This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-755 
entitled 'Federal Employees: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen 
Performance Management Pilot' which was released on November 14, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2013: 

Federal Employees: 

Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Performance Management Pilot: 

GAO-13-755: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-755, a report to Congressional Requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

A longstanding challenge for federal agencies has been developing 
credible and effective performance management systems that can serve 
as a strategic tool to drive internal change and achieve results. In 
2011, various federal agencies, labor unions, and other organizations 
developed the Goals-Engagement-Accountability-Results (GEAR) framework 
to help improve performance management. 

GAO was asked to evaluate GEAR. This report (1) analyzes how the GEAR 
framework addresses key practices for effective performance management 
and identifies opportunities to improve GEAR implementation government-
wide; (2) describes the status of GEAR implementation at pilot 
agencies and lessons learned to date; and (3) assesses the extent to 
which each pilot agency’s GEAR implementation plan includes selected 
best practices for project planning. The report is based on GAO’s 
analysis of GEAR documents, agency project plans, and interviews with 
agency officials. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO found that the GEAR framework generally addresses previously 
identified key practices for effective performance management, such as 
aligning individual performance expectations with organizational 
goals, but refinements could improve future government-wide 
implementation. Five federal agencies are piloting GEAR-—the 
Departments of Energy (DOE), Homeland Security/Coast Guard (DHS/Coast 
Guard), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs/National 
Cemetery Administration (VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM)-—with the intention to expand GEAR government-wide. 
The Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO Council) is developing 
a toolkit based, among other things, on the experience of the pilot 
agencies. The toolkit is intended to help additional agencies 
implement the GEAR framework; CHCO Council representatives expect the 
toolkit to be complete by the end of September 2013. However, beyond 
the toolkit, neither the CHCO Council nor OPM have identified next 
steps to implement GEAR government-wide, such as identifying roles and 
responsibilities. Further, neither OPM nor the CHCO Council has plans 
to regularly update the GEAR framework or toolkit to include 
additional lessons learned, or to make such information available more 
broadly to key stakeholders, such as human resource professionals who 
may be responsible for future implementation. Without taking these 
steps, agencies that have already begun implementing GEAR risk losing 
their momentum; in addition, it may be challenging to implement GEAR 
government-wide. 

The five pilot agencies adopted various approaches to implementing 
GEAR-–DOE, HUD, and OPM implemented GEAR agency-wide, while Coast 
Guard and NCA adopted GEAR in single units–-based on agency needs, 
available resources, and GAO’s lessons learned to date. For example, 
early stakeholder involvement, including engagement between those 
representing labor and management, resulted in greater transparency 
and fewer obstacles. In addition, administering employee surveys to 
identify the greatest needs before implementing GEAR helped establish 
a baseline to better track results. 

Each of the pilot agencies developed a GEAR project plan that outlined 
specific actions. DOE’s GEAR plan was the most thoroughly documented. 
The other four agency plans did not include all project planning best 
practices, as shown in the table below. Without these elements, 
agencies may be limited in their ability to determine what needs to be 
done, when it should be done, who should do it, and how to measure 
progress towards achieving objectives. 

Table: Some Agencies’ GEAR Project Plans Were More Complete Than 
Others: 

Agency: Coast Guard; 
Extent to which plans included project planning good practices: 
Objectives: Yes; 
Specific actions: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities: Yes; 
Schedules: Partially[A]; 
Performance measures: No. 

Agency: DOE; 
Extent to which plans included project planning good practices: 
Objectives: Yes; 
Specific actions: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities: Yes; 
Schedules: Yes; 
Performance measures: Yes. 

Agency: HUD; 
Extent to which plans included project planning good practices: 
Objectives: No; 
Specific actions: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities: No; 
Schedules: Yes; 
Performance measures: Yes. 

Agency: NCA; 
Extent to which plans included project planning good practices: 
Objectives: Yes; 
Specific actions: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities: Partially[A]; 
Schedules: Partially[A]; 
Performance measures: No. 

Agency: OPM; 
Extent to which plans included project planning good practices: 
Objectives: No; 
Specific actions: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities: No; 
Schedules: Yes; 
Performance measures: Yes. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] GAO assessed an agency’s plan as partially including a best 
practice if it included limited information on a specific best 
practice but did not do so consistently throughout the plan. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

As GEAR is adopted government-wide, GAO recommends that the Director 
of OPM, in collaboration with the CHCO Council, define roles and 
responsibilities for OPM, the CHCO Council, and individual agencies, 
in such areas as updating the toolkit (as needed) and disseminating 
information on GEAR more broadly. GAO also recommends that OPM, Coast 
Guard, HUD, and NCA update their GEAR project plans to be consistent 
with best practices for project planning. 

OPM, DHS, HUD, and VA agreed with the recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-755]. For more 
information, contact Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-6806, or 
goldenkoffr@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

The GEAR Framework Generally Addresses Key Performance Management 
Practices; 
Refinements Could Improve Future Government-wide Implementation: 

Pilot Agencies Adopted Various Approaches to Implementing GEAR; 
Opportunities Exist to Capture Lessons Learned: 

Some Agencies' GEAR Project Plans Were More Complete than Others: 

Conclusion: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Appendix V: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of 
Homeland Security/Coast Guard: 

Appendix VI: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of Energy: 

Appendix VII: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development: 

Appendix VIII: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Dept. of Veterans 
Affairs/National Cemetery Administration: 

Appendix IX: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Office of Personnel 
Management: 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: GEAR Generally Addresses Key Practices for Effective 
Performance Management: 

Table 2: Estimated Number of Employees Affected by GEAR and Estimated 
Timeline for Implementation at the Pilot Agencies: 

Table 3: Agencies' GEAR Project Plans Included Varying Levels of 
Detail: 

Table 4: Coast Guard's GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Performance 
Measures: 

Table 5: DOE's GEAR Project Plan Meets All Selected Best Practices: 

Table 6: HUD's GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Objectives or Roles 
and Responsibilities: 

Table 7: NCA's GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Performance Measures: 

Table 8: OPM's GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Objectives or Roles 
and Responsibilities: 

Table 9: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of 
Homeland Security/Coast Guard as of July 2013: 

Table 10: GEAR Implementation Status According to the: 

Department of Energy as of July 2013: 

Table 11: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development as of July 2013: 

Table 12: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs/National Cemetery Administration as of July 2013: 

Table 13: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Office of 
Personnel Management as of July 2013: 

Abbreviations: 

AFGE: American Federation of Government Employees: 

CHCO Council: Chief Human Capital Officers Council: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

FEVS: Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey: 

GEAR: Goals-Engagement-Accountability-Results: 

GS: general schedule: 

HCF: Human Capital Framework: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

LMAC: Labor Management Advisory Committee: 

LMR Council: National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations: 

MSN: Memorial Service Network: 

NCA: National Cemetery Administration: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PAAT: Performance Appraisal Assessment Tool: 

PIO: Performance Improvement Officer: 

SES: Senior Executive Service: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

WBS: work breakdown structure: 

WG: wage grade: 

[End of section] 

GAO:
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 12, 2013: 

The Honorable Darrell Issa: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Blake Farenthold: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

In our past work we have noted how current budget and long-term fiscal 
pressures, combined with a potential wave of employee retirements, 
could produce gaps in leadership and institutional knowledge that 
could impair the ability of federal agencies to carry out their 
complex and evolving missions.[Footnote 1] We concluded that effective 
performance management systems that link individual performance to 
organizational results will be key to mission success in this 
difficult environment. In 2011, representatives of various federal 
agencies, labor unions, and management organizations were brought 
together by the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations 
(LMR Council), in conjunction with the Chief Human Capital Officers 
Council (CHCO Council), to identify ways to reform and improve 
employee performance management in the federal government.[Footnote 2] 
The resulting effort, the Goals- Engagement-Accountability-Results 
(GEAR) framework, is a set of five high-level recommendations intended 
to create high-performing organizations that are aligned, accountable, 
and focused on results.[Footnote 3] Five federal agencies are piloting 
GEAR, either agency-wide or in single units: the Department of Energy 
(DOE), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the 
Department of Homeland Security/United States Coast Guard (DHS/Coast 
Guard), the Department of Veterans Affairs/National Cemetery 
Administration (VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 
[Footnote 4] 

You asked us to evaluate the GEAR framework. This report (1) analyzes 
how the GEAR framework addresses key practices for effective 
performance management and identifies opportunities, if any, to 
improve GEAR implementation government-wide; (2) describes the status 
of each pilot agency's GEAR implementation and any lessons learned to 
date; and (3) assesses the extent to which each agency's GEAR 
implementation plan includes selected best practices for project 
planning. 

To address our first objective, we systematically reviewed the GEAR 
report from the LMR Council to determine whether the goals, 
recommendations, and actions described in the document reflected key 
practices for effective performance management that we previously 
identified.[Footnote 5] We verified that the key practices were 
applicable for purposes of this engagement by conducting a literature 
review of leading performance management practices and consulting with 
internal subject matter experts. In addition, we interviewed OPM 
officials and CHCO Council officials who were members of the LMR 
Council work group that drafted the report.[Footnote 6] 

To address our second objective, we obtained and analyzed each 
agency's GEAR implementation plan(s) and obtained and analyzed updates 
from the agencies and other documentation that identified their 
current GEAR implementation status. We developed an interview 
instrument to discuss agency strategies with human resource/human 
capital officials, program managers, and other officials responsible 
for GEAR implementation. We also interviewed labor union 
representatives about any problems or concerns with implementing the 
GEAR framework. In addition, in May 2013 we visited Coast Guard Base 
Boston, where we observed initial GEAR training sessions and 
interviewed supervisors and employees about their reactions to the 
training and the GEAR framework. We chose this site because the Coast 
Guard was the most recent of the five pilot agencies to implement GEAR 
and we were able to visit soon after the start of their implementation 
efforts. 

To address our third objective, we identified project planning best 
practices (drawn primarily from Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government, GAO's definitions of performance measurement, and 
GAO's guide for best practices in project schedules) and assessed the 
inclusion of information contained in the agencies' GEAR plans against 
the best practices.[Footnote 7] We focused on the inclusion of the 
following best practices because they were relevant to GEAR: (1) plan 
objective(s) describing a goal; (2) specific actions needed to attain 
that goal; (3) roles and responsibilities identified and assigned to 
project stakeholders; (4) schedules containing logically related 
project elements leading to the goal; and (5) valid performance 
measures that permit comparison between desired outcomes and actual 
results. We assessed each agency's GEAR plan to determine the extent 
to which the information that was included met each of the five best 
practices. In cases in which plans provided inconsistent information, 
we used a rating of "partially" included. In addition, we noted 
strengths and areas for further attention in each plan. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to September 
2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further 
details of our scope and methodology appear in Appendix I. 

Background: 

A long-standing challenge for federal agencies has been developing 
credible and effective performance management systems that can serve 
as a strategic tool to drive internal change and achieve results. 
[Footnote 8] According to OPM regulations, performance management is 
the systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as 
individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational 
effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency mission and goals. 
[Footnote 9] Performance management includes such actions as planning 
work and setting expectations, continually monitoring performance, 
developing the capacity to perform, periodically rating performance in 
a summary fashion, and rewarding good performance. 

In December 2009, the LMR Council was created to establish a 
cooperative and productive form of executive branch labor-management 
relations in an effort to improve the productivity and effectiveness 
of the federal government.[Footnote 10] The LMR Council is co-chaired 
by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the 
Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) with members representing executive branch departments and 
agencies, several labor unions, and other management associations. The 
LMR Council serves as an advisor to the President on matters involving 
executive branch labor-management relations; it also promotes 
partnership efforts between labor and management within the executive 
branch. For example, the order states that management should discuss 
workplace challenges and problems with labor and endeavor to develop 
solutions jointly, rather than advise union representatives of 
predetermined solutions to problems and then engage in bargaining over 
the impact and implementation of the predetermined solutions. 

In April 2011, the LMR Council, in conjunction with the CHCO Council, 
set out to examine the federal government's performance management 
accountability framework and to make recommendations for improvement. 
The CHCO Council supports OPM in the strategic management of human 
capital at federal agencies and provides a forum for senior management 
officials to exchange human resources best practices.[Footnote 11] By 
May 2011, a work group was formed (with members representing various 
federal agencies, labor unions, and management organizations from both 
the LMR and CHCO Councils) to discuss ways to examine the existing 
system of employee performance management in ways that the work group 
felt were different from previous attempts that focused on actions 
such as increasing employee accountability through changes to 
regulations. 

The work group developed the GEAR report, issued in 2011, which 
identified challenges with the federal performance management system, 
such as: 

* a lack of evidence that the mechanical aspects of public and private 
sector performance management systems, such as rating levels and 
awards, do a good job of improving employee and organizational 
performance; 
and: 

* a disconnect among the various functions responsible for 
organizational performance improvement and employee performance 
improvement. For example, there were few formally structured 
opportunities for the individuals responsible for these functions to 
interact and communicate. 

As a result of identifying these challenges, according to the GEAR 
report, the work group agreed to: 

* focus on the relational elements of organizational and employee 
performance management, such as how to set clear expectations in work 
plans through frequent formal and informal feedback between 
supervisors and employees; 
and: 

* engage employees and agency managers, through their labor unions and 
CHCOs, and identify successful practices that have improved the 
selection and training of supervisors and the engagement between 
employees and supervisors such as two-way communication and continual 
informal feedback. 

The work group constructed the GEAR framework, as presented in the 
GEAR report, with the following recommendations: 

1. Articulate a high performance culture. 

2. Align employee and organizational performance management. 

3. Implement accountability at all levels. 

4. Create a culture of engagement. 

5. Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development, and training. 

OPM officials told us that the practices in the GEAR report are well 
known and credible but not universally applied in federal agencies. 
[Footnote 12] According to an OPM senior official, the GEAR 
recommendations are "common sense but not common practice." The same 
official noted that the GEAR recommendations align with current 
regulations addressing federal performance management, but that GEAR 
adds specific strategic and technical guidance and communication 
strategies.[Footnote 13] Agency officials said that combining the 
recommendations into one framework can aid officials in maintaining 
focus and attention on improving performance management in the context 
of competing priorities. 

The GEAR recommendations and framework were presented to and accepted 
by the LMR Council in November 2011. By December 2011, five agencies 
had volunteered to implement the GEAR framework. Of these, three 
agencies - DOE, HUD, and OPM - implemented GEAR agency-wide with few 
exceptions. Two agencies - Coast Guard and NCA - implemented GEAR in 
single units. The agencies all created GEAR implementation plans and 
periodically met as a group to discuss strategies and challenges, and 
to share successes and additional training opportunities throughout 
implementation. The pilot agencies also periodically reported their 
progress to both the LMR and CHCO Councils. No additional agencies 
have volunteered to pilot GEAR. However, in Analytical Perspectives: 
Performance and Management section in the President's Budget for 
Fiscal Year 2014, there is a stated goal of broader application of the 
GEAR framework across the federal government, with no stated timeframe 
for completion.[Footnote 14] 

The GEAR Framework Generally Addresses Key Performance Management 
Practices; 
Refinements Could Improve Future Government-wide Implementation: 

The GEAR Framework Generally Addresses Key Performance Management 
Practices: 

We have previously identified a set of key practices for modern, 
effective performance management, which appear with summary 
descriptions in table 1.[Footnote 15] Our current review found that 
the GEAR framework generally addressed seven of these key practices, 
but it does not give clear attention to two other practices. 

Table 1: GEAR Generally Addresses Key Practices for Effective 
Performance Management: 

Key practice: Align individual performance expectations with 
organizational goals. An explicit alignment helps individuals see the 
connection between their daily activities and organizational goals; 
GEAR example: GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends that 
agencies drive ongoing alignment and cascading of established 
organizational performance objectives down through executive, manager, 
supervisor, and employee performance goals. 

Key practice: Connect performance expectations to crosscutting goals. 
Placing an emphasis on collaboration, interaction, and teamwork across 
organizational boundaries helps strengthen accountability for results; 
GEAR example: GEAR does not clearly reflect this practice. LMR work 
group members told us that agencies' crosscutting goals would be 
subsumed under more general agency and individual performance goals. 

Key practice: Provide and routinely use performance information to 
track organizational priorities. Individuals use performance 
information to manage during the year, identify performance gaps, and 
pinpoint improvement opportunities; 
GEAR example: GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends that 
agencies use metrics at all organizational levels to verify goal 
achievement and accountability for employees and supervisors. 

Key practice: Require follow-up actions to address organizational 
priorities. By requiring and tracking follow-up actions on performance 
gaps, organizations underscore the importance of holding individuals 
accountable for making progress on their priorities; 
GEAR example: GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends that 
agencies develop semi-annual reports to determine effectiveness and 
program efficiency, and that senior executives also meet semi-annually 
to review progress and determine needed actions on identified issues 
and/or problems. 

Key practice: Use competencies to provide a fuller assessment of 
performance. Competencies define the skills and supporting behaviors 
that individuals need to effectively contribute to organizational 
results; 
GEAR example: GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends agencies 
improve their feedback culture within their performance management 
systems, such as simplifying existing performance management processes 
to make them meaningful with specific linkages to agency mission, 
goals, and/or strategies. 

Key practice: Link pay to individual and organizational performance. 
Pay, incentive, and reward systems that link employee knowledge, 
skills, and contributions to organizational results are based on 
valid, reliable, and transparent performance management systems with 
adequate safeguards; 
GEAR example: GEAR does not reflect this practice. LMR work group 
members told us that GEAR does not specifically address pay for 
performance because Congress controls pay. 

Key practice: Make meaningful distinctions in performance. Effective 
performance management systems strive to provide candid and 
constructive feedback and the necessary objective information and 
documentation to reward top performers and deal with poor performers; 
GEAR example: GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends that 
agencies discuss and set standards that clearly differentiate among 
levels of performance. 

Key practice: Involve employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of 
performance management systems. Early and direct involvement helps 
increase employees' and stakeholders' understanding and ownership of 
the system and belief in its fairness; 
GEAR example: GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends working 
with labor-management forums, groups of supervisors, and management 
organizations. 

Key practice: Maintain continuity during transitions. Because cultural 
transformations take time, performance management systems reinforce 
accountability for change management and other organizational goals; 
GEAR example: GEAR reflects this practice. GEAR recommends regular 
succession assessments for supervisory positions at risk. 

Source: GAO analysis of GEAR report. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 1, two practices--connecting performance 
expectations to crosscutting goals, and linking pay to organizational 
performance-- do not receive clear attention in the GEAR framework. 
LMR work group members who helped to draft the GEAR report told us 
they did not specifically discuss agency crosscutting goals during the 
drafting and instead, focused on aligning employee and organizational 
performance management. However, they also told us that GEAR does not 
deter agencies from connecting performance expectations to 
crosscutting goals, and that they felt that crosscutting goals would 
be subsumed under individual and agency performance goals, as 
appropriate. OPM officials agreed that connecting performance 
expectations to crosscutting goals is essential to improving 
performance across the federal government. 

In addition, these same LMR work group members said that they excluded 
linking pay to performance because Congress authorizes pay. Congress 
is responsible for authorizing pay-for-performance plans, and tools to 
reward good performance with pay are increasingly limited in the 
federal government. They said that the GEAR report suggests 
appropriate action for both good and poor performance and that use of 
pay-for-performance could be understood as such an action. 

According to the GEAR report, effective, and productive relationships 
between managers and employees are necessary for performance 
improvements. The greater an employee's level of engagement, the more 
likely he or she is to go beyond the minimum required. GEAR emphasizes 
promoting employee-supervisor engagement through continual informal 
feedback and frequent (up to four times per year) formal feedback. 
Beyond the establishment of competencies and aligned goals, GEAR 
recommends frequent interaction and accountability--both for 
supervisors and employees--based on measurable goals. 

The GEAR report also recommends that agencies improve the assessment, 
selection, development, and training of supervisors, emphasizing that 
agencies should select and assess supervisors based on supervisory and 
leadership proficiencies, rather than technical competencies, and 
should hold them accountable for performance of supervisory 
responsibilities. In addition, GEAR emphasizes the need to hold 
supervisors accountable for providing feedback, documenting 
performance discussions, and holding poorly-performing employees 
accountable. According to the GEAR report, focusing on accountability 
of managers and supervisors helps to ensure continual, effective 
communication and to make performance management a daily feature of 
work. Senior officials at three of the pilot agencies reported that 
supervisors sometimes say there is not enough time for supervisory 
responsibilities. For example, officials at DOE and HUD said that 
supervisors sometimes see their supervisory responsibilities as 
secondary to programmatic responsibilities and may not allocate 
sufficient time to set clear expectations or provide frequent feedback 
to employees. 

As part of improving supervision, GEAR recommends greater integration 
between the agency units dealing with organizational performance and 
those dealing with individual employee performance. Specifically, GEAR 
proposes greater integration between the CHCO and Performance 
Improvement Officer (PIO) functions to improve overall program 
execution, either through creation of a Performance Management 
Integration Board or through continuous communication so that the 
functions work in tandem.[Footnote 16] Similarly, GEAR emphasizes long-
term integration of performance management into agency functions. For 
example, it recommends mentoring to ensure general organizational 
continuity, continual planning and assessment to ensure continued 
focus on personnel management and high performance, and targeted 
training and development programs to ensure agencies will have 
qualified supervisors and be able to fill other critical occupations. 
We have previously concluded that integrating human capital planning 
with broader organizational strategic planning is essential for 
ensuring that agencies have the talent and skill mix needed to cost-
effectively execute their mission and program goals. [Footnote 17] 

OPM and CHCO Council Have Not Fully Defined their Roles for 
Implementing GEAR Government-wide: 

While OPM and the CHCO Council have been supportive of the pilot 
effort to date, neither entity has identified their specific 
respective roles or responsibilities for achieving the current 
administration's goal of implementing GEAR more broadly across the 
federal government going forward. Clearly defined roles and 
responsibilities will be important for maintaining the momentum of the 
pilot, sharing the pilot effort's lessons learned, and encouraging 
additional agencies to implement the GEAR framework. 

OPM has taken several steps to help the pilot agencies implement GEAR. 
For example, OPM officials have facilitated conversations among the 
pilot agencies to share information and lessons learned, and have made 
web-based training on performance management available to federal 
agencies at no cost.[Footnote 18] According to OPM officials, OPM, as 
co-chair of the CHCO Council, will provide leadership and direction 
for the government-wide implementation of GEAR, but the future of GEAR 
will be determined by the CHCO Council as a whole and not by OPM 
alone. They noted that the GEAR framework is intended to be flexible 
and thus did not want to mandate how agencies should implement it. 

CHCO Council officials agreed that the framework provides flexibility 
to the agencies; however, the same CHCO officials also cited the need 
for some standardization of GEAR metrics to ensure accountability 
among agencies. As noted, in Analytical Perspectives: Performance and 
Management of the President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, "the CHCO 
Council is currently reviewing the progress of GEAR and lessons 
learned in these agencies and identifying other leading practices 
across the Federal sector and private sector with the goal of broader 
application of the GEAR framework across the Federal Government." 
[Footnote 19] 

For its part, the CHCO Council is reviewing the pilot agencies' 
implementation of GEAR with an eye toward identifying promising 
practices. Specifically, CHCO Council officials told us that an 
internal work group is identifying promising practices and metrics 
that, when combined, may provide additional guidance in the form of a 
diagnostic toolkit to assist agencies in implementing the GEAR 
framework. According to CHCO Council work group members, a toolkit is 
needed because the GEAR recommendations were high-level in nature, and 
the report itself did not include practical guidance. For example, an 
agency may want to implement GEAR's recommendation to create a culture 
of engagement, but the GEAR report provided limited guidance on how to 
do so. 

According to a CHCO Council work group member, the diagnostic toolkit 
will enable agencies to identify their level of "maturity" on a scale 
by analyzing the results of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 
(FEVS), the Human Capital Framework (HCF), the non-SES Performance 
Appraisal Assessment Tool (PAAT), and the SES certification process. 
Federal agencies can use these tools to measure whether, and to what 
extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are present 
in federal agencies (FEVS); to assist officials in achieving results 
in personnel management programs (HCF); and to assess agencies' 
performance appraisal systems and develop plans and strategies for 
making improvements (non-SES PAAT and SES certification process). 

From this, agencies can use the results to identify a range of 
promising practices that the agency may choose from, based on 
identified resources and needs. According to the same CHCO Council 
work group members, these promising practices align with the five GEAR 
recommendations and reflect a range of initiatives (compiled from both 
public and private sector efforts, as well as pilot agencies' 
experiences), that provide options for agencies based on their 
specific needs. The CHCO Council's subgroups plan to complete the 
diagnostic toolkit by August 2013 and to present the final product to 
the CHCO Council by the end of September 2013. However, beyond its 
completion in September 2013, the CHCO Council has no stated plans to 
update the toolkit, such as collecting lessons learned on an ongoing 
basis from the pilot agencies, or including additional promising 
practices as needed. Without gathering information from the pilot 
agencies as they continue their implementation process, valuable 
information that could help agencies implement GEAR in the future may 
be lost. 

While the toolkit shows promise for refining the future implementation 
of GEAR, its utility in this regard could be limited because neither 
the CHCO Council nor OPM have stated plans to broadly disseminate it. 
CHCO Council officials told us that the completed diagnostic toolkit 
will be presented to the entire CHCO Council but there is no plan to 
share that information on a broader basis, which would be consistent 
with the Administration's goal to more broadly implement GEAR 
government-wide. CHCO Council officials stated that it was OPM's 
responsibility to determine the future of the diagnostic toolkit. One 
vehicle for disseminating the toolkit's information more broadly could 
be the OMB Max Federal Community Website where OPM officials have 
already posted informational material on GEAR and where pilot agencies 
can add their own information and experiences.[Footnote 20] Without 
making such information more widely available, front-line managers, 
supervisors, representatives of labor unions, and other federal human 
capital stakeholders may not have access to information that could 
improve employee engagement. 

Moving forward, it will be important for both OPM and the CHCO Council 
to agree upon their specific roles and responsibilities if the goal of 
broader application of the GEAR framework government-wide is to be 
realized. Once specific roles and responsibilities have been 
established going forward, plans may be made to update the GEAR 
framework and diagnostic toolkit as needed and to broadly disseminate 
the information so that stakeholders government-wide who are already 
implementing GEAR (or may implement in the future) will have access to 
the most recent guidance available. 

Pilot Agencies Adopted Various Approaches to Implementing GEAR; 
Opportunities Exist to Capture Lessons Learned: 

Pilot Agencies Adopted Various Approaches to Implementing GEAR: 

The five pilot agencies adopted various approaches to implementing all 
five of the GEAR recommendations based on their needs and available 
resources. The GEAR report provides agencies with a framework focused 
on feedback, employee-supervisor engagement, and improving supervision; 
it gives agencies the flexibility to implement as they see fit. Thus, 
three of the five agencies - DOE, HUD, and OPM - implemented GEAR 
agency-wide, while two agencies - Coast Guard and NCA-established 
pilots in single units. DOE, HUD, and OPM officials all said that the 
project had the best chance of changing the organizational culture if 
they implemented it agency-wide. For example, HUD officials said they 
felt that implementing GEAR agency-wide would permit it to be better 
embedded in the performance culture. An OPM official said that GEAR 
focused attention on previously identified human capital needs, such 
as supervisor assessment, that had not been addressed due to limited 
resources and competing priorities. 

VA is implementing GEAR within its NCA agency as a single unit pilot 
in its Memorial Service Network (MSN) II in the southeastern region of 
the country. According to VA officials, VA chose the NCA because it 
has a reputation as a high-performing organization and an existing 
focus on metrics and feedback. NCA officials said they chose to 
implement GEAR as a single unit, rather than agency-wide, because 
doing so allowed them to provide closer attention and support. The 
Coast Guard is implementing GEAR at Base Boston, which, according to 
officials, was chosen as the pilot site for several reasons: the 
presence of both general schedule (GS) and wage grade (WG) employees 
(who happen to be supervised by both military and civilian personnel) 
a wide variety of occupations, and the representation of a single 
union - the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) - 
rather than the multiple unions that are present at other Coast Guard 
bases.[Footnote 21] Coast Guard officials said they chose to pilot 
GEAR at a single unit because implementation brought challenges such 
as dealing with such a large military population (approximately 42,000 
military personnel that rotate bases approximately every two to three 
years and operate on a different performance management plan compared 
with approximately 9,000 civilian employees) and negotiating with 
approximately nine unions. According to one Coast Guard official, to 
develop more than one site would create a capacity issue that would 
make it very difficult to plan and implement. 

Table 2 shows how many employees will be covered by GEAR at each 
agency, as well as each agency's time frame for implementation. 
Additional information on the actions taken by each agency is included 
in appendices V-IX. 

Table 2: Estimated Number of Employees Affected by GEAR and Estimated 
Timeline for Implementation at the Pilot Agencies: 

Agency: Coast Guard Base Boston; 
Approximate number of employees affected: 200; 
Estimated start date for pilot implementation: April 2013; 
Estimated pilot completion date: March 2014. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Approximate number of employees affected: 8,400; 
Estimated start date for pilot implementation: March 2012; 
Estimated pilot completion date: Early 2014, but expect to maintain 
indefinitely. 

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Approximate number of employees affected: 8,100; 
Estimated start date for pilot implementation: January 2012; 
Estimated pilot completion date: September 2013. 

Agency: National Cemetery Administration, Memorial Service Network II; 
Approximate number of employees affected: 240; 
Estimated start date for pilot implementation: October 2012; 
Estimated pilot completion date: 2016. 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Approximate number of employees affected: 5,800; 
Estimated start date for pilot implementation: December 2011; 
Estimated pilot completion date: Through September 2013. 

Source: GAO analysis of pilot agency plans. 

[End of table] 

Each of the agencies said they had engaged labor unions during GEAR 
implementation. Of the agencies that mentioned the results of their 
engagement, DOE officials said that prior to launching the pilot, the 
Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer briefed the local unions 
that cover their employees, but received no feedback. In contrast, NCA 
officials said that the two unions that cover their employees, AFGE 
and the National Association of Government Employees, have been 
involved in GEAR implementation and made contributions to NCA's 
approach to GEAR. Coast Guard officials said the agency met with union 
representatives for several extensive discussions involving 
facilitators and brain-storming sessions, in order to include union 
input in the final GEAR implementation plan. As a result of these 
discussions, Coast Guard officials told us that the agency has the 
approval of the union and that both parties are mutually responsible 
for the successful implementation of GEAR. Representatives from labor 
unions that we interviewed generally agreed that the GEAR pilot 
agencies had briefed them during GEAR implementation. 

Finally, although the five pilot agencies have defined different 
benefits that they hope to achieve through implementing GEAR, some 
common benefits include improved performance management overall, 
better engagement between employees and supervisors, and improved 
communication throughout the agencies. 

Opportunities Exist to Capture Lessons Learned for Future 
Implementation Efforts: 

The GEAR pilot agencies have demonstrated leadership over their own 
implementation efforts. Our work with the pilot agencies identified 
lessons learned both from implementation within their agencies, and 
from hearing about the experiences of others including the following: 

* Strong agency leadership support from the beginning helped provide 
needed attention and focus upon implementation efforts. For example, 
DOE's Secretary sent a memo to all DOE employees stating his personal 
support for the LMR Council GEAR report and the agency's commitment to 
the pilot effort. 

* Early stakeholder involvement with employees, management, executive 
team and unions resulted in greater transparency and fewer obstacles 
during implementation. For example, NCA officials told us that two 
labor unions that have been involved in GEAR implementation 
contributed valuable input that enhanced the agency's approach to 
GEAR - such as suggesting that exceptional performance be defined in 
performance plans. 

* Timing GEAR implementation to coincide with the beginning of the 
annual performance cycle in order to better track changes resulting 
from GEAR. For example, Coast Guard officials told us that they 
decided to implement GEAR at the start of their annual performance 
cycle, based on the experience of another pilot agency that 
implemented GEAR within a cycle and faced greater difficulty because 
of their timing. 

* Administer employee surveys prior to implementation to identify the 
greatest needs and to establish a baseline to better track results. 
For example, Coast Guard administered a survey to its Base Boston 
employees to solicit their thoughts, experiences, and assessment of 
the current state of the employee performance management systems. 

* Leverage shared training opportunities across agencies to conserve 
limited resources. For example, OPM officials told us that they worked 
with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to make a 
suite of performance management web courses available to all agencies 
free of charge. 

* Incorporate supervision as part of an agency's performance 
expectations. For example, according to DOE officials, they developed 
a mandatory supervisory element which holds supervisors accountable 
for each phase of the performance process. 

* Allow additional time for supervisors to meet their requirements. 
For example, HUD instituted quarterly in-service days for managers for 
the purpose of focusing on communication and employee feedback. 

* Ensure continued momentum for implementation by accepting GEAR as a 
long-term culture change commitment. For example, HUD officials told 
us that agency leadership is committed to cultural transformation and 
the time required to accomplish it. 

As the pilot agencies continue with their implementation plans, 
additional lessons may be learned. As we stated earlier in this 
report, OPM and the CHCO Council officials have not yet identified a 
plan following the completion of the diagnostic toolkit to capture 
additional lessons learned. 

Some Agencies' GEAR Project Plans Were More Complete than Others: 

As we concluded in May 2012, a well-developed and documented project 
plan can help ensure that agencies are able to gauge progress, 
identify and resolve potential problems, and promote accountability at 
all levels of the project, increasing the likelihood of successful 
implementation.[Footnote 22] Project planning is the basis for 
controlling and managing project performance, including managing the 
relationship between cost and time.[Footnote 23] As we have previously 
concluded, preparing a project plan encourages agency managers and 
stakeholders to systematically consider what is to be done, when and 
how it will be done, what skills will be needed, and how to gauge 
progress and results.[Footnote 24] Agency approaches to such planning 
can vary with each agency's particular needs and mission. 
Nevertheless, existing best practices stress the importance of 
accountability and sound planning for any project.[Footnote 25] 
Inherent in such planning is the development and use of a project 
management plan that describes, among other factors, the project's 
objectives, implementation actions, lines of responsibility, estimated 
schedule for development and implementation, and performance measures. 
Having accurate and transparent project cost and schedule information 
is also essential to effective oversight. 

Each of the pilot agencies developed a GEAR project plan that outlined 
specific actions. Other elements (such as schedules and roles and 
responsibilities) were either implemented to varying degrees, or (in 
some cases) not implemented at all. Best practices emphasize the 
importance of establishing a complete description that ties together 
all project activities and evolves over time to continuously reflect 
the current status and desired outcome of the project.[Footnote 26] 
For example, DOE's GEAR project plan was the most thoroughly 
documented of the five plans we assessed and included project planning 
best practices for all five elements we assessed. The other four 
agency plans did not include all project planning best practices. Not 
including such best practices could limit their effectiveness in 
further implementing the GEAR framework. As a result, the information 
included in the plans may not be specific enough to improve 
engagement, provide accountability, or measure progress in the 
agencies. 

We identified project planning best practices from Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government, our definitions of 
performance measurement, and our guide for leading practices in 
project planning.[Footnote 27] We assessed information contained in 
the agencies' GEAR plans against the inclusion of the following best 
practices: (1) plan objectives, describing a goal; (2) specific 
actions needed to attain that goal; (3) roles and responsibilities 
identified and assigned to project stakeholders; (4) schedules 
containing logically related project elements leading to the goal; 
and (5) valid performance measures that permit comparison between 
desired outcomes and actual results. Since the volunteer pilot 
agencies are in the process of implementing GEAR, we assessed them on 
the contents of the plan and not against the progress made towards 
implementation of the plan. The GEAR report did not include guidance 
on developing project plans. Table 3 identifies the extent to which 
the five agency GEAR project plans address each of the project 
planning best practices. 

Table 3: Agencies' GEAR Project Plans Included Varying Levels of 
Detail: 

Agency: Coast Guard; 
Objectives included: Yes; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: Yes; 
Schedules included: Partially[A]; 
Performance measures included: No. 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Objectives included: Yes; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: Yes; 
Schedules included: Yes; 
Performance measures included: Yes. 

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Objectives included: No; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: No; 
Schedules included: Yes; 
Performance measures included: Yes. 

Agency: National Cemetery Administration; 
Objectives included: Yes; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: Partially[A]; 
Schedules included: Partially[A]; 
Performance measures included: No. 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Objectives included: No; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: No; 
Schedules included: Yes; 
Performance measures included: Yes. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] We assessed an agency's plan as partially including a best 
practice if it included limited information on a specific best 
practice but was not consistently provided throughout the plan. 

[End of table] 

Coast Guard's GEAR Plan Lacks Performance Measures that Would Better 
Enable Officials to Identify Success: 

Table 4: Coast Guard's GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Performance 
Measures: 

Agency: Coast Guard; 
Objectives included: Yes; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: Yes; 
Schedules included: Partially[A]; 
Performance measures included: No. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] We assessed an agency's plan as partially including a best 
practice if it included limited information on a specific best 
practice but was not consistently provided throughout the plan. 

[End of table] 

We found that the Coast Guard's GEAR plan includes information on 
objectives, specific actions, and roles and responsibilities, as shown 
in table 4. According to the plan, the Coast Guard selected its pilot 
location at Base Boston, with both military and civilian personnel, as 
a result of discussions between management and labor unions. The plan 
clearly states that a primary project manager in the Coast Guard's 
human resources office and a project manager at Base Boston are in 
charge of GEAR implementation. 

The Coast Guard's plan has a high-level schedule that includes nine 
different actions and dates, such as deploying a communication plan to 
the workforce in February 2013, with the last date being the start of 
the pilot in April 2013. This is the last date in the plan associated 
with a specific action. Elsewhere in the plan, the Coast Guard lists 
pending and ongoing actions under each of its objectives but does not 
include dates. According to Coast Guard officials, the pilot will run 
the length of a performance cycle (from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 
2014). However, based on the plan, we are unable to determine whether 
the Coast Guard has additional actions planned for implementing GEAR 
that extend beyond preparing for and starting the project itself. Best 
practices note that planning and scheduling are continual processes 
throughout the life of a project.[Footnote 28] They state that 
planning may be done in stages throughout the project as stakeholders 
learn more details. Because GEAR-related work continued at Coast Guard 
after April 1, 2013 the information included in the plan is 
insufficient to gauge progress. 

In addition, the plan lacks detail in defining performance measures 
that include clearly stated performance targets that are aligned to 
the plan's objectives and enable the agency to monitor and measure 
progress. According to the plan, the Coast Guard disseminated a pre-
pilot survey in March 2013 at Base Boston with plans for additional 
surveys mid-and post-pilot to create a baseline. In addition, the 
Coast Guard created a data repository to gather and analyze 
performance management responsibilities. However, for both examples, 
there is no statement within the plan specifying whether these are 
performance measures or identifying what types of data are being 
collected. According to internal control standards, performance 
measures should be established to evaluate the success or failure of 
their activities and programs.[Footnote 29] Performance measurement 
involves identifying performance goals and measures, establishing 
performance baselines by tracking performance over time, identifying 
targets for improving performance, and measuring progress against 
those targets. Without additional information on performance measures, 
the Coast Guard is missing opportunities to gauge progress and measure 
the success of their implementation efforts and, as a result, the 
agency may not have all available data for decision-making. 
Specifically, agency officials told us that the success of GEAR's 
implementation at Base Boston is one of the factors that will 
determine whether or not the Coast Guard exports the GEAR framework to 
its remaining bases and employees. 

DOE's GEAR Plan Includes All Selected Best Practices: 

Table 5: DOE's GEAR Project Plan Meets All Selected Best Practices: 

Agency: Department of Energy; 
Objectives included: Yes; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: Yes; 
Schedules included: Yes; 
Performance measures included: Yes. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

DOE's GEAR plan was the most thoroughly documented of the five pilot 
plans and met all of the best practices we identified, as shown in 
table 5. 

Highlights of the plan include: 

* an articulation of the challenges facing the implementation of each 
objective; 

* an analysis of DOE's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) data, 
one of its GEAR performance measures, that articulates one of the 
challenges facing the agency: a significant gap between a supervisor's 
expectations for performance and an employee's understanding of those 
expectations;[Footnote 30] 

* an action plan snapshot for management review that highlights 
accomplishments made in the 75 days since the last management review 
(such as an increase in completing planned training sessions) as well 
as the priorities and actions the agency will target before the next 
review (such as posting DOE's 2012 FEVS results on its public website); 
and: 

* a graphic outlining the training requirements for new supervisors 
and the continual learning options for more experienced supervisors 
and managers. 

In addition, DOE communicated the importance of the GEAR framework, 
the reasons why implementation was necessary, and how employees could 
potentially be impacted through various platforms that targeted 
numerous stakeholders. The multiple communications approach highlights 
the support agency leadership is providing for the success of GEAR. 
For example, the plan includes: 

* a memorandum for all DOE employees from the Secretary showing his 
support for GEAR and the importance of ongoing communication; 

* a memorandum from DOE's CHCO outlining steps that would be taken to 
implement GEAR and the importance of supervisors engaging in four 
formal performance-based discussions; 

* a memorandum from DOE's Acting CHCO outlining the training framework 
to improve the agency's performance-based culture and mandatory 
supervisory training requirements; 

* information presented to the DOE local unions detailing what GEAR 
implementation would mean for employees in different roles of the 
organization; 
and: 

* a summary of the GEAR framework in DOE's workforce training 
newsletter, including examples of what employees and managers at every 
level can expect from GEAR. 

HUD's GEAR Plan Lacks Objectives that Would Identify the Agency's 
Purpose In Implementing the GEAR Framework and Does Not Assign Roles 
and Responsibilities: 

Table 6: HUD's GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Objectives or Roles 
and Responsibilities: 

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
Objectives included: No; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: No; 
Schedules included: Yes; 
Performance measures included: Yes. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

HUD's GEAR plan identifies 16 specific action steps, such as issuing 
guidance, completing fiscal year 2012 ratings, and developing a 
monthly in-service day policy. The plan is outlined in a work 
breakdown structure (WBS) format with actions, or task names, with 
most of the actions listed in order of completion with descriptions 
and schedules listed for each action.[Footnote 31] The plan also 
includes GEAR performance metrics, the source of the data, and in some 
cases the target rates the agency hopes to achieve. Agency officials 
told us that the planned completion date of GEAR implementation is 
September 2013. 

The plan does not clearly define objectives, as shown in table 6 and 
as a result, the actions outlined in the plan do not indicate a 
purpose or goal(s) the agency hopes to achieve by completing the 
stated actions. Best practices note that all activities necessary to 
accomplish a project's objectives should be defined.[Footnote 32] 
Without such objectives, the actions listed in HUD's plan lack a 
framework that clearly links the actions to each other or to a greater 
purpose. 

In addition, the plan does not include information on roles and 
responsibilities, such as the individual(s) or office(s) that will be 
held accountable for completing the actions consistent with best 
practices. For example, according to the plan, HUD will develop an 
awards policy, but there is no information that indicates the 
individual(s) or office(s) responsible for creating such a policy. 
Without such identification, HUD runs the risk of the actions not 
being implemented on time or at all due to a lack of knowledge 
regarding who is responsible for the specific action item. 

NCA's GEAR Plan Lacks Performance Measurements that Would Better 
Enable Officials to Gauge Success: 

Table 7: NCA's GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Performance Measures: 

Agency: National Cemetery Administration; 
Objectives included: Yes; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: Partially[A]; 
Schedules included: Partially[A]; 
Performance measures included: No. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] We assessed an agency's plan as partially including a best 
practice if it included limited information on a specific best 
practice but was not consistently provided throughout the plan. 

[End of table] 

According to NCA officials, the agency is implementing the GEAR 
framework as a pilot among several occupations within one of its 
Memorial Service Networks (MSN), with plans to expand to additional 
occupations and possibly export the GEAR framework to other networks 
in the future. However, the NCA project plan does not include any 
information about which occupations or networks are included in the 
pilot. In addition, it does not include information detailing how the 
agency identified the specific occupations in the pilot or why a 
specific network was selected over others. 

The NCA plan includes partial information on roles and 
responsibilities associated with the objectives and specific actions, 
as shown in table 7. For example, the first key action under the goal 
of reinforcing NCA's high performance culture states that it will 
establish a group of top level NCA executives who will oversee the 
implementation of GEAR. However, the plan does not include information 
on these individuals and there are no other roles or responsibilities 
identified anywhere else in the plan. By not identifying roles and 
responsibilities, it is unclear who is accountable for actions 
included within the plan and for managing project performance. 

Although NCA's plan did not include a schedule of activities, NCA 
provided a separate schedule of GEAR activities. Best practices state 
that a schedule provides not only a road map for systematic project 
execution but also the means by which to gauge progress, identify and 
resolve potential problems, and promote accountability at all levels 
of the program.[Footnote 33] A schedule provides a time sequence for 
the duration of an activity and helps everyone understand both the 
dates for major milestones and the activities that drive the schedule. 
Without a schedule linked to the GEAR plan itself and its objectives, 
it may be difficult for NCA to determine the progress that has been 
made and whether or not the agency is on track for implementation. 

Finally, NCA officials told us that they will export the GEAR 
framework to the four remaining MSNs in fiscal year 2014. However, 
NCA's plan does not include performance measures that would enable the 
agency to gauge their progress towards implementing their overall GEAR 
objectives, determine if the pilot was successful, or identify areas 
where improvement is needed. As we have previously defined, 
performance measurement focuses on whether a program has achieved its 
objectives, expressed as measurable performance standards.[Footnote 
34] Without such information, NCA may be unable to determine whether 
or not the actions taken in the single unit pilot should be replicated 
in the remaining networks, or whether changes are necessary. 

OPM's GEAR Plan Lacks Clear Objectives that Would Identify the 
Agency's Purpose in Implementing the GEAR Framework and Does Not 
Assign Roles and Responsibilities: 

Table 8: OPM's GEAR Project Plan Does Not Include Objectives or Roles 
and Responsibilities: 

Agency: Office of Personnel Management; 
Objectives included: No; 
Specific actions included: Yes; 
Roles and responsibilities included: No; 
Schedules included: Yes; 
Performance measures included: Yes. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[End of table] 

OPM's GEAR plan includes specific actions and performance measures 
that will help the agency gauge progress in implementing the GEAR 
framework, as shown in table 8. For example, OPM's plan includes 
actions that focus on quarterly progress reviews, standardizing 
performance commitments to improve supervisor accountability, 
requiring supervisor training on GEAR, and improving the assessment 
and selection of supervisors by standardizing weighting of 
supervisory/leadership competencies against other relevant 
competencies. In addition, the plan includes five performance 
measures, with most including target rates and dates. OPM describes 
one of the performance measures as an improvement by 5 percent in two 
indices in the FEVS.[Footnote 35] The FEVS job satisfaction index is 
one of the metrics used by OPM to assess whether agencies are 
effectively managing the talent management system. In addition, in 
2011 OPM added an index to measure employee engagement (which OPM 
defines as the extent to which an employee is immersed in the content 
of the job and energized to spend extra effort in job performance). 
According to the plan, OPM's target goal is 62 percent of positive 
responses in the results-oriented performance culture index and 75 
percent of positive responses for the employee engagement index. 

OPM officials told us that they plan on implementing all of the GEAR 
recommendations agency-wide. However, the plan lacks clearly defined 
objectives consistent with best practices. For example, the plan lists 
the action "including a requirement to conduct a minimum of quarterly 
progress reviews," but the action is not linked to either agency 
objectives or GEAR recommendations. Because there is no link between 
actions and objectives, the plan does not clearly identify issues or 
problems that the actions are targeted to address. 

In addition, OPM's plan does not include information on roles and 
responsibilities as called for by best practices. As a result, it is 
unclear which individual(s) or office(s) is responsible for specific 
actions. Specifically, many of the actions listed in the plan affect 
supervisors and the consequences of such actions may impact their 
individual roles and responsibilities. For example, one of the 
specific actions identified is standardizing supervisor performance 
commitments; 
however, the plan does not identify a responsible party linked to this 
action. As a result, supervisors and managers may not be able to 
identify a source of information if questions on these performance 
commitments arise. 

Conclusion: 

The GEAR framework presents an opportunity for federal agencies to 
increase employee engagement and improve performance management. 
Indeed, even though the GEAR pilot has only been in place a short 
period of time, agency officials have already described such benefits 
as improved engagement and communication between employees and 
supervisors. Although the recommendations outlined in the GEAR report 
do not represent new concepts, implementing them in practice may 
present challenges unique to each agency, as demonstrated by the 
experience of the five pilot agencies. OPM has facilitated 
conversations among participating GEAR agencies to identify lessons 
learned and the CHCO Council is developing a GEAR toolkit to help 
agencies improve performance management and increase employee 
engagement. However, going forward, the roles and responsibilities of 
OPM, the CHCO Council, and participating federal agencies have not 
been fully defined, including how to identify future promising 
practices, and how to update and disseminate information on the 
government-wide implementation of GEAR. Clearly defined roles and 
responsibilities will be important for capitalizing on the 
improvements made at the five pilot agencies, as well as for 
sustaining and achieving the current Administration's goal of 
implementing GEAR more broadly. Without these next steps, the momentum 
and lessons learned from the GEAR pilot may be lost and desired 
performance management reforms in federal agencies may not be fully 
realized. 

The five pilot agencies deserve significant credit for taking steps to 
implement the GEAR recommendations and improve performance management 
within their organizations in a relatively short amount of time. 
Although it is too early to tell whether GEAR is changing 
organizational culture within the pilot agencies, leading practices 
identified during the pilot should help inform GEAR implementation 
efforts at other agencies. However, as part of implementing the GEAR 
model, most of the pilot agencies did not develop complete project 
plans that will help guide their GEAR-related efforts into the future. 
Updating these plans to fully reflect the nature and scope of their 
efforts will help ensure that these agencies meet the goals of their 
respective GEAR efforts and serve as a model for other agencies to 
follow. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Recognizing that moving toward a more performance-oriented culture 
within federal agencies is likely to be a continuous effort and to 
ensure that the opportunity GEAR recommendations offer to improve 
performance management is not lost, we recommend the Acting Director 
of OPM, in collaboration with the Chief Human Capital Officers 
Council, define roles and responsibilities of OPM, the CHCO Council, 
and participating federal agencies going forward as the GEAR framework 
is implemented government-wide. In doing so, OPM, in collaboration 
with the CHCO Council, could define roles and responsibilities such as: 

* supplementing the GEAR report and updating the diagnostic toolkit as 
needed to reflect additional promising practices and lessons learned 
(such as those we identified) and guidance on using metrics. This 
should include considering whether connecting performance expectations 
to crosscutting goals should be part of the GEAR framework. 

* disseminating the information contained in the GEAR report and 
diagnostic toolkit through multiple venues and various government-wide 
websites, such as OMB Max, to ensure federal managers, supervisors and 
other stakeholders have access to promising practices and additional 
guidance on improving performance management. 

In addition, to improve agencies' GEAR implementation plans, we 
recommend that: 

* the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard take the following two actions to update the agency's GEAR 
implementation plan to include: (1) performance measures that permit 
comparison between desired outcomes and actual results and (2) 
additional information on schedules that are linked to specific 
actions; 

* the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development take the following 
two actions to update the agency's GEAR implementation plan to: (1) 
include objectives describing the goals the agency plans to achieve 
and (2) identify roles and responsibilities for specific actions and 
stakeholders; 

* the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for 
Memorial Affairs take the following three actions to update the 
National Cemetery Administration's GEAR implementation plan to 
include: (1) performance measures that permit comparison between 
desired outcomes and actual results, (2) additional information on 
roles and responsibilities for specific actions and stakeholders, and 
(3) additional information on schedules that are linked to specific 
actions; 
and: 

* the Acting Director of OPM to take the following two actions to 
update the agency's GEAR implementation plan to: (1) include 
objectives describing the goals the agency plans to achieve and (2) 
identify roles and responsibilities for specific actions and 
stakeholders. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Acting Director of OPM and 
the Secretaries of Homeland Security (Coast Guard), Housing and Urban 
Development, Energy, and Veterans Affairs (National Cemetery 
Administration). The Associate Director for Employee Services at OPM, 
the Chief of Staff at Veterans Affairs, and the Director of the 
Departmental GAO-Office of Inspector General Liaison Office at DHS 
provided written comments on a draft of the report, which are 
reprinted in appendixes II, III, and IV, respectively. 

In their written responses, OPM, DHS, and VA officials agreed with our 
recommendations. HUD officials also stated that they agreed with our 
recommendation to HUD in an e-mail exchange. We modified our 
assessment of VA's GEAR implementation plan, changing schedules from 
not included to partially included, based on additional information 
the agency provided after the report was sent for comment. 

DOE, DHS, and VA also suggested technical changes to the report, which 
we incorporated where appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until thirty 
days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Secretaries of Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Veterans Affairs, and the Acting Director of the U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, as well as the appropriate 
congressional committees and other interested parties. In addition, 
this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix XII. 

Signed by: 

Robert Goldenkoff: 
Director: 
Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report (1) analyzes how the Goals-Engagement-Accountability-
Results (GEAR) framework addresses key practices for effective 
performance management and identifies opportunities, if any, to 
improve GEAR implementation government-wide; (2) describes the status 
of each pilot agency's GEAR implementation and any lessons learned to 
date; and (3) assesses the extent to which each agency's GEAR 
implementation plan includes selected best practices for project 
planning. The GEAR framework is currently being piloted in five 
departments and agencies - the Departments of Energy (DOE), Homeland 
Security/United States Coast Guard (DHS/Coast Guard), Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs/National Cemetery 
Administration (VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 
For purposes of this report, we are referring to both departments and 
agencies as "agencies." 

To analyze how the GEAR framework addresses key practices for 
effective performance management and identify opportunities, if any, 
to improve GEAR implementation government-wide, we verified that key 
practices we previously identified were applicable for purposes of 
this engagement by conducting a literature review of leading 
performance management practices and consulting with internal subject 
matter experts. In addition, OPM officials reviewed these criteria and 
agreed that many of the practices are very important contributors to 
organizational success. We systematically reviewed the GEAR report 
from the National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (LMR 
Council) using a methodology to determine whether the goals, 
recommendations, and actions described in the document qualitatively 
reflected the presence or absence of the key practices. We also 
reviewed LMR Council meeting minutes and other materials from LMR 
Council meetings. Finally, we interviewed OPM officials and Chief 
Human Capital Officers Council officials, some of whom were members of 
the LMR Council work group that drafted the report. 

To describe the status of each agency's GEAR implementation and any 
lessons learned to date, we obtained and analyzed each agency's GEAR 
implementation plan(s) to identify agency strategies for GEAR 
implementation as well as key actions taken and outstanding. We 
obtained and analyzed status updates from the agencies and other 
documentation about their current GEAR implementation status. We 
described agencies' strategies to implement GEAR. We developed a 
structured interview instrument to discuss agency strategies and the 
rationale for GEAR implementation and identify challenges and 
successes with human resource/human capital officials, program 
managers, and other officials responsible for GEAR implementation. We 
also interviewed labor union representatives about any problems or 
concerns with implementing the GEAR framework. We interviewed OPM 
officials responsible for assisting the pilot agencies in GEAR 
implementation as well as OPM officials who had contributed to 
developing the GEAR framework in their capacity as LMR Council members 
for perspectives on lessons learned. In addition, we conducted a site 
visit at the Coast Guard's Base Boston in May 2013, where we observed 
initial GEAR training sessions and interviewed supervisors and 
employees about their reactions to the training and GEAR itself. We 
chose this site because the Coast Guard was the most recent of the 
five pilot agencies to implement GEAR and we were able to visit soon 
after the start of their implementation efforts. 

To assess the extent to which each agency's GEAR implementation plan 
includes selected best practices for project planning, we identified 
project planning best practices primarily from Standards for Internal 
Control in the Federal Government, GAO's definitions of performance 
measurement, and GAO's guide for best practices in project schedules, 
and assessed the inclusion of information contained in the agencies' 
GEAR plans against the best practices.[Footnote 36] We focused on the 
following best practices because they were relevant to GEAR: (1) plan 
objective(s) describing a goal; (2) specific actions needed to attain 
that goal; (3) roles and responsibilities identified and assigned to 
project stakeholders; (4) schedules containing logically related 
project elements leading to the goal; and (5) valid performance 
measures that permit comparison between desired outcomes and actual 
results. Since the pilot agencies are in the process of implementing 
GEAR, we assessed them on the contents of the plan and not against the 
progress made towards implementation of the plan. Two analysts 
independently assessed each agency's GEAR plan to determine the extent 
to which information that was included met all five best practices and 
rated each plan using a three-level scale of included, partially 
included, or did not include, and reached a level of inter-rater 
agreement greater than 80 percent. In addition, we noted strengths and 
areas for further attention in each plan. We assessed partial 
inclusion if the agency made at least one reference to a specific best 
practice within the plan but were not able to assess full inclusion if 
the information was not consistently provided. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to September 
2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management: 

United States Office of Personnel Management: 
Employee Services: 
Washington, DC 20415: 

August 30, 2013: 

Mr. Robert Goldenkoff: 
Director: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldenkoff: 

Thank you for providing a draft of the Government Accountability 
Office report, "Federal Employees: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen 
Performance Management Pilot" to the U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM). We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with 
comments about this report. 

Response to Recommendations: 

Recommendation: 

We recommend the Director of OPM, in collaboration with the Chief 
Human Capital Officers Council define roles and responsibilities of 
OPM, the CHCO Council, and participating federal agencies going 
forward as the GEAR framework is implemented government-wide. In doing 
so, OPM, in collaboration with the CHCO Council could define roles and 
responsibilities such as: 

* supplementing the GEAR report and updating the diagnostic toolkit as 
needed to reflect additional promising practices and lessons learned 
(such as those we identified) and guidance on using metrics. This 
should include considering whether connecting performance expectations 
to crass-cutting goals should be part of the GEAR framework. 

* disseminating the information contained in the GEAR report and 
diagnostic toolkit through multiple venues and various government-wide 
websites, such as OMB Max, to ensure federal managers, supervisors and 
other stakeholders have access to promising practices and additional 
guidance on improving performance management. 

Management Response: 

We concur. As the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) continues 
to work with our partners in Federal agencies via the Chief Human 
Capital Officers (CHCO) Council to implement the Goals-Engagement-
Accountability-Results (GEAR) framework Govemmentwide, we will use the 
recommendations in your report to (1) clarify the roles of the 
parties, (2) continually learn from one another to adopt promising 
practices to improve organizational and employee performance 
management, and (3) strengthen our project plans. 

As we discussed, OPM, in cooperation with the Office of Management and 
Budget will build upon our existing working relationships through the 
CHCO Council to ensure that GEAR is implemented effectively. Rather 
than a compliance driven, one-size-fits-all approach, the success of 
GEAR is dependent upon agency execution, which can only be fully 
successful when individual agencies and their components adopt 
management practices that are consistent with the GEAR framework yet 
tailored to the practical concerns of each agency's mission and 
organizational culture. 

Recommendation: 

In addition, to improve its agencies' GEAR implementation plans, we 
recommend the Director of OPA 1 to take the following two actions to 
update its GEAR implementation plan to include: (I) objectives 
describing the goals the agency plans to achieve and (2) identify 
roles and responsibilities for specific actions and stakeholders. 

Management Response: 

We concur. We will take action to update the OPM GEAR implementation 
plan to further clarify the goals the agency plans to achieve through 
the use of objectives. We will also further define the roles and 
responsibilities expected of our stakeholders within the OPM GEAR 
implementation. 

Please contact Ms. Janet Barnes, Director, Internal Oversight & 
Compliance on (202) 606-3270, should your office require additional 
information. 

Your report is thoughtful and helpful, and we thank you for the input. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Angela Bailey: 
Associate Director: 
Employee Services: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

September 6, 2013: 

Robert Goldenkoff: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: Draft Report GAO-13-755, "Federal Employees: Opportunities Exist 
to Strengthen Performance Management Pilot" 

Dear Mr. Goldenkoff: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

DHS values GAO's review of the U.S. Coast Guard's (Coast Guard) pilot 
implementation of the Goals-Engagement-Accountability-Results (GEAR) 
framework at Base Boston. Efforts such as timing the GEAR model to 
coincide with the beginning of the annual performance cycle and 
identifying needs through employee surveys to establish a baseline to 
better track results are two of the more significant lessons learned 
from the implementation of this pilot program. 

The draft report contained five recommendations, one of which was 
directed to DHS and with which the Department concurs. Specifically, 
GAO recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard to: 

Recommendation: Take the following two actions to update the agency's 
GEAR implementation plan to include: (1) performance measures that 
permit comparison between desired outcomes and actual results and (2) 
include additional information on schedules that are linked to 
specific actions. 

Response: Concur. The Coast Guard's Personnel Management Directorate 
will evaluate approaches, identify implementation plans to measure 
GEAR outcomes and provide the additional information on schedules 
linked to specific actions. At this time, internal meetings of the 
Coast Guard's Labor Management Forum, a working group of senior 
officials across multiple Coast Guard directorates, are being 
scheduled to coordinate future plans with the American Federation of 
Government Employees, to collectively address labor and management 
relations as a result of the implementation of GEAR. 

Estimated Completion Date: To Be Determined. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim H. Crumpacker: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs: 

Department of Veterans Affairs: 
Washington DC 20420: 

September 4, 2013: 

Mr. Robert Goldenkoff: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Goldenkoff: 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, "Federal Employees: 
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Performance Management Pilot" (GAO-
13-755). VA generally agrees with GAO's conclusions and concurs with 
GAO's recommendation to the Department. 

The enclosure specifically addresses GAO's recommendation and provides 
technical comments to the draft report. VA appreciates the opportunity 
to comment on your draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jose D. Riojas: 
Chief of Staff: 

Enclosure: 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Response to Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report "Federal Employees: 
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Performance Management Pilot"
(GAO 13-755) 

GAO Recommendation: To improve its GEAR implementation plans, GAO 
recommends that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under 
Secretary for Memorial Affairs to take the following three actions to 
update the National Cemetery Administrations' GEAR implementation plan 
to include: (1) schedules that are linked to specific actions, (2) 
performance measures that permit comparison between desired outcomes 
and actual results, and (3) include additional information on the 
roles and responsibilities for specific actions and stakeholders. 

VA Response: Concur. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) will 
update and refine its Goals-Engagement-Accountability-Results (GEAR) 
Plan. The plan was implemented in October 2012 and has guided efforts 
that have led to significant achievements. Updates to the plan will 
include: (1) appropriate linkage between future schedules and actions; 
(2) performance measures that facilitate assessment of results; 
and (3) information on the roles and responsibilities for specific 
actions and stakeholders. NCA will implement updates to its GEAR Plan 
prior to the start of the next performance cycle in October 2013. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of 
Homeland Security/Coast Guard: 

DHS was involved in the early development of the GEAR framework as 
part of the CHCO Council and subsequently volunteered the Coast Guard 
to pilot the GEAR framework, with consideration given to expanding 
implementation after achieving success through the limited pilot 
effort. The Coast Guard is implementing all five of GEAR's 
recommendations in a single-site pilot at Base Boston, affecting 
approximately 200 employees, both GS and WG. The Coast Guard chose 
Base Boston for several reasons: the presence of both GS and WG 
employees - who happen to be supervised by both military and civilian 
personnel, a wide variety of occupations, and the representation of a 
single union rather than the multiple unions that are present at other 
bases. Coast Guard officials said they chose to implement GEAR as a 
pilot because agency-wide implementation brought challenges such as 
dealing with such a large military population - approximately 42,000 
military personnel that rotate bases approximately every two to three 
years and operate on a different performance management plan compared 
with approximately 9,000 civilian employees - and negotiating with 
approximately nine unions. According to one senior Coast Guard 
official, to develop more than one site would create a capacity issue 
that would make it difficult to plan and implement GEAR. 

The Coast Guard began planning for GEAR in March 2012 and launched the 
pilot in April 2013 to coincide with the start of the annual 
performance process. According to Coast Guard officials, the planning 
process was in place but implementation was delayed due to Base Boston 
personnel being deployed to assist in Hurricane Sandy recovery 
efforts. The pilot is expected to run for the length of one annual 
performance cycle and complete on March 31, 2014. According to Coast 
Guard officials, agency officials met with union representatives for 
extensive discussions involving facilitators and brainstorming 
sessions in order to include union input in the final GEAR 
implementation plan. As a result of these discussions, Coast Guard 
officials told us that the agency has the approval of the union and 
that both parties are mutually responsible for the successful 
implementation of GEAR. 

The Coast Guard currently requires every civilian employee to have a 
documented performance appraisal at the end of the rating cycle and 
under GEAR implementation, employees and supervisors are to receive 
increased training to improve the accountability and engagement 
between employees and supervisors. Coast Guard officials noted that 
the agency needs to improve its culture of engagement. They said part 
of the problem is that supervisors do not have enough time to provide 
feedback, and employees do not know how to prepare adequately for 
their assessments or feedback sessions. By September 2013, all new 
supervisors (both civilian and military) will have to take 40 hours of 
mandated supervisor training so they will have a base knowledge of how 
to provide effective feedback. For more information on steps the Coast 
Guard has taken to implement GEAR, see table 9. 

Coast Guard has identified the following benefits that may be realized 
at Base Boston through GEAR implementation: 

* improved performance management accountability; 

* improved employee-supervisor engagement through training and 
additional educational resources; 

* increased communications to improve awareness and importance of the 
performance management process; 

* improved overall labor management relations through involvement of 
the labor unions; and: 

* projected fewer grievances over performance appraisals at the end of 
the pilot. 

Table 9: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of 
Homeland Security/Coast Guard as of July 2013: 

Mission: 
The U.S. Coast Guard's mission is to protect the public, the 
environment, and U.S. economic interests--in the nation's ports and 
waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any 
maritime region as required to support national security. 

GEAR Implementation agency-wide or traditional pilot: 
Pilot at Base Boston. 

Approximate number of employees affected by GEAR implementation: 
200 employees, both civilian (GS and WG) and military. 

GEAR recommendation implementing: 
1. Articulate a high performance culture; 
2. Align employee and organizational performance management; 
3. Implement accountability at all levels; 
4. Create a culture of engagement; 
5. Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development and training. 

Steps taken: 
* Developed implementation plan in conjunction with union to begin 
with new rating cycle (November 2012) and assigned project manager; 
* Developed data analysis repository; 
* Deployed communication plan to workforce; 
* Conducted performance management and employee/labor relations 
training (February 2013); 
* Conducted communications and team building training (March 2013); 
* Implemented DHS supervisor guidance and required supervisor 
cornerstone training completed for all supervisors (March 2013); 
* Conducted pre-pilot survey (March 2013); 
* Assessed 2012 FEVS results; 
* Updated civilian webpage to include performance management resources; 
* Established civilian personnel webpage; 
posted performance counseling progress review guidance on human 
resources website; 
* Promoted diversity and inclusion efforts; 
* Developed performance plans with two progress reviews for employees 
and one for supervisors; 
* Published quarterly newsletter articles about performance management 
system responsibilities; 
* Posted 2010 Coast Guard hiring guide; 
* Mandated 40-hour e-training for supervisors; 
* Required supervisory performance element for all supervisors; 
* Implemented GEAR April 1, 2013. 

Ongoing action: 
* Hold supervisors accountable for performance management system 
responsibilities; 
* Post performance management guidance; 
* Use job aids conducting reviews; 
* Enhance performance management training at pilot site; 
* Conduct GEAR communications throughout workforce; 
* Continue to partner with labor-management forum. 

Steps outstanding: 
* Conduct OAS and FEVS surveys; 
* Identify, record, and evaluate pilot successes and milestones 
throughout the pilot; 
* Cascade senior executive service performance measures to program 
achievement; 
* Launch GEAR presence on civilian human resources website; 
* Move toward bringing all Coast Guard employees onto DHS performance 
management system to ensure goal alignment; 
* Establish performance conversation timeliness guidelines for senor 
leadership; 
* Establish employee accountability levels; 
* Provide additional resources for education and notice about 
performance management system responsibilities; 
* Assess performance management compliance with data repository; 
* Conduct and analyze pre-, mid, and post surveys; 
* Issue quarterly diversity reports; 
* Institute regular meetings of employees and supervisors; 
* Enhance supervisor mentoring and coaching; 
* Conduct additional or new training for supervisors. 

Metrics and oversight: 
* Internal GEAR baseline and follow up surveys; 
* Number of employee grievances; 
* Training. 

Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard information. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of Energy: 

DOE officials said the agency is implementing the GEAR framework in 
part because it aligned with existing human capital priorities and 
supported DOE's vision of improving its performance-based culture. DOE 
is implementing GEAR agency-wide with the exception of Bonneville 
Power Administration and the National Nuclear Security Administration, 
affecting approximately 8,400 employees.[Footnote 37] DOE officials 
told us that a holistic approach to GEAR implementation provided the 
best opportunity for success and that only by engaging the entire 
organization could the agency hope to improve organizational culture. 
According to DOE officials, implementing GEAR is a two-year effort and 
the agency is in the second year of implementation; however, DOE is 
implementing the GEAR framework as part of a larger continuous effort 
to improve its performance-based culture. DOE employees are covered by 
local union collective bargaining agreements and according to DOE 
officials, each union local was engaged in GEAR implementation where 
appropriate. DOE does not have any unions with department-level 
recognition or collective bargaining rights. Before launching the 
pilot, the DOE Office of the CHCO briefed local union representatives 
on the GEAR framework and asked for their input on rollout. Agency 
officials said that they received no feedback from the unions. 

As a first step towards implementation of GEAR, DOE officials surveyed 
supervisors and employees to establish a baseline. Additionally, DOE 
officials said they held employee focus groups about the agency's 
performance management system to help inform some of the key actions 
of the GEAR implementation plan. Agency officials said that they 
expected, and found, that employees did not view the effective 
execution of the performance management process as positively as 
supervisors; in other words, performance discussions are occurring but 
they are not perceived by employees as adding value. Based on data 
showing that timely completion of the reviews declined over the 
previous year, DOE officials have begun to look for ways to streamline 
the review process. This includes shifting to a system that allows 
supervisors to indicate satisfactory performance without the need for 
extensive documentation. Officials also said that a new electronic 
performance assessment system, ePerformance, has facilitated 
completion of quarterly reviews. According to DOE officials, 
ePerformance allows management to monitor feedback sessions centrally 
and ensure that supervisors complete them in a timely fashion, 
something that was impossible under the agency's old paper-based 
system for conducting performance reviews. According to DOE officials, 
it is still not possible to ensure that all reviews are of good 
quality, only that they are timely. DOE officials feel that improved 
communication between managers and employees will be a major benefit. 
To reinforce the importance DOE places on supervision, the agency 
developed a mandatory supervisory critical element, which holds 
supervisors accountable for each phase of the performance process, 
according to officials. DOE also issued a mandatory training framework 
for supervisors and employees to support ongoing improvements in the 
agency's performance-based culture. For more information on steps DOE 
has taken to implement GEAR, see table 10. 

According to DOE officials the agency will realize additional benefits 
from implementing the GEAR framework, including: 

* incremental improvements to its organizational culture on a yearly 
basis demonstrated through employee feedback and other human capital 
metrics, such as ePerformance metrics; 

* continued focus on human capital efforts at senior levels of agency 
management; and: 

* reinforcement of performance management as a year-round priority. 

In addition, DOE officials stated that benefits resulting from GEAR 
implementation have already been realized. For example, DOE officials 
stated that their use of human capital performance metrics, supported 
by GEAR's recommendation to align performance management with 
organizational performance management, has resulted in DOE reducing 
its reliance on targeted support service. 

Table 10: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of 
Energy as of July 2013: 

Mission: 
The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure America's security 
and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear 
challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. 

GEAR Implementation agency-wide or traditional pilot: 
Agency-wide except for the National Nuclear Security Administration 
and the Bonneville Power Administration. 

Approximate number of employees affected by GEAR implementation: 
8,400 employees. 

GEAR recommendation implementing: 
1. Articulate a high performance culture; 
2. Align employee and organizational performance management; 
3. Implement accountability at all levels; 
4. Create a culture of engagement; 
5. Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development, and training. 

Steps taken: 
* Developed agency strategic plan (May 2011); 
* Conducted performance management training (fiscal year 2011 Q4 for 
fiscal year 2012); 
* Issued Secretary's statement and conducted town halls; 
* Designed and implemented progress review template; 
* Implemented ePerformance software to support new processes; 
implemented ePerformance metrics; 
* Tracking ePerformance milestones like timely completion of reviews 
and ratings; 
* Conducted analysis of EVS and employee/manager surveys; 
* Engaged local unions regarding GEAR; 
* Improved both managers' and employees' education and support; 
* Developed Five Conversations training (which provides information to 
supervisors on how to have difficult conversations with employees), 
which is now being leveraged by OPM; 
* Issued supervisory mandatory training framework; 
* Incorporated automatic notifications and periodic reminders to 
inform new supervisors of mandatory training requirements; 
* Conducted follow-up employee survey; 
* Strengthened PIO/CHCO collaboration to improve compliance with 
ePerformance requirements for timely performance management 
discussions. 

Steps outstanding: 
* Continue to emphasize performance-based culture, continuation of 
effort/lasting cultural change; 
* Continue to socialize relevant HR metrics (compliance, satisfaction, 
mission accomplishment); 
* Provide training to improve feedback and other conversations; 
* Continue ePerformance improvements; 
* Improve DOE on-boarding process; 
* Continue to track FEVS indices; 
* Continue to execute an effective supervisory, manager and employee 
training framework; 
* Incorporate tracking and monitoring as part of data-driven reviews 
(HR Stat and Business Quarterly Reviews); 
* Ensure that constructive action is taken when supervisors do not 
meet training requirements. 

Metrics and oversight: 
* 5% increase in Results-Oriented Culture and Employee Engagement 
indexes by September 2013; 
* Timeliness of performance plan execution, review, and evaluation; 
* Focus groups; 
* Internal GEAR baseline and follow up surveys. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE information. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development: 

According to agency officials, HUD's CHCO was an active participant in 
the CHCO Council meetings that first developed the GEAR concepts. The 
agency volunteered to participate because GEAR is consistent with the 
Secretary's Transformation Initiative, which aims to improve the 
quality of performance plans and increase the quality and timeliness 
of feedback. While HUD was already pursuing several objectives that it 
now views as part of GEAR, GEAR provided a framework of guiding 
principles that helped HUD officials organize their efforts. HUD is 
implementing GEAR agency-wide (with the exception of its Office of the 
Inspector General) affecting approximately 8,100 employees and four 
labor unions.[Footnote 38] HUD has established the Labor-Management 
Advisory Committee (LMAC), which includes representatives from each of 
HUD's four unions as well as managers. HUD officials did not think 
they could be successful if they implemented GEAR within a single 
unit. They felt that implementing it agency-wide would permit it to be 
better embedded in the performance culture. HUD plans for GEAR to be 
fully implemented in September 2013. 

At the beginning of implementation, HUD decided not to pursue GEAR's 
fifth goal - improving the assessment, selection, development, and 
training of supervisors - based on staff capacity at that time, 
according to HUD officials. Since then, the agency has recruited a 
Chief Learning Officer and has taken several actions to implement the 
fifth goal, such as distributing guidance on holding crucial 
conversations with employees and adding supervisory training courses. 
As a result of GEAR, HUD has acquired a new performance management 
system that supports strategic alignment to individual performance 
objectives and will support feedback on performance objectives, 
including feedback from peers and subordinates. HUD officials said 
that they procured a new performance management system in October 2012 
and completed union negotiations in June 2013 to adopt a new 
performance management policy and framework. Senior executives have 
already moved to the new performance management system and the agency 
is in the process of rolling it out to the rest of the agency. For 
more information on steps HUD has taken to implement GEAR, see table 
11. 

HUD has identified the following benefits that may be realized as a 
result of GEAR implementation: 

* increased alignment between HUD's work and mission through 
performance objectives outlined in the department's strategic plan; 

* more engaged workforce through increased quality and timeliness of 
feedback; 

* more accurate performance ratings as performance plans better 
reflect the work staff are doing; 

* help with retention of employees; and: 

* improved performance management overall at HUD. 

Table 11: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development as of July 2013: 

Mission: 
HUD's mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities 
and quality affordable homes for all. HUD is working to strengthen the 
housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; 
meet the need for quality affordable rental homes; utilize housing as 
a platform for improving quality of life; build inclusive and 
sustainable communities free from discrimination; and transform the 
way HUD does business. 

GEAR Implementation agency-wide or traditional pilot: 
Agency-wide except for the Office of Inspector General. 

Approximate number of employees affected by GEAR implementation: 
8,100 employees. 

GEAR Recommendation implementing: 
1. Articulate a high performance culture; 
2. Align employee and organizational performance management; 
3. Implement accountability at all levels; 
4. Create a culture of engagement; 
Note: HUD officials decided not to pursue goal 5 based on staff 
capacity - no Chief Learning Officer (CLO) - at the time of 
implementation. A CLO has since been hired and HUD is creating a 
structure for goal 5. 

Steps taken: 
* Redefine senior executive service plans; 
* Train on new Employee Performance Planning and Evaluation System 
(EPPES) framework; 
* Begin tracking fiscal year 2012 midyear reviews (95% target by May 
2012) ratings and fiscal year 2013 plans (both 95% target by December 
2013); 
* Issue fiscal year 2012 rating and fiscal year 2013 performance plan 
guidance; 
* Deploy managers' performance management training; 
* Develop monthly in-service day policy; 
* Develop awards policy; 
* Acquire new ePerformance system. 

Steps outstanding: 
* Complete EPPES framework design and add template to ePerformance 
system; 
* Develop awards policy; 
* Completely replace ePerformance system. 

Metrics and oversight: 
* 5% increase in Results-Oriented Culture and Employee Engagement 
indexes by November 2013; 
* Internal "pulse" survey; 
* Timeliness of establishing performance plans; 
* Timeliness of completion of performance ratings; 
* Percentage of staff who feel their performance plan reflects the 
work they do and sets clear expectations; 
* Percentage of staff who have talked with their direct supervisor 
about their performance. 

Source: GAO analysis of HUD information. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Dept. of Veterans 
Affairs/National Cemetery Administration: 

Unlike the other pilot agencies, VA officials had no official 
interaction with the LMR Council in the development of the GEAR 
framework. VA began implementing GEAR in October 2012 to coincide with 
the VA performance management cycle. VA officials project the 
implementation to be complete by 2016. VA is implementing GEAR within 
its NCA agency as a single unit pilot in MSN II, encompassing national 
cemeteries located in the southeastern area of the country. NCA 
officials expect to expand GEAR to the remaining four networks 
beginning in 2014. VA chose the NCA because it has a reputation as a 
high-performing organization and an existing focus on metrics and 
feedback. VA officials said they chose to implement GEAR as a single 
unit, rather than agency-wide, because doing so allowed them to 
provide closer attention and support. 

NCA is implementing the GEAR framework to seven mission critical 
occupations totaling approximately 240 employees. NCA plans to include 
10 additional occupations in MSN II during fiscal year 2014, and to 
also apply the GEAR framework to the original seven mission critical 
occupations in the remaining four networks beginning in fiscal year 
2014. NCA plans to continue to phase in occupations during fiscal 
years 2014-2016. According to NCA officials, representatives from two 
unions have been involved in GEAR implementation and contributed 
valuable input that has enhanced NCA's approach to GEAR. Although NCA 
officials told us they are committed to all five of GEAR's 
recommendations, the agency is currently implementing four of the 
recommendations and plans to implement the fifth recommendation after 
an evaluation of current approaches to assessing, selecting, and 
developing supervisors has been completed. 

According to NCA officials, NCA has increased feedback to employees on 
individual, unit, and agency goals and performance by implementing a 
three-step feedback process with meetings every four months (in 
February, June, and October), as well as providing tools to assist 
supervisors in preparing for and conducting those one-on-one meetings. 
Supervisors and employees also receive a monthly performance scorecard 
with information on several of NCA's performance targets that include 
agency, region, and cemetery-level performance in key operational 
areas such as client satisfaction and employee safety. 

As part of GEAR, NCA defined "exceptional" performance, in addition to 
the "fully successful" level, in new performance plans for all seven 
of the targeted occupations. NCA officials said that officials 
representing labor unions recommended this approach so employees have 
a clear target. NCA officials stated that this practice will continue 
as new performance plans are created. NCA plans to also refine their 
approach to rewarding and recognizing exceptional performers to 
correspond with what employees value. For example, they are 
considering possible generational preferences in the nature of rewards 
and preferences associated with the stages of employees' careers. For 
more information on steps NCA has taken to implement GEAR, see table 
12. 

NCA has identified the following benefits that may result from GEAR 
implementation: 

* by aligning performance goals with organizational goals, employees 
may better understand the connection between their daily activities 
and the organization's success; 

* employees can better identify performance successes, gaps, and 
opportunities to improve performance at their cemetery and within 
their network; 
and: 

* involving employees and their labor representatives in efforts to 
improve performance management systems increases their understanding 
and ownership of these systems and organizational goals and increases 
their belief in the fairness of the systems, including in the ability 
to reinforce accountability. 

Table 12: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs/National Cemetery Administration as of July 2013: 

Mission: 
NCA honors Veterans and their families with final resting places in 
national shrines and with lasting tributes that commemorate their 
service and sacrifice to our Nation. 

GEAR implementation agency-wide or traditional pilot: 
Pilot in one of NCA's five networks. 

Approximate number of employees affected by GEAR implementation: 
240 employees. Currently, seven mission critical occupations are 
covered by GEAR: (1) cemetery director; (2) cemetery foreman; (3) 
cemetery caretaker; (4) cemetery representative; (5) equipment 
operator; (6) cemetery technician; and (7) program support assistant. 
NCA will include 10 additional occupations in fiscal year 2013. 

GEAR recommendation implementing: 
1. Reinforce NCA's high performance culture; 
2. Align employee and organizational performance management; 
3. Implement accountability at all levels; 
4. Create a culture of engagement; 
5. Improve the assessment, selection, development and training of 
supervisors. 

Steps taken: 
* Developed performance plans for seven mission-critical occupations; 
* Established successful and exceptional performance standards; 
* Implemented three-step performance appraisal review with feedback at 
three annual meetings and attention to NCA's goals and performance, 
past employee performance and contributions, and future performance 
expectations; 
* Developed tools to simplify supervisor performance management and 
reduce employee work required for self assessments, and requests for 
training or special assignments; 
* Designed of a monthly "scorecard" that presents NCA and division 
performance data and targets. Officials reported that this facilitates 
discussion about local results and opportunities for improvement; 
* Established of a national labor forum that facilitates communication 
between NCA and union leaders; 
* Delivered web-based training to supervisors and employees to improve 
understanding of critical points in the performance management process; 
* Identified GEAR-specific performance standards among current ones 
like customer satisfaction metrics and employee surveys. 

Steps outstanding: 
* Revision of performance plans for 10 additional occupations to 
incorporate them into the pilot; 
* Development of GEAR-based performance management training plans for 
both supervisors and employees; 
* Implementation of an e-plan to export GEAR initiatives to NCA's four 
remaining Networks; 
* Development of a GEAR Rewards and Recognition Program with a guide 
for NCA supervisors and managers to reward exceptional performance; 
* Assessment of NCA's current employee orientation process, and design 
of comprehensive on-boarding program; 
* Assessment of NCA's current process for selecting new supervisors 
and development of recommendations to enhance current processes. 

Metrics and oversight: 
* Employee performance metrics; 
* Employee perspectives from FEVS and VA; 
* 's internal survey; 
* Perspectives gained from focus groups; 
* Customer service metrics. 

Source: GAO analysis of NCA information. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Office of Personnel 
Management: 

OPM's Director, as Chair of the CHCO Council and co-chair of the LMR 
Council, helped propose the idea of examining the federal government's 
performance management accountability framework and make 
recommendations for its improvement, which resulted in the GEAR 
framework. In addition, OPM officials reported that the agency 
collaborated with and supported all pilot agencies in the initial 
development of their processes and implementation efforts. As a result 
of their role in developing the framework, OPM is implementing GEAR 
agency-wide, affecting approximately 5,800 employees, including 
employees represented by two unions. According to OPM officials, it 
made sense to implement GEAR agency-wide from the beginning. OPM had 
previously identified human capital needs, such as improving 
supervisor assessment, that had not been addressed due to limited 
resources and competing priorities. However, an official said that 
GEAR focused attention on some of these issues and provided a 
framework to move forward. Initially, OPM planned on implementing four 
of the five GEAR goals agency-wide, according to OPM officials, and 
did not take steps to implement the first goal of articulating a high-
performance culture. However, according to OPM officials, the agency 
is currently developing a performance culture statement, in 
collaboration with its employees and elected labor representatives, 
which officials stated would meet GEAR's first goal of articulating a 
high-performance culture when complete. 

OPM officials said that they decided to focus on the assessment and 
selection of supervisors. Currently, OPM is identifying supervisory 
competencies to be balanced with technical requirements of 
supervisors. For example, an official said that OPM is expanding its 
use of situational judgment assessments, an emerging approach from the 
law enforcement and security community in which the supervisor would 
be assessed on his or her leadership qualities in addition to the 
ability to communicate effectively. In addition, OPM is implementing 
quarterly progress reviews using previously developed forms for 
supervisors and employees. An OPM official said that the simplicity of 
the new forms will make it easier for supervisors to use. For more 
information on steps OPM has taken to implement GEAR, see table 13. 

OPM has identified the following benefits that may be realized as a 
result of GEAR implementation: 

* employees will understand the agency mission and goals and be 
engaged in the process of achieving those goals; 

* employees will receive feedback on their performance at least 
quarterly; 

* supervisors will be hired based on their leadership potential and 
demonstrated supervisory competencies; 
and: 

* supervisors will be held accountable for practicing good performance 
management. 

Table 13: GEAR Implementation Status According to the Office of 
Personnel Management as of July 2013: 

Mission: 
Recruit, retain, and honor a world-class workforce to serve the 
American people. 

GEAR implementation agency-wide or traditional pilot: 
Agency-wide. 

Approximate number of employees affected by GEAR implementation: 
5,800 employees. 

GEAR recommendation implementing: 
1. Articulate a high performance culture; 
2. Align employee and organizational performance management; 
3. Implement accountability at all levels; 
4. Create a culture of engagement; 
5. Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development and training. 

Steps taken: 
* Established quarterly progress reviews to reinforce performance 
management as a year-round priority; 
* Created new performance management form; 
* Standardized supervisory commitment language; 
* Conducted mandatory training for all supervisors and executives; 
* Made other courses made available; 
* Periodically highlighted GEAR in weekly publications; 
* Conducted supervisor assessment and selection; 
* Gathered supervisor views on competencies and weighting through 
survey and focus groups; 
* Designed occupational questionnaire and structured interview 
questions for supervisor applicants; 
* Implemented mandatory use of supervisor assessment questionnaire; 
* Collaborated with DOE on; 
* Five Conversations training (which provides information to 
supervisors on how to have difficult conversations with employees); 
* Revamped OPM supervisory training curriculum. 

Steps outstanding: 
* Design enhanced online situational test (target September 2013). 

Metrics and oversight: 
* Extent to which agency goals are met; 
* 5% increase in Results-Oriented Culture and Employee Engagement 
indexes by September 2013; 
* Score of 80 or higher on Performance Appraisal Assessment Tool; 
* 100% target for timely progress review completion (using FEVS item); 
* Employee, manager, and supervisor compliance with training 
requirements. 

Source: GAO analysis of OPM information. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-6806 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Tom Gilbert, Assistant 
Director; Dewi Djunaidy; Karin Fangman; Robert Gebhart; Erik 
Kjeldgaard; and Cindy Saunders made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-283] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2013). 

[2] The National Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations is an 
advisory committee established by Executive Order No. 13522 in 2009. 
It consists of the Director of the Office of Personnel Management and 
the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and 
Budget (who serve as co-chairs), the chair of the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority, other federal officials, union officials from 
federal employee unions, and representatives of federal management 
organizations. Its purpose is to advise the President on matters 
involving executive branch labor-management relations and other 
activities related to improving federal labor-management partnerships, 
relations, and the delivery of government services. Creating Labor-
Management Forums to Improve Delivery of Government Services, 74 Fed. 
Reg. 66203 (Dec. 9, 2009). 

[3] Employee Performance Management Workgroup, Report to the National 
Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations, Goals - Engagement - 
Accountability - Results: Getting in GEAR for Employee Performance 
Management (Revised November 2011). 

[4] For purposes of this report, we are referring to both departments 
and agencies as "agencies." 

[5] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between 
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: March 14, 
2003). These best practices were based on previously issued reports on 
public sector organizations' approaches to reinforcing individual 
accountability for results. 

[6] The CHCO Council was established under the Chief Human Capital 
Officers Act of 2002, enacted as part of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002, to advise and coordinate the activities of members' agencies on 
such matters as the modernization of human resource systems, improved 
quality of human resource information, and legislation affecting human 
resource operations and organizations. The council includes 25 members 
drawn from the 15 executive departments and 8 additional agencies 
designated by OPM's director. The council is chaired by the OPM 
director; the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of 
Management and Budget is vice chair. See Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 
Stat. 2135, 2288 (Nov. 25, 2002), at 5 U.S.C. § 1401 note. 

[7] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); Performance Measurement and Evaluation, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 2011); 
and GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for project 
schedules, Exposure Draft [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G] (Washington, D.C.: May 2012). 
We included Exposure Draft [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G] as it presents ten best 
practices associated with developing and maintaining a reliable, high-
quality schedule based on the planning process (the schedule is 
essentially a model of the project plan). 

[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-488]. 

[9] 5 C.F.R. § 430.102(a). 

[10] Exec. Order No. 13522 (Dec. 9, 2009). The President extended the 
Council through September 30, 2013, in Exec. Order No. 13591, 
Continuance of Certain Federal Advisory Committees, 76 Fed. Reg. 74623 
(Nov. 23, 2011). 

[11] GAO, Federal Training Investments: Office of Personnel Management 
and Agencies Can Do More to Ensure Cost-Effective Decisions, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-878] (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 17, 2012). 

[12] For example, OPM regulations for Senior Executive Service (SES) 
performance management systems require such systems to expect 
excellence in SES performance and link individual performance 
management with organizational goals. 5 C.F.R. § 430.301. 

[13] 5 C.F.R. part 430. 

[14] Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2014 Analytical 
Perspectives: Budget of the U.S. Government (Washington, D.C.: 2013). 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-488]. 

[16] The PIO role was created by a 2007 executive order and 
established in law and elevated by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, 
which stated that it should be given to a "senior executive" at each 
agency who reports directly to each agency's chief operating officer. 
The duties of the PIO include advising the agency head and chief 
operating officer on goal-setting and measurement, reviewing progress 
toward agency priority goals, and assisting in the development and use 
of performance measures in personnel performance appraisals and other 
personnel processes and assessments as appropriate. 

[17] GAO, Human Capital Management: Effectively Implementing Reforms 
and Closing Critical Skills Gaps Are Key to Addressing Federal 
Workforce Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1023T] (Washington, D.C: Sept. 19, 
2012). 

[18] The suite of web-based performance management courses were 
developed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. 

[19] OMB, FY 2014 Analytical Perspectives (Washington, D.C.: 2013). 

[20] The MAX Federal Community is used by the Office of Management and 
Budget and federal agencies to share information and collaborate. 
Although all individuals with ".gov", ".mil", or "fed.us" in their e-
mail address can create an account and access most of the OMB Max 
Federal Community, only executive branch employees are able to view 
GEAR information posted on the website by pilot agencies. 

[21] The Classification Act of 1949 established the General Schedule, 
a single, nationwide pay structure for federal employees that today 
consists of 15 pay grades, each with 10 pay steps. Most white-collar 
federal employees are paid under the General Schedule. Wage grade 
employees are paid under the Federal Wage System, which is a 
coordinated wage system for federal employees in trade, craft, and 
labor occupations. 

[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[24] GAO, Securities and Exchange Commission: Progress Made on 
Strategic Human Capital Management, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-86] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 10, 
2006). 

[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1], 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP], and [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[28] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[29] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[30] OPM conducts FEVS, which is a tool that measures employees' 
perceptions of whether and to what extent conditions characterizing 
successful organizations are present in their agencies. 

[31] A work breakdown structure (WBS) defines in detail the work 
necessary to accomplish a project's objectives. 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G]. 

[34] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP]. 

[35] OPM, the central human resources agency for the federal 
government, has conducted the FEVS every year since 2010. Prior to 
2010, OPM conducted the survey during even numbered years, beginning 
in 2004. The most recent survey sample of 2012 included the views of 
over 687,000 federal employees from 82 federal agencies. The survey 
results represent a snapshot in time of the perceptions of the federal 
workforce. In 2012 the FEVS was generally implemented as a census, 
rather than a sample-based survey, in an effort to gather the opinions 
of the entire federal workforce. The four index measures are: 
leadership and knowledge management; results-oriented performance 
culture; talent management; and job satisfaction. 

[36] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999); Performance Measurement and Evaluation, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-646SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 2011); 
and GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best Practices for project 
schedules, exposure draft [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G] (Washington, D.C.: May 2012). 
We included the exposure draft of [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-120G] as it presents ten best 
practices associated with developing and maintaining a reliable, high-
quality schedule based on the planning process (the schedule is 
essentially a model of the project plan). 

[37] DOE officials reported that the National Nuclear Security 
Administration is in the midst of a five-year personnel demonstration 
project that is testing alternative personnel concepts including pay 
banding and linking pay and rewards to performance. The Bonneville 
Power Administration was exempt from implementing GEAR by the 
Secretary because they operate under a separate performance management 
system. The two units together have approximately 6,500 employees. 

[38] The American Federation of Government Employees is the major 
union at headquarters; HUD's California, Memphis, and Detroit regions 
each have a National Federation of Federal Employees Local. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]