them to rate employees appropriately, including using all categories of ratings as warranted by comparing employees' individual performance against the standards. |
Closed – Implemented
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and, in April 2009, posted to its NSPS Web site a "fact sheet" emphasizing that the forced distribution of ratings is prohibited under NSPS and describing how meaningful distinctions in performance are made under the system. DOD's fact sheet provided guidance specifying what constitutes the forced distribution of ratings, why the forced distribution of ratings was prohibited, how use of standard performance indicators minimizes the potential for individual bias or favoritism, and how organizations could best apply this information when rating and rewarding employee performance under NSPS. By issuing this guidance, we believe that DOD has addressed our recommendation and has taken an important step towards helping ensure that NSPS is a fair, effective, and credible system.
|
| Department of Defense | To better address the internal safeguards and improve employee trust in the NSPS performance management system, the Secretary of Defense should direct the National Security Personnel System Senior Executive to develop and implement a specific action plan to address employee perceptions of NSPS ascertained from feedback avenues such as, but not limited to, DOD's survey and DOD's and GAO's employee focus groups. For example, the plan should include actions to mitigate employee concerns about the potential influence that employees' and supervisors' writing skills have on the panels' assessment of employee ratings and the lack transparency and understanding of the pay pool panel process. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD partially concurred with our recommendation and believes the department has been transparent about NSPS implementation and workforce concerns. While the department has taken several actions based on issues and concerns raised in our report, we do not feel that these actions address the intent of our recommendation. Specifically, actions taken by the department since our 2008 report include (1) the issuance of a memorandum on June 24, 2009 from the PEO to the components which described actions that should be taken at the component and unit levels to address key workforce concerns about NSPS; (2) the publication of the 2008 evaluation report on the NSPS website, which identifies other actions taken, for example, the release of an improved automated performance appraisal tool; (3) the addition of requirements, such as the communication of annual pay pool results to members, in the NSPS regulations and implementing issuances for organizations; and (4) the development and operation of ?NSPS Connect? to address concerns about insufficient training and provide employees by providing additional topical, instructive, and informational material to facilitate the assessment writing, rating, and pay pool panel processes. The department also underwent a comprehensive review of NSPS conducted by the Defense Business Board which provided recommendations related to such things as the fairness, transparency, and effectiveness of NSPS. As noted, these actions do not meet the intent of our recommendation to develop and implement a specific action plan to address employee perceptions of NSPS, as ascertained from various feedback avenues. Given that the aforementioned actions do not meet the intent of our recommendation and that NSPS was subsequently repealed and all employees were returned to their legacy personnel and performance management systems, this recommendation has been overtaken by events and should, therefore, be closed as not implemented.
|
Full Report
GAO Contacts
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Agency missionsCivilian employeesEmployee trainingEmployeesHuman capital managementHuman capital planningInternal controlsNational security personnel systemPay for performancePerformance appraisalPerformance managementPerformance measuresSafeguardsStrategic planningSystems designSystems evaluationSystems integrationSystems monitoring