the defense civilian intelligence personnel system

A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION For the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence June 2011

The Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System…Continuing the Evolution

Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System Review, Phase II

Supplemental Materials

PANEL

Donald F. Kettl,*Panel Chair Diane M. Disney* Norman Johnson*

Elaine C. Kamarck* Michael Massiah*

Curt Smith* Cindy Williams*

*Academy Fellow

ii

OFFICERS OF THE ACADEMY

Kenneth S. Apfel, Chair

Diane M. Disney, Vice Chair David F. Garrison, Secretary

Robert J. Shea, Treasurer Kristine M. Marcy, President

PANEL

Donald F. Kettl,*Panel Chair

Diane M. Disney* Norman Johnson*

Elaine C. Kamarck* Michael Massiah*

Curt Smith* Cindy Williams*

PROJECT STAFF

Darlene F. Haywood, Project Director Tim Dirks, Senior Advisor

Leslie Overmyer-Day, Senior Advisor Daniel Honker, Analyst

Shanette Yao, Research Associate The views expressed in this report are those of the Panel. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academy as an institution. National Academy of Public Administration 900 7th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001-3888 www.napawash.org Published June 2011 Academy Project Number: 2158-002 * Academy Fellow

http://www.napawash.org/

U.S. Department of Defense Supplemental Materials Internal Use Only _____________________________________________________________________________________

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... v

WHITE PAPER #1: Building a Performance Culture in the Defense Intellgence Enterprise ....... 1

WHITE PAPER #2: Strategies to Increase Leadership Engagement in DCIPS ............................ 7

WHITE PAPER #3: Encouraging Knowledge Sharing in Performance Management ............... 11

WHITE PAPER #4: Strategies for Recognizing and Rewarding Organizational, Group, and Team Performance ............................................................................................................ 15

WHITE PAPER #5: Options for Revising the DCIPS Performance Elements ........................... 33


iv

This Page Left Blank Intentionally.


v

INTRODUCTION

In August 2010, the Human Capital Management Office (HCMO) of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSD(I) engaged the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to conduct Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) for the evolution of the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS). This review assessed the extent to which HCMO’s efforts to refocus DCIPS align with the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Action Plan, which required that all of the Defense Intelligence Components, except for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency transition from pay bands to grades. The Academy Panel assessed the extent to which DCIPS’ design as reflected in plans, policies, systems, and tools, is evolving to conform to the requirements of the SECDEF Action Plan. Using the SECDEF Action Plan as a framework, along with other priorities identified by HCMO, the Academy Panel identified the following focus areas for the review:

• Change Management, Communications, and Training; • DCIPS Policies; • DCIPS Evaluation and Performance Measures; • DCIPS Performance Management System; • Equity Analysis; and • Band-like Compensation Structure.

Taken together, these focus areas provided the framework for the analysis of DCIPS’ design, as well as the Panel’s assessment of the progress and challenges OUSD(I) faces in refocusing DCIPS to achieve the goals of the SECDEF Action Plan. A key focus of the Phase II review was advising and assisting HCMO staff in its efforts to reshape DCIPS to become a comprehensive Human Resources (HR) system with common policies and procedures that support the full life cycle of workforce management. To ensure that the review provides meaningful feedback to OUSD(I), the Academy Panel focused on assessing the extent to which DCIPS is evolving to support the goal of reinforcing a performance culture founded on increased communication, collaboration, and information sharing. The Academy Study Team completed a significant amount of additional background research to assist the HCMO staff in identifying potential, long-term changes in DCIPS’ design. The results of that research were presented in the form of white papers identifying options and alternatives for OUSD(I)’s consideration. The white papers are presented here as Supplemental Materials that accompany the final report.

• White Paper #1. Building a Performance Culture in the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. Draws upon on relevant literature to describe the dimensions of a performance culture and potential steps for building such a culture in the Defense Intelligence Enterprise.

• White Paper #2. Strategies to Increase Leadership Engagement in DCIPS addresses

the need and offers strategies to help engage leaders across the Components who are


vi

ultimately responsible for implementing DCIPS.

• White Paper #3. Integrating Knowledge Management into Performance Management explores approaches for leveraging established DCIPS policies and procedures to encourage greater collaboration through knowledge management within the Defense Intelligence Enterprise.

• White Paper #4. Strategies for Recognizing and Rewarding Organizational, Group, and Team Performance offers some potential approaches and options for strengthening team and organizational rewards as part of DCIPS’ performance management and recognition programs. This paper also provides some preliminary input for HCMO as it further explores the role that groups and teams play groups play in supporting the Intelligence Community value of collaboration.

• White Paper #5. Options for Revising the DCIPS Performance Elements offers options for revising the DCIPS performance elements to ensure that their impact in the overall performance evaluation process is appropriate and balanced.

The following white papers were provided as “thought pieces” for future consideration by OUSD(I) as it proceeds to refocus DCIPS to align it with the SECDEF Action Plan. The intent is that these papers be given consideration as HCMO seeks ways to strengthen DCIPS to ensure that it aligns with the original goals of the system and that these papers offer support in identifying design features that support the broader goals and values of the Intelligence Community, especially fostering increased communication, collaboration, and information sharing.

.


1

WHITE PAPER #1 BUILDING A PERFORMANCE CULTURE

IN THE DEFENSE INTELLGENCE ENTERPRISE In transitioning from pay bands to grades, OUSD(I) has made it a primary goal of the communications strategy to convey that “performance still matters” in DCIPS. As this system evolves, DCIPS will be a key tool in building a “performance culture” in the Defense Intelligence Enterprise—a culture in which the entire workforce is actively aligned with the mission of the organization, where transparency and accountability are the norm, new insights are acted upon in unison, and conflicts are resolved positively and effectively.1 The DCIPS Change Management Plan makes clear that reinforcing a culture of performance among the DCIPS Components will require that employees and managers alike understand this goal and what it means for the Enterprise and their own performance. Establishing a common understanding of what constitutes a “performance culture” is a critical first step in gaining the workforce’s commitment to this effort; however, OUSD(I) will need to explain this concept in greater detail if it is to resonate with the workforce more deeply. This white paper draws on relevant literature to describe the dimensions of a performance culture and potential steps for building such a culture in the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. COMMON DIMENSIONS OF A PERFORMANCE CULTURE The term “performance culture” has gained increased usage, particularly in the government environment, to describe an organization in which high performance is a top priority.2 Many studies have explored what characteristics distinguish high-performing or performance-driven organizations. Though there have been many descriptions of performance culture in the relevant literature, many discussions of the concept share a common set of characteristics that together comprise a holistic system, as listed below:3

1 Source offered by OUSD(I): Howard Dresner, definition offered in Profiles in Performance: Business Intelligence Journeys and the Roadmap for Change. www.howarddresner.com. 2 Risher, Howard. "Fostering a Performance-Driven Culture in the Public Sector." The Public Manager Fall 2007: 51-56. Web. http://www.thepublicmanager.org/docs_articles/current/Vol36,2007/Vol36,Issue03/Vol36N3_FosteringaPerformance_Risher.pdf. 3 This list of dimensions is compiled from Risher 2007 and the following sources: Lear, Gary. "The Dynamics of High Performing Organizations." Resource Development Systems LLC, 2009. Web. http://www.rds-net.com/articles/The%20Dynamics%20of%20High%20Performing%20Organizations%202009.pdf. Rice, Christopher. "Driving Long-Term Engagement through a High-Performance Culture." BlessingWhite, 2007. Web. http://www.blessingwhite.com/content/articles/DrivingLongTermEngagementThroughaHighPerformanceCulture08.pdf.

http://www.thepublicmanager.org/docs_articles/current/Vol36,2007/Vol36,Issue03/Vol36N3_FosteringaPerformance_Risher.pdf

http://www.thepublicmanager.org/docs_articles/current/Vol36,2007/Vol36,Issue03/Vol36N3_FosteringaPerformance_Risher.pdf

http://www.rds-net.com/articles/The%20Dynamics%20of%20High%20Performing%20Organizations%202009.pdf

http://www.blessingwhite.com/content/articles/DrivingLongTermEngagementThroughaHighPerformanceCulture08.pdf

http://www.blessingwhite.com/content/articles/DrivingLongTermEngagementThroughaHighPerformanceCulture08.pdf


2

Table 1. Common Dimensions of a Performance Culture

Dimension Description

Top leadership commitment to the organization’s mission and values

Leaders communicate and reinforce a clear sense of the organization’s purpose, which helps drive workforce motivation. Achieving this vocal commitment starts at the top of the organization and requires two primary efforts of senior leaders: 1) articulation of the organization’s values and mission in clear, concrete terms; and 2) complete synchronization among senior leaders when delivering messages to the workforce.4 Conversely, a disjointed communication effort will not successfully cascade through the organization, and workers will receive mixed messages, which could threaten trust among the workforce.

Alignment of all employees to the organization’s mission

The workforce is able to see clearly how their work contributes to the organization’s success. This link can be established by cascading goals from senior leaders to the lower levels of the organization, giving employees even at lower levels or in support functions a direct line of sight of the impact of their performance on the organization.

Recognition and accountability for individual and organizational performance

Managers recognize and reward good performance and address issues of poor performance, with the ultimate goal of creating a sense of accountability not only for one’s own performance, but also for the success of one’s team and the organization as a whole. Leaders also hold managers accountable for the performance of their people; however, this accountability can only be built through clear communication and ongoing dialogue between employees and managers.

Employee engagement Organizational leaders work to engage the workforce and engender a sense of emotional commitment to and ownership of the mission. An employee’s level of engagement depends on many factors in the organization, from system-level processes and policies to senior leadership; however, line managers are most often cited as having the largest impact on an employee’s feeling of engagement. Effective practices to obtain this engagement include the following:5 Offering opportunities for two-way communication in

which managers deliver information to employees, and employees are able to provide feedback;

4 Rice, 2007 5 Rice, 2007


3

Dimension Description

Staying “on message” about the organization’s values and

mission, and constantly connecting decisions back to the values and mission; and

Crafting communications to appeal to employees’ feeling of commitment to the organization, e.g., by telling stories illustrating the mission in action.

Collaboration and information sharing

Different components of the organization work with one another to solve problems, share information, and connect knowledge between those who have it and those who need it. Having this dimension enables an organization to act swiftly on insights or intelligence, to leverage resources to achieve operational efficiencies and programmatic effectiveness. Although technology can be used as an enabler of greater collaboration, traditional forms of collaboration can be highly effective as well. These include cross-component working groups, programs to detail employees to different components of the organization, and conferences and meetings. Strengthening collaboration and information sharing has been at the center of change efforts in the IC, particularly those enacted by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA). The DCIPS performance management system emphasizes the value of collaboration to the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. Among the performance elements established for the IC, employees are evaluated on their ability to “recognize, value, build, and leverage collaborative and constructive networks of diverse coworkers, peers, customers, stakeholders, and team within an organization and/or across the IC to share knowledge and achieve results.”6

Investment in talent development and learning

Employees and managers are given the coaching, tools and training to continuously improve, and the most qualified people are promoted.

It is important to note that these dimensions are interdependent, working in concert to comprise a holistic system that is highly visible to the organization’s workforce. An effort to reinforce a performance culture should address each of these dimensions, avoiding “point solutions” that do

6 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, U.S. Department of Defense. IC Performance Standards. 23 Apr. 2009. Web. http://dcips.dtic.mil/documents/IC_Performance_Standards_23Apr09_Final.pdf.


4

not reflect a systemic approach.7 Any gaps that may exist are likely to be evident to employees. For example, if leaders express commitment to reinforcing a collaborative work environment but lack mechanisms to recognize collaborative efforts and team success, this could send mixed signals to the workforce, thereby undermining the effort to strengthen performance. EMPHASIZING COLLABORATION AS THE FOUNDATION OF PERFORMANCE CULTURE In applying these dimensions to its own concept of performance culture, OUSD(I) should consider the imperative for collaboration and information sharing in the Intelligence Community as a critical factor in enabling mission success. Although OUSD(I)’s description of performance culture reflects many of the dimensions previously outlined, this concept should be tailored to emphasize those factors that most directly impact mission performance in the Defense Intelligence Enterprise—chief among them the need for information sharing, communication, and collaboration across Components. Placing this imperative at the center of the effort to reinforce a performance culture will connect this effort to the mission and will likely resonate with employees and managers in DCIPS. REINFORCING A PERFORMANCE CULTURE IN DCIPS As the dynamics of a culture can vary greatly from organization to organization, many change management experts stress the need to obtain a baseline assessment of the organizational culture on each of the dimensions described above when building a stronger emphasis on performance.8 Having a clear understanding of the workforce’s current perspectives on performance at the outset allows one to set informed goals and strategies for the change, measure success, and leverage what is currently working well in the organization. Such an assessment typically involves interviews, surveys, and focus groups intended to explore the workforce’s views on performance. OUSD(I) has conducted a number of these activities in preparing to transition to a graded structure, and should consider mining data from these efforts as a means to assess the workforce’s current views on performance. As with any large-scale change, when beginning an initiative to strengthen the focus on performance, it is critical to engage managers early and often as champions of the change and as sources of information from the workforce upward. In engaging leaders across the Defense Intelligence Enterprise, OUSD(I) should consider venues or mechanisms to bring cross-functional leaders and managers together from across the Defense Intelligence Enterprise to both inform and engage them in reinforcing the performance culture. Noted performance expert Howard Risher states that, “leaders across the organization need to explain, in most cases repeatedly, why the new practices are necessary, how they will benefit the organization, and how they will affect employees—beating the drums to convince people change is

7 Hay Group. Engage Employees and Boost Performance. Working Paper. Hay Group, 2001. Web. http://www.haygroup.com/downloads/us/Engaged_Performance_120401.pdf. 8 Rice, p. 4


5

necessary.”9Obtaining this level of commitment from managers will require senior leaders to emphasize the importance of performance to managers; in addition, preparing managers to take on this key role may require emphasizing and encouraging managerial behaviors that contribute to employee engagement, including coaching and offering feedback. Some organizations have conducted a managerial styles inventory, which collects employee feedback on supervisory performance, as a way to assess what styles managers are using effectively, as well as those areas in which additional training or communications may be required.10 CONCLUSION Building or reinforcing a culture of performance in an organization requires more than recognizing employee achievements, implementing well-designed review processes, and communicating the new emphasis on performance—it calls for addressing cultural and behavioral issues in the organization’s orientation toward performance. Beyond structural concerns, fostering a performance culture is ultimately dependent upon the day-to-day practices of managers and supervisors.11 Therefore, obtaining the commitment of these individuals is one of the most important factors in reinforcing a performance culture in the Defense Intelligence Enterprise.

9 Risher, p. 55 10 Hay Group, p. 10-12 11 Risher, p. 56


6



7

WHITE PAPER #2

STRATEGIES TO INCREASE LEADERSHIP ENGAGEMENT IN DCIPS

As OUSD(I) plans for the upcoming change associated with further implementation of DCIPS, the role of leaders remains a key issue with the National Academy Panel. As noted in the Phase I report, leaders and managers throughout the components must be actively committed and engaged as DCIPS moves forward. During the initial phase of the upcoming DCIPS implementation, leaders and managers across the Intelligence Enterprise are recipients, or an “audience” of messaging from OUSD(I). After they gain awareness and understanding, they then become the change managers, responsible for delivering the message and demonstrating their commitment to their workforces. The responsibility for achieving the desired change—the successful implementation of DCIPS—ultimately falls to these internal change managers.

The change management literature, including Alternative Personnel Systems Objectives-Based Assessment Framework (OPM Framework),12 highlights the criticality of both visible engagement of leaders and communication about the change.13 Leaders still struggle, however, with identifying and employing specific strategies that demonstrate their commitment to promoting the change.

This paper addresses this need, and offers strategies to help engage leaders across the Components who are ultimately responsible for implementing DCIPS and bringing about the desired change. The suggestions address:

1. Venues or mechanisms that OUSD(I) may employ to bring cross-functional leaders and managers together from across the Intelligence Enterprise to both inform and engage them in the implementation, and

2. Approaches to framing the content of communications that leaders and managers can use to facilitate the implementation of DCIPS.

COMMUNICATION MECHANISMS

All managers across the Intelligence Enterprise have a stake in the success of DCIPS. OUSD(I) has stated that DCIPS is a management system that supports the full life cycle of workforce management, and is not merely an “HR” or “performance management” system. To reinforce this perspective and achieve the buy-in of those who will ultimately use it, the change management approach must include mechanisms to engage all component leaders and managers. Because the Intelligence Enterprise is so diverse and geographically dispersed, the change management and communications approach requires some creativity in reaching out to this audience.

12 The Alternative Personnel Systems Objectives-Based Assessment Framework formed the basis of the Phase I DCIPS evaluation of DCIPS’ implementation, and elements of the Framework are incorporated into the Phase II Verification and Validation Framework. 13 Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: HarvardBusinessSchool Press; Kotter, J. and Cohen, D. (2002). The Heart of Change. Boston: HarvardBusinessSchool Press; Stragalas, N. (2010). Improving change implementation: Practical adaptations of Kotter’s Model. O.D. Practitioner, 42(1), 31-38.


8

Joint working groups among the components are potential avenues for delivering the broader message about DCIPS. A number of groups already exist that bring leaders and managers from the various components together to address a variety of issues. The Defense Intelligence Human Resources Board (DIHRB) is one mechanism that OUSD(I) has used to communication DCIPS developments and gain cross-component support. The DIHRB, however, is comprised primarily of HR professionals14, which perpetuates the perception that DCIPS is an HR issue.

OUSD(I) must reach a broader audience of Intelligence Enterprise leaders to effectively position DCIPS as a robust workforce management tool. At the present time, a number of cross-component groups and other opportunities exist within the Intelligence Enterprise that OUSD(I) can engage to share this message. These opportunities include:

The Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), comprised of component directors from security and related functions within the Defense Intelligence Enterprise, who meet periodically with the Under Secretary.

The Directors of Combat Support within DoD who meet periodically on a broad range of defense issues.

The Deputy Executive Committee (DEXCOM), comprised of deputy directors from agencies within the Intelligence Community (including CIA and ODNI) who meet periodically to review key mission, program, and management challenges.

The Secretary of Defense’s weekly staff meetings with DoD top leadership.

The members of these groups—the most senior executives across DoD—are critical stakeholders in DCIPS’ success and set the stage for its wider adoption within their organizations. OUSD(I) is already a member of many of these groups and may request the opportunity to present DCIPS related matters during a scheduled meetings.

The ODNI also hosts several cross-component meetings at levels below the executive ranks, and most occupational groups conduct meetings with their counterparts from across the Intelligence Enterprise. For example, ODNI has hosted a quarterly meeting of Public Affairs managers with the purpose of networking and exchanging information. This type of venue provides another opportunity to reach beyond the HR community to convey information and engage managers in the implementation of DCIPS. The National Academy urges OUSD(I) to identify more of these groups and reach out to them as part of its overall change management and communication approach.

STRUCTURING COMMUNICATIONS

Component leaders and managers are the change agents in DCIPS implementation efforts. They have the responsibility of sharing the message about the value of DCIPS, as well as ensuring that actions are taken in the workplace to implement the system. While change management principles emphasize the importance of both engaged leadership and solid communication in change efforts,15 assistance is needed to help these stakeholders effectively craft their messages

14 Composition of the DIRHB is primarily Chief Human Capital Officers from the components, with the exception of the services, which often send their deputies for Intelligence. 15See Kotter and Kotter & Cohen.


9

and achieve the desired outcome. Successful change is ultimately a product of conversations: between OUSD(I) and component leaders, and among leaders, managers and the component workforces.

OUSD(I) can structure its conversations with component leaders, and this structure can then be applied within each component as leaders and managers engage with their staffs. Ford and Ford16 identified four distinctly different types of conversations that drive change. OUSD(I) may use these to frame its communications:

1) Initiative conversations—which serve to introduce new ideas or alternatives to current practices;

2) Conversations for understanding—that provide opportunities to add clarity, raise questions, elaborate and more fully understand the change;

3) Conversations for performance—that are specifically designed to generate actions and results. These conversations are requests/promises for specific commitments with both deadlines and expected results; and

4) Conversations for closure—which serve to close the loop on those commitments, review the status of any open items, and discuss the results of completed actions.

The third type—conversations for performance—is especially critical in managing change and provides an opportunity to involve leaders in moving DCIPS forward. These are specific “calls for action” that are a mechanism to fully engage component leaders and demonstrate their commitment. The conversations for closure are important during the later stages of implementation, and provide a means for holding managers accountable to fulfilling their responsibilities in adopting DCIPS.

Based on the observations of the National Academy, the majority of communications conducted thus far by OUSD(I) have been of the first type: briefings that introduced the features of DCIPS, emphasized its “newness,” and compared it to previous systems.17 Town hall meetings and other group sessions with the components—which were presented as conversations for understanding—again focused more on introducing DCIPS to the workforce. These also took a more top-down approach to conveying information, rather than engaging in a deeper dialogue that is more characteristic of conversations for understanding.

As OUSD(I) prepares its Change Management and Communications Plan, the National Academy urges that it employ this structure and develop a variety of communications that move beyond merely informing to action and accountability. Such communications might include:

Briefings to introduce the “new” DCIPS, with messaging about its intended outcome (including a clear definition of “performance culture”), a high-level discussion of the key features or selling points of DCIPS compared to previous systems, and a clear case for the change.

16 Ford & Ford (2008) Conversational Profiles: A tool for altering the conversational patterns of change managers. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(4), 445-467. 17 During the initial implementation comparisons were between the various systems used among the components and the banded structure; the latest comparisons are between the banded structure and the new GG-structure.


10

Meetings to discuss questions, concerns, features of DCIPS as they relate to the mission of each component. Tailor the discussion to agency leaders to convey how DCIPS is not just an HR system, but has broader value to their organizations.

Meetings specifically designed as “calls for action” that result in leadership commitments of resources, schedules and actions.

Periodic status sessions to report on progress toward and outcomes of those commitments.

In addition, the National Academy suggests that OUSD(I) advocate that Component leaders use this approach as they conduct similar types of discussions within their agencies. This type of structure is appropriate for discussions between component leaders and managers, and between managers and their staffs. The variety of conversations—particularly those that emphasize personal commitments and results—are critical to engage all levels of the workforce in the success of DCIPS and reduce resistance to the change.18

CONCLUSION

The suggestions offered here address two key elements in effective leadership engagement during change: opportunities to reach out to the leaders and frameworks to guide the conversations. The National Academy encourages OUSD(I) to consider these suggestions as it finalizes its implementation planning and undertakes efforts to develop a broad base of active support.

18 See Ford & Ford.


11

WHITE PAPER #3

ENCOURAGING KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the need to strengthen collaboration in the Intelligence Community (IC) has been a chief recommendation from intelligence reform efforts. This imperative was one of the core purposes of the National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program (NICCP), which established a set of overarching principles for personnel systems in the IC. Within this framework, the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) was created in an effort to develop a unified, performance-based human resources system for multiple intelligence agencies within the Department of Defense (DoD). As a result of a decision made by the Secretary of Defense, DCIPS is currently transitioning from a pay-banded system into a GS-like structure; however, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSD(I)), which manages DCIPS, has made clear that supporting a collaborative and performance-driven culture remains the primary goal of DCIPS.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AS AN ELEMENT OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Given the failure to “connect the dots” has often been cited as the primary challenge in the IC, a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration, which has been engaged to advise in the transition, has suggested exploring how knowledge management practices might help encourage collaboration and information-sharing within the DCIPS performance management system.19

Effective intelligence operations depend on connecting tacit knowledge (the “know-how” based on one’s intuition and personal experience) with explicit knowledge (an individual’s “know-what” based on conscious expertise) within the enterprise. In practice, this dynamic may take the form of a headquarters-based intelligence analyst communicating with an in-country specialist or intelligence gatherer. However, knowledge sharing in the U.S. intelligence system is difficult primarily because of the size of the IC. For example, few analysts come to know cultural specialists, and this lack of a personal dimension can result in an absence of trust. Rotational assignments, which are typically used in other lines of work to acquaint employees with other parts of the enterprise, are difficult because intelligence work involves radically different—and sometimes dangerous—types of work.

It is ultimately very difficult to measure knowledge sharing as it would occur in a conventional performance management system. This is because the evaluation of the information shared is inherently subjective, and the activities involved in sharing information cannot guarantee any 19The views contained in this paper rely heavily on the insights obtained from an in-depth interview with one Academy Panel member, Dr. Elaine Kamarck, who is currently Lecturer in Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.


12

particular outcome. These difficulties confound efforts to encourage and incentivize knowledge sharing from a conventional performance management approach. In fact, efforts to punish the lack of sharing or collaboration would likely cause employees to react by sharing everything, thereby creating an unmanageable amount of information to analyze.

Instead of installing metrics for knowledge sharing, some have suggested that performance management systems should focus on rewarding those collaborative activities that would tend to increase the probability of a positive outcome. Thus, instead of evaluating an employee’s performance based on the number of times he/she contributes to a shared database, one might recognize a manager for encouraging collaboration among a team. It is also key that these knowledge-sharing activities be inter-disciplinary to leverage different types of knowledge. For example, such a program should recognize the connection between an intelligence gatherer and a cultural specialist or analyst as opposed to the connection between two analysts in the same office.

RECOGNIZING KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN DCIPS

Several opportunities exist for leveraging established DCIPS processes to encourage greater collaboration and knowledge sharing within the IC. Though information sharing may not be measured and evaluated as a performance objective, the performance element titled “Engagement and Collaboration” offers one potential way for DCIPS to recognize and reward collaborative activities. However, it is critical that this element be clearly explained to ensure employees and supervisors understand how they are expected to perform. Further, this element would need to emphasize that high performance entails inter-disciplinary knowledge sharing.

The use of awards and recognition programs offers another opportunity for encouraging knowledge sharing in DCIPS. Recognizing managers whose teams perform well and share knowledge effectively would not only reward that manager and his/her team, but would also highlight the imperative to collaborate for other managers and teams throughout the Enterprise. Team-based rewards and recognition programs may also be used for a similar purpose.

OTHER RESOURCES ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Several organizations within the Department of Defense have established policies regarding the use and sharing of knowledge, and some have launched initiatives or offices that exist to encourage the sharing of information across the agency. The National Academy Study Team has identified knowledge management programs at the U.S. Army20 and U.S. Navy,21 both of which have been established to enhance the transfer of information for combat purposes.

20 Army Knowledge Online: http://ako.ahp.us.army.mil/ 21 Navy Knowledge Online: https://wwwa.nko.navy.mil/portal/home/

http://ako.ahp.us.army.mil/

https://wwwa.nko.navy.mil/portal/home/


13

Going forward, as OUSD(I) continues to revise the performance management system, consideration should be given to reinforcing the use of the tools that are available to foster increased knowledge sharing across the Enterprise.


14



15

WHITE PAPER #4

STRATEGIES FOR RECOGNIZING AND REWARDING ORGANIZATIONAL, GROUP, AND TEAM PERFORMANCE

Department of Defense policy states that the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) will be consistent with human resources strategies, policies, programs and processes established by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).22 Under the DNI’s National Intelligence Civilian Compensation Program, the case for modernizing compensation is based on a tiered set of objectives. The first objective is to “Strengthen and Transform the Intelligence Community.” This objective specifically establishes for the Intelligence Community (IC) the institutional values of “Commitment, Courage, and Collaboration” and calls on agencies to “reinforce and recognize employees who excel and exhibit these values.”23

In implementing DCIPS, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USDI) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), have stressed the need for collaboration, teamwork, and sharing information and knowledge in supporting important intelligence missions. According to the original DCIPS Program Implementation Plan, the business case for implementing DCIPS is grounded in the need to increase sharing and collaboration for the purpose of developing a stronger “community perspective.” More recently, James Clapper, former USD(I) and now Director of National Intelligence, stated in a September 18, 2010, memorandum to IC civilian employees on IC pay modernization, “we will focus our efforts on improving our performance management processes and looking for ways to use GS-like incentives (bonuses, quality step increases, etc.) to pay for performance. We will explore the feasibility of creating new incentive authorities…” Mr. Clapper concluded this memorandum by stating, “We must leverage our performance management system to achieve organizational results and mission objectives through effective management of individual and team performance.”

PURPOSE OF THIS WHITE PAPER

In discussions with OUSD(I)’s Human Capital Management Office (HCMO), the Academy Study Team agreed to conduct initial research and provide some ideas and concepts on how DCIPS might be strengthened by providing mechanisms for recognizing and rewarding group and organizational achievement. The purpose of this paper is to present the Team’s initial findings as well as some potential approaches and options for strengthening team and organizational rewards as part of DCIPS’ performance management and recognition programs. This paper is also intended as preliminary input for use by HCMO in future exploration on the role that employee groups play in supporting the Enterprise-wide value of collaboration and to aid OUSD(I) in developing mechanisms to incentivize and recognize the type of team and organizational performance that contributes to mission success.

22 DOD Directive Number 1400.35 dated September 24, 2007 (incorporating change 1 September 1, 2009), “Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS),” Section 4.1 and 4.2.4. 23 ODNI, NICCP Framework.


16

CURRENT DCIPS POLICIES

To date, designing and implementing DCIPS, has focused on the effective management and recognition of individual performance. This has been a major challenge given decisions to first link increases in employee base pay to performance ratings in a pay banding structure and then, more recently, to undo the link and return to a GS-like graded structure – while attempting to preserve pay for performance through alternative mechanisms such as rating-driven employee bonuses and quality step increase awards. Although the focus on preserving pay for performance by rewarding high performing individuals through the bonus and incentive awards process is significant and appropriate, it in and of itself, cannot recognize the full spectrum of performance achievements within the Enterprise nor fully encourage the IC values of collaboration and teamwork that are so vital to establishing a community perspective supportive of IC mission success. To do this, attention must also be paid to management and rewarding of team, group and organizational performance.

This omission was recognized by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in its June 2010 report entitled, “The Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System: An Independent Assessment of Design, Implementation and Impact.” That report indicated that although DCIPS “…does not preclude the assessment of group or organizational performance, OUSD(I) has not yet developed procedures for evaluating and rewarding these types of performance…” The report noted that some Academy panel members and colloquia attendees expressed strong concerns about this aspect of the system’s design and feared that DCIPS might inhibit collaboration by encouraging individual performance at the expense of team achievement.24 The report also noted a 2006 study by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Designing an Effective Pay for Performance Compensation System”) indicating that, “rewarding only individuals when mutual support helps advance organizational goals may discourage teamwork…to the organization’s detriment.”25 In keeping with these concerns, the NAPA report’s recommendations section dealing with the design of DCIPS listed as a recommendation:

Recommendation 2. OUSD(I) should review and assess models for measuring and rewarding team and organizational performance under DCIPS to ensure alignment with the IC’s broad goals.26

In its meeting of November 2, 2010, the NAPA DCIPS Phase II Panel again raised the issue of how DCIPS could better encourage collaboration and teamwork, including what type of methodologies and mechanisms could be used to recognize and reward team and group achievements that contribute to meeting organizational goals and supporting mission success. The OUSD(I) representatives at the Panel meeting agreed that more work needs to be done in designing DCIPS to evaluate and recognize team and organizational performance that enhances collaboration and contributes to mission success. However, they t indicated that the primary focus of their current work is refocusing performance management dealing with individual

24 NAPA Report, The Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System: An Independent Assessment of Design, Implementation and Impact, June 2010, p. 30. 25 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Designing an Effective Pay for Performance Compensation System, January 2006, p. 11. 26 NAPA Report, p. 110.


17

performance in light of the SECDEF decision to de-link based pay increases from performance ratings and return to a GS-like performance management system.

Generally speaking, current DCIPS policies governing performance management and performance-based pay (Policy Volumes 2011 and 2012) as well as awards and recognition (Policy Volume 2008) include very little guidance on team or organizational performance and rewards. The system’s standard performance element “Engagement and Collaboration” provides a means of measuring and rating individual employee performance in such areas as building relationships and promoting collaboration, but there is no comparable means of evaluating teams, groups or the organization as a whole. Further, there appears to be no current provision for incorporating funding for team or organizational performance recognition into pay pools established for DCIPS.

In the area of incentive awards, Policy Volume 2008 does permit the use of monetary and non-monetary awards to reward special achievements, superior accomplishments, and other extraordinary contributions of individuals as well as teams at any time. However, beyond mention of allowing team recognition, DCIPS policy on incentive awards does not provide any specific criteria or parameters for granting these awards nor specify any Enterprise-wide team or organizational award categories or guidance on how to measure or reward special achievements by groups or organizations.

BENCHMARKING WITHIN THE PUBLIC SECTOR

In researching these issues, the Academy Study Team searched for policies in other federal establishments that provide performance related recognition to teams, groups and organizations as part of a performance management and employee recognition program. In general, most agencies, similar to DCIPS, provide for team, group and/or organizational recognition under their incentive awards programs for both monetary and non-monetary awards. In most cases, however, little in the way of specific guidance or criteria are provided on the appropriate granting or size of such monetary awards other than applying the agency’s standard table specifying the minimum and maximum dollar ranges of awards that can be granted for given levels of special achievement or accomplishment. The Team’s research did identify some agency policies and practices that seek to promote the use and recognition of high performing groups as part of ongoing performance management and/or employee awards programs. These policies and practices are summarized below.

1. Non-Monetary Awards and Recognition Aligned with Agency Missions

In some cases, agencies have established special non-monetary team awards with corresponding eligibility criteria that align closely with their missions. Examples include:

• The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Units Citation Award - a group award recognizing employees in NOAA who, through their individual and


18

collective efforts, have made substantive contributions to the programs or objectives for which NOAA was established.27

• The U.S. Marshall Service’s Distinguished Group Award for outstanding achievement of teams and groups of employees in the line of duty.28

• The Air Force’s Chief of Staff Team Excellence Awards that recognize teams that use a systematic approach to enhance mission capability, improve operational performance, and create sustained results.29

• The Secretary of Energy's Achievement Award – bestowed upon a group or team of DOE employees (and contractors as applicable) who together accomplished significant achievements on behalf of the Department. These groups should demonstrate cooperation and teamwork in attaining their goals.30

• The National Intelligence Achievement Medal that recognizes a single exceptional contribution to the IC and the United States by an individual or group of individuals. The DoD Components with DCIPS positions may participate in this IC awards programs to recognize distinguished service or exceptional contributions to the IC within and beyond the Department of Defense.31

• Guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security dealing with employee recognition states, in part, “components may create awards that recognize the benefits of cross component cooperation and teamwork in meeting individual component goals, and by extension, the overall goals and objectives of the Department.”32

These types of non-monetary group, team and organizational awards can contribute to the goal of enhancing teamwork and cooperation among agency employees and contributing to a total rewards strategy.

2. Monetary Awards and Performance-Based Compensation

On a government-wide basis, agency lump sum cash awards are heavily skewed towards those granted to individuals as opposed to groups as shown in the following graph compiled by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). As reflected in the data, agencies have remained relatively consistent in the extent to which they grant lump sum cash awards to individuals vs. groups in recent years. These individual and group cash awards consist of both rating-based awards (i.e., performance bonuses) and awards for specific accomplishments (often referred to as special act or service incentive awards). Even though cash award amounts granted to individuals far exceed those granted to groups, the data compiled by OPM indicate that agencies, on the

27U.S. Department of Commerce, Performance Management System Handbook, Non-Monetary Awards, January 2010. 28 U.S. Marshall Service, Awards Policy Directive, Director’s Non-Monetary Awards, November 2009. 29U.S. Air Force, Personnel Instruction 36-28, Awards and Decoration, January 2004. 30U.S. Department of Energy Directive 331, Employee Performance Management and Recognition Program, October 2010. 31 ODNI Intelligence Community Directive No. 655, Intelligence Community Awards, May 2007. 32 Department of Homeland Security, Directive No. 255-02, Employee Recognition, October 2010.


19

whole, do make significant use of group (e.g., team and organizational) awards as part of their performance management and employee recognition programs.

Armed with this data, the Academy Study Team was able to identify some agencies that actively promote the use of group awards and recognition as part of their performance management and monetary compensation programs.

A. Group and Organizational Awards at the Department of Commerce

One good example of effective use of group and organizational awards can be found at the Department of Commerce, an agency that has devoted a good portion of its incentive awards policy guidance to these types of awards, including specifying various types of group awards such as gainsharing, goalsharing, and team awards (see Appendix A for detailed Commerce guidance). Commerce guidance stresses, in part: “In highly productive organizations, individual employee contributions to the success of a project may often be made as part of a team. Teams are a way of organizing people to support interdependence and cooperation…” The guidance goes on to recognize, “As more organizations are using teams to accomplish work, management is faced with the challenge of developing mechanisms to acknowledge both the accomplishment of the team's efforts and the contributions of its individual members.”33

One of the most promising features of Commerce’s awards program is their allowance for goalsharing among groups and organizations. Goalsharing is an approach to incentive awards that can extend to virtually all groups of federal employees. It helps unify employees in the accomplishment of the organization’s mission and requires teamwork, pride in service, better communication and higher quality service. In Commerce’s policy the events that trigger 33 Commerce, Performance Management System Handbook, Recognition, Section 8

http://www.opm.gov/perform/CashAwds2007/AltText-TypeComparison


20

goalsharing awards are not limited to work that is measurable using production and cost formulas. Instead, awards are triggered by reaching a wide variety of goals established for the group or the organization as a whole. Progress toward the goals must be measurable, but the measurements can include qualitative data and assessments such as information from customer surveys and project reviewers.34

B. Goalsharing Program at the General Services Administration

When the General Services Administration's (GSA) Realty Services Division was reorganized in 1995, it established a goalsharing type award program that balanced individual and team recognition, linked performance measures to strategic goals, and provided feedback to employees on their team and organizational performance. GSA used a cross-sectional team of employees to design the system. The team recommended that all of the monies normally set aside for rating-based and other incentive awards be combined and two new categories of awards be used. The team determined that 70 percent of the total award funds would be allocated for Category I awards, the quarterly group goalsharing payouts from which every employee would benefit. The remaining 30 percent of the funds were earmarked for Category II awards, which would allow supervisors to recognize individuals and teams with cash awards for extraordinary effort and accomplishments throughout the year. Monies not spent for Category I could be shifted to Category II, but could not be used for other expenses such as travel or supplies. Using the GSA strategic plan, the team developed four goals; customer satisfaction, timeliness, cost effectiveness, and program efficiency. Measurable standards were established for each goal. Payouts were determined based on a formula that included weighted goals and the number of teams meeting each goal. The design team also determined that feedback should be provided by posting performance results where all employees would have access to them. This would allow employees to track how well the teams and the organization were performing against the established goals.35

C. Organizational and Team Recognition Mechanism at the Department of Defense

As another example of team and organizational recognition, the National Security Personnel System within the Department of Defense established the Organizational and/or Team Achievement Recognition (OAR) Award. OAR is an award funded outside the pay pool to recognize teams, organizations, or branches whose contributions successfully advanced organizational goals. The OAR can be an increase to base salary, bonus, or combination of both. The amount of the OAR payment cannot cause an employee’s base salary to exceed the maximum rate of the employee’s pay band or any applicable control point, unless the criteria for exceeding the control point are met. Recipients must have rating of record of Valued Performer (Level 3) or higher. The pay pool manager must approve the award. If recipients reside in more than one pay pool, the pay pool manager who oversees the pay pool to which the majority of the recipients of the award belong will make a recommendation.36

34 Ibid. 35 U.S. Office of Personnel Management website, Goal Sharing: A GSA Experience, http://www.opm.gov/perform/articles/111.asp, February 1998. 36 Department of Defense, National Security Personnel System website, http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/nspsconnect/hrg_pay_t070_s040_exp_pbpconotherpayvfinal.html, September 2008.

http://www.opm.gov/perform/articles/111.asp

http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/nspsconnect/hrg_pay_t070_s040_exp_pbpconotherpayvfinal.html


21

D. Performance Based Organizational and Individual Success Pay Increases at the Federal Aviation Administration

In 1996 Congress granted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) numerous personnel flexibilities outside of Title 5 to allow it to establish a market sensitive, flexible and competitive human resources program in line with its mission. In the area of pay, the FAA has designed and implemented a “core compensation system” that features several key components including being market, performance, and accountability-based with pay setting flexibility within broad pay bands. All non-executive employee pay plans within FAA, including those covering unionized workers, contain pay for performance components that recognize both individual and organizational performance.37 Starting in 2004, FAA began implemented a strong performance-driven pay approach that combines assessments of both individual and organizational performance. The pool of money to fund FAA’s pay for performance systems was created by combining all the funds that would otherwise have been allocated to a general GS annual pay comparability increases, within grade increases (WIGI), and quality step increases (QSI). The pool of funds is divided and applied uniformly to all lines of business and staff offices within the FAA.

Under this system, employees are potentially eligible for two increases in base pay driven by performance: (1) an Organizational Success Increase (OSI) and (2) a Superior Contribution Increase (SCI). The OSI is the largest potential component of an FAA employee’s performance based payout in that the pool of funds for OSIs is comprised of funding that otherwise would have been allocated to a general GS annual pay comparability increase plus one percent (e.g., if the annual comparability increase is 2.5%, the OSI maximum payout would be 3.5%). Each year, the FAA Administrator makes a determination regarding whether or not to grant all agency employees an OSI based on whether and to what extent FAA has met its agency-wide mission goals (e.g., in areas such safety, security, system efficiency, and customer satisfaction). For example, the Administrator could determine that at least 90% of agency goals must be achieved for a 100% payout of OSI pay pool funds (which would amount to a 3.5% base pay increase using the above example). If less than 90% of goals are achieved, the Administrator determines what percentage, if any, of an OSI increase is appropriate.38

The second component of an employee’s performance-based pay increase is via the SCI. The pool of funds available to FAA organizations for SCIs is comprised of WIGI and QSI money. An employee can receive a maximum SCI increase (SCI 1) equal to 1.8% of base pay, a moderate SCI increase (SCI 2) equal to .6% of base pay, or no SCI increase. SCI 1 increases are limited to up to 20% of eligible employees while SCI 2 increases are limited to up to 45% of eligibles. In the annual consideration of employees, FAA managers apply the same performance competency assessment criteria to all employees:

• Collaboration

• Customer Service

• Impact on Organizational Success 37Watson Wyatt Worldwide, The Federal Aviation Administration: Strategic Review of Compensation Reform, Final Report, January 2006. 38 Ibid


22

• Management Leadership (for supervisors and managers only)

Under the SCI component, first level managers recommend and document employee performance against these criteria using a standardized “Contribution Assessment Decision Aid” tool. These recommendations are reviewed by higher level managers within the organization to ensure fairness and equity in application of the criteria.

The FAA Administrator sets the effective date for OSI/SCI pay increases each year. This date typically occurs at the start of the first pay period in January following the end of the performance year and to coincide with other federal wide pay adjustments. Taken together, the combination of the OSI and SCI constitute one of four potential base pay adjustment levels.

Type of Pay Increase Amount of Pay Increase

OSI plus SCI-1 (maximum) OSI amount plus 1.8% of base pay

OSI plus SCI-2 (moderate) OSI amount plus .6% of base pay

OSI but no SCI OSI amount

No OSI or SCI No pay increase

Further, for any employee to be eligible to receive an OSI and/or SCI, he or she must have at least 90 days of service at FAA, received at least a “meets expectation” performance rating and not have been the subject of a disciplinary or performance action for cause during the performance year in question. To the extent that an eligible employee’s current base pay is at his or her band maximum, the OSI and/or SCI will be paid as a lump sum.39

In addition to the above OSI and SCI performance driven base pay increases, FAA maintains programs to recognize individuals and groups of employees with non-monetary and lump sum cash incentive awards for special achievements that significantly exceed job expectations.

E. Group Recognition and Cash Awards at the Department of Energy

The Department of Energy’s performance management desk guide, in discussing group recognition, provides that when a cash award is granted to a group for superior accomplishments, the following requirements apply:

• The accomplishments must have substantially exceeded normal expectations for the group as a whole;

• All employees to whom the accomplishment or contribution is creditable, including a supervisor, may share in the award;

• A cash award may be divided in equal shares or allotted to each member in proportion to his or her share of credit for the contribution;

39 Ibid.


23

• Separate justifications for each member of the group must be included with the overall description of the accomplishment if the members of the group receive different dollar amounts; and

• The total amount of a cash award to a group should be based solely on the value of tangible and intangible benefits accruing from the contribution; the total amount of the award may not exceed the amount that would be authorized if the contribution had been made by one individual.40

F. OPM Guidance on Group Incentive Awards Programs

OPM’s website contains guidance for agencies considering the establishment of group incentive programs. According to OPM, group incentive programs can cover groups of employees as large as an entire agency or as small as a work unit or team. No matter how large or small the group, an incentive program, according to OPM, should include the following design features:

• Measurable Performance. Group incentive programs require reliable, accepted measures of performance. The program must express desired goals in terms of those measures. The measures can be quantitative or qualitative and are sometimes expressed in financial terms.

• Specified Performance Period. Group incentive programs must select a time frame to measure the group's performance, for example, annually or quarterly. Effective incentive programs ensure clear communication with employees about program time-frames and expectations.

• Threshold for Payments. Organizations should grant group incentives based on the goals established at the beginning of the performance period. Payouts are made at the end of the performance period each time a group meets or exceeds the established goal(s).

• Payout Formulas. Programs should have clear, understandable payout formulas. If the goal requires some kind of financial gain or savings, those savings usually are split between the agency and the employees. If the goal is to improve performance to a certain level, organizations should distribute funds specifically budgeted for the incentive program.

• Employee Participation. High involvement of employees and their representatives at all stages of program design and implementation increases the likelihood that they will understand and accept the program. Involving employees has the unique advantage of allowing them to understand the overall objectives of the organization as well as their specific role in meeting those objectives.

• Agency Commitment. Group incentives are powerful but time-consuming management tools. Organizations must commit to a high level of communication and participative

40U.S. Department of Energy, Performance Management Desk Guide, May 2004


24

management. The program's success depends on the level of upper-management support it receives.41

OPTIONAL APPROACHES FOR OUSD(I) CONSIDERATION

Based on the research presented here, the Academy Study Team concludes that models and related guidance do exist within the federal sector that potentially could be applied in revising DCIPS to more strongly recognize and reward teams, groups and organizations whose notable achievements help build and sustain a performance culture within the Enterprise and whose work exemplifies the values of collaboration and teamwork. The types of mechanisms that could be adopted are broad ranging and include both monetary and non-monetary recognition as well as lump sum cash awards and increases to base pay. Given the range of awards policies and mechanisms, we recommend that OUSD(I) consider the following types of optional approaches in strengthening DCIPS group, team and organizational recognition and rewards programs. These approaches (which are not all-inclusive by any means) could be pursued singularly or in a variety of combinations.

1. Establish Enterprise-wide non-monetary awards that recognize groups, teams and or organizations whose work significantly, directly and positively impact mission accomplishment within the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. Such awards would be granted by the USD(I)and be given out at an Enterprise-wide awards ceremony and publicized in employee newsletters and other communications. Nominations for such awards would be invited from agency components and be reviewed by a panel of high ranking and diverse officials selected by the Under Secretary from around the Enterprise. In designing such awards, OUSD(I) would be wise to benchmark DOD and ODNI programs (e.g., ODNI’s National Intelligence Achievement Medals) and establish award criteria that relates to Enterprise-wide mission goals and program priorities. As part of the design process, OUSD(I) would solicit input from components via the DIHRB, DCIPS Working Group, senior management councils, and/or directly from employees.

2. Establish a specific type of incentive cash award aimed at recognizing specific groups, teams and organizations whose work clearly goes above and beyond what is reasonably expected and has a substantial, measurable and positive impact on mission achievement within agency components or across organizations within the Enterprise. This type of award could be funded centrally by OUSD(I) or be dual funded by both components (for component-based awards) and OUSD(I) (for inter-component recognition). Funding would be established outside of pay pools and be used to pay lump sum incentive cash awards to recipients. In establishing such an award, OUSD(I) could give strong consideration to focusing the program on key Enterprise-wide mission priorities such as collaboration, teamwork, knowledge and information sharing, etc. OUSD(I) would establish a nomination process for Enterprise-wide awards and component based awards and set up a high-level and diverse panel to consider nominations. Award amounts should be substantial and awardees broadly recognized via an Enterprise-wide awards ceremonies, employee newsletters, etc.

41 U.S. Office of Personnel Management website, Keys to Effective Group Incentive Programs, http://www.opm.gov/perform/articles/2010/Article1.asp, 2010.

http://www.opm.gov/perform/articles/2010/Article1.asp


25

3. Establish an Enterprise-wide goal sharing program that allows the Under Secretary to establish “stretch goals” for the Defense Intelligence Enterprise and to reward all employees if those goals are achieved within given timeframes, quality levels, impact measures, etc. The award program would be funded centrally and award consideration undertaken on a periodic basis (e.g., annually). Criteria for the goal sharing program would be carefully designed to ensure that measurable results be achieved and that the amount of awards is geared closely to the level of Enterprise-wide achievement/improvement. Expectations for the program would be realistic and employees would understand that goal sharing would not take place unless stretch goals were clearly met for a given time period. Design of such a program would need to be a highly collaborative effort with involvement from employees and managers across the Enterprise. Benchmarking of other agencies with goalsharing programs (e.g., Commerce and GSA) would be part of the design effort. Awards would be granted as lump sum cash payments and celebrated by way of Enterprise wide communications from the Under Secretary and component heads.

4. Establish performance-based pay incentives that impact base pay and/or employee performance bonuses and take into account group, team or organizational accomplishment as part of a pay for performance approach to compensation. These types of programs could be modeled after either DOD’s OAR award, FAA’s Organizational Success program or other programs.

In providing these approaches the NAPA team is aware of the current SECDEF restrictions on tying increases in employee base pay to performance ratings and fully appreciates that managers and employees alike need to become comfortable with the modified performance-driven pay processes being implemented at this time. However, we believe that the approaches offered below could be considered at appropriate points in the future as DCIPS continues to evolve and mature and as OUSD(I) seeks ways to more strongly endorse pay for performance based on team, group and organizational contributions to achieving mission success. Given the current sensitivities surrounding “pay for performance,” the following types of optional approaches might be good candidates to be piloted within one or more components and closely evaluated before being fully inaugurated across the Enterprise.

A. If the OAR model is used, component-based awards could recognize teams, organizations, or groups whose contributions successfully advanced component organizational priorities and key mission goals. Under this approach, the awards would be akin to a group performance bonus resulting in cash payments to group recipients. Awards would be granted for specific group performance accomplishments clearly above that which would be reasonably expected and could be granted at any time (i.e., would not necessarily be considered as part of an annual performance appraisal review process). Each component would establish its own OAR-type awards guidance and review panel to evaluate nominations and determine the value of the achievement and resulting amount of awards based on criteria issued by OUSD(I) (with input from the DIHRB).

B. Using the FAA model as a point of departure, OUSD(I) could refashion the Enterprise performance-based pay system wherein organizational and/or individual performance would impact employees’ base pay on a regular and recurring basis. One approach under this option, could involve only applying an organizational performance


26

component (akin to the OSI component in FAA’s system) and determining whether all DCIPS employees, as a whole, would receive an increase in base pay based on a determination made by the Under Secretary that the Enterprise had met or exceeded specific goals set forth for the performance cycle. This type of across the board increase would be equivalent to FAA’s Organizational Success Increase. As with FAA’s OSI, granting of such an increase would be wholly dependent on goal achievement at levels defined in advance by the Under Secretary. Also, as with FAA’s system, a pool of funds would be created to fund such increases if and to what extent they were awarded. A second approach would be, like FAA, to base increases in employee base pay on a combination of (1) the employee’s effectiveness in meeting individual performance objectives (akin the FAA’s Individual Success Increase) and (2) the organization’s overall success in achieving Enterprise wide goals (akin to FAA’s OSI). This combined approach would closely resemble FAA’s unified pay for performance system and similarly require that a funding pool be created and that the Under Secretary be actively involved in establishing Enterprise-wide goals for the performance cycle as well as determining whether they had been met.

Again, the Academy Study Team understands that current conditions and SECDEF restrictions do not allow pursuit of FAA type options at this time. However, as DCIPS evolves, it seems like a natural progression to consider something like FAA’s approach that takes both organizational and/or individual performance into account as part of a unified annual pay for performance review process.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Academy Study Team understands and supports OUSD(I)’s priority of first securing effective design and implementation of changes to DCIPS performance management, recognition and reward systems that deal with individual pay for performance, we strongly urge HCMO to begin thinking about researching, discussing, and conceiving (in collaboration with the DCIPS Working Group, DIHRB, ODNI, etc.) how to strengthen group performance, recognition and rewards policies and processes, especially in ways that contribute to intra and inter organizational collaboration and success. This way forward seems like a natural and potentially highly effective means of using the flexibilities in Title 10 to support Enterprise-wide goals, strengthen pay for performance, and send the right signals to employees about what workplace values as well as means of recognition and rewards are important.


27

APPENDIX A

Department of Commerce Team and Organizational Awards Guidance

Extracted from: U.S. Department of Commerce Performance Management Handbook (Recognition Section) Chapter 8

Chapter 8. Team-based Recognition

Introduction

In highly productive organizations, individual employee contributions to the success of a project may often be made as part of a team. Teams are a way of organizing people to support interdependence and cooperation and require coordination among team members--often representing all levels of an organization. A team can be defined as two or more employees who coordinate their activities to accomplish a common goal.

As more organizations are using teams to accomplish work, management is faced with the challenge of developing mechanisms to acknowledge both the accomplishment of the team's efforts and the contributions of its individual members.

Within an operating unit's authority to recognize employees and pay cash awards based on predetermined criteria such as productivity standards, performance goals, measurement systems, and award formulas, the following are appropriate methods to acknowledge excellence in individual and team performance:

• Gainsharing;

• Goalsharing; and

• Team recognition.

Gainsharing Awards

Gainsharing is an incentive award system for organizations that have operations that are monetarily quantifiable. It is based on measurable improvements, where the employer shares a percentage of the improvements with individual employees and/or a group of employees. Improvements usually increase productivity, quality, and customer service.

Major components of gainsharing are:

• Shared rewards;

• System to solicit and implement improvement ideas;

• Continuous, measurable improvement systems;

• Employee empowerment; and

http://hr.commerce.gov/Practitioners/PerformanceManagementandAwards/DEV01_006319?format_for_print=


28

• Positive management practices.

Organizations that have used gainsharing find that it:

• Improves communication within the organization;

• Improves levels of mutual trust between leadership and operations employees;

• Increases cooperation because the organization has a focus on productivity improvement;

• Improves "team spirit";

• Improves product quality; and

• Improves customer service.

Current DOC Gainsharing Programs

There are several gainsharing programs currently within the Department.

Goalsharing Awards

Goalsharing is a relatively new approach to incentive awards that can extend to virtually all groups of federal employees. It serves to unify all employees in the accomplishment of the organization and requires teamwork, pride in service, better communication and higher quality service. The events that trigger goalsharing awards are not limited to work that is measurable using production and cost formulas. Instead, awards are triggered by reaching a wide variety of goals established for the group or the organization as a whole. Progress toward the goals must be measurable, but the measurements can include qualitative data such as information from customer surveys and project reviewers.

Some basic features:

• Clearly stated objectives;

• Performance measures and baseline;

• Stretch goals;

• Specified performance periods;

• Employee involvement;

• Agency commitment;

• Quality evaluation;

• Goalsharing formula;

• Payout size and frequency; and

• Award alternatives.


29

If goalsharing programs are to be successful, operating units should not pay out promised awards when goals are nearly--but not quite--reached. Proceeding to grant the awards can undermine the program's purpose. It is more effective for managers and employees to acknowledge and analyze the reasons for the shortfall and agree to new strategies to overcome the obstacles.

Comparison of Gainsharing and Goalsharing Award Programs

Listed below is a comparison of the major features of gainsharing and goalsharing programs.

GAINSHARING GOALSHARING

Only operations that are monetarily quantifiable

All Government Operations

Bottom-up program Fully participatory program

Driven by preset productivity formulas Driven by group performance indicators

Emphasis on efficient operations Emphasis on achieving organizational outcomes

Payout trigger: exceeding baseline from past work

Payout trigger: reaching "stretch goals" in future work

Usually cash awards paid periodically Range of award options annually or at milestones

Customer service is usually held constant Improvement of customer service is frequently a goal

Self-funding Technically, not self-funding

Team Recognition

A team needs to know how its efforts and results will help the organization, and individuals on the team need to know what the team requires of them to reach the team's goal.

The following elements are critical to successfully developing and implementing team-based recognition programs:

• Knowing existing organizational measures; • Developing specific team measures; • Linking team measures to organizational measures; • Making team and organizational measures understandable and known; • Clearly identifying individual and team roles; • Linking individual and team roles to team results and processes;


30

• Developing team and individual performance measures and standards; • Making performance measures and standards known and understandable; • Incorporating performance measures and standards into performance plans; • Developing tracking systems to properly measure individual and team performance; • Frequently and consistently publishing team performance; • Frequently providing feedback on individual performance; • Ensuring prompt payout when goals are achieved; and • Celebrating the achievement.

Measuring Team Performance

The following chart provides an overview of individual and team level contributions, behaviors/processes, and results that will be useful in developing team-based recognition programs.

Team-Related Measures Matrix

CONTRIBUTION BEHAVIORS/PROCESS RESULTS*

Individual Level: An Employee's Contribution to the Team

The employee: cooperates with team members, communicates ideas during meetings, participates in the team's decision-making processes.

The number of significant ideas contributed by the employee, the rapid turnaround time for the individual's product, the quality and accuracy of data supplied to the team.

Team Level: The Team's Performance

The team: runs effective meetings, communicates well as a group, allows all opinions to be heard, comes to consensus on decisions.

Customer satisfaction with the team product, the number of cases the team completed, the cycle time for the team's entire work process.

GROUP AWARDS

When a cash award is granted to a group for superior accomplishments, the following provisions apply:

• The accomplishments must have substantially exceeded normal expectations for the group as a whole;

• All employees to whom the accomplishment or contribution is creditable, including a supervisor, may share in the award;

• A cash award may be divided in equal shares or allotted to each member in proportion to his or her share of credit for the contribution;

• Separate justifications for each member of the group must be included with the overall description of the accomplishment if the members of the group receive different dollar amounts; and


31

• The total amount of a cash award to a group should be based solely on the value of tangible and intangible benefits accruing from the contribution; the total amount of the award may not exceed the amount that would be authorized if the contribution had been made by one individual; and exceptions should be justified in writing.

Extracted from Department of U.S. Commerce Performance Management Handbook (Recognition Section) Appendix H

Honor Awards—Types of Awards and Recognition

TYPES OF AWARDS RECOGNITION Individual Individual Award

One and only one individual. The individual receives a framed certificate and medal.

Group* Group Award A group consists of up to ten individuals working together, where each person makes a specific substantive contribution to the achievement being recognized.

Each group member receives a framed certificate and medal.

Organization Organizational Award An organization may be either an office, division, or subunit which is formally recognized as a separate entity, as in organization orders or charts or an ad hoc organization assembled for the purpose of working on a specific project. There are two types of organizations:

There are two types of organizational awards: Single and Joint

Single Organization - one office, division, subunit or ad hoc organization, in which all or most of the people in the organization work together to complete the specific project being recognized.

Single Organizational Award - the organization receives a framed certificate and medal. If the employees are from different operating units, each team receives a framed certificate and medal.

Joint Organization - two or three* offices, divisions or subunits who work together to produce an achievement for which they are substantially responsible for the outcome and in which each participated fully in the achievement being recognized.

Joint Organizational Award - each organization receives a framed certificate and medal.

(*) Requests for an exception to the group or joint organization limitation will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

http://hr.commerce.gov/Practitioners/PerformanceManagementandAwards/DEV01_006336?format_for_print=


32

This Page Left Blank Intentionally


33

WHITE PAPER #5

OPTIONS FOR REVISING THE DCIPS PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS The DCIPS performance management system uses a combination of performance objectives and performance elements to rate the performance of individual employees.42 Performance objectives describe “what” an employee is responsible for achieving during the rating period and must be aligned with the mission objectives of the National Intelligence Strategy (NIS), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the employee’s organization. The performance elements, on the other hand, provide a basis for measuring “how” an employee performs the work in accordance with specific expectations that apply to employees at all levels. These elements, mandated for use throughout the Intelligence Community (IC), describe certain behavioral expectations that are related to the manner and approach used by employees to accomplish specific performance objectives. The following six performance elements apply to nonsupervisory DCIPS employees:

• Accountability for Results, • Communication, • Critical Thinking, • Engagement and Collaboration, • Personal Leadership and Integrity, and • Technical Expertise.

DCIPS supervisors and managers are evaluated on the managerial portion of the first four elements. In lieu of the last two elements, they are evaluated on their Leadership and Integrity and Managerial Proficiency. (See Appendix A for a description of the elements.) Under DCIPS, rating officials rate their employees on each performance objective and then on each element, using a scale of 1 to 5. The ratings are averaged to produce an average performance objective rating and an average performance element rating. Then, these two individual averages are averaged to produce an overall rating. The final rating is rounded to the nearest tenth of a point and converted to an evaluation of record using general standards applicable to all positions. PURPOSE OF THIS WHITE PAPER The purpose of this white paper is to provide OUSD(I) a set of options for modifying the method for evaluating the performance elements to ensure that their impact on the overall performance rating is appropriate. OUSD(I) has indicated that major changes to the performance management system are a long-term goal. Therefore, these options are presented for preliminary consideration, with the understanding that specific details would need to be fleshed out before

42 DCIPS Volume 2011, Performance Management, January 15, 2010.


34

any one of the options can be considered for adoption. As more information is gathered, it is expected that additional options or modifications to these options may be presented. SOURCES OF INFORMATION The Academy Study Team conducted several activities to identify options for revising the impact of the performance elements. These activities included: (1) reviewing the Academy’s Phase I findings and recommendations related to performance elements, (2) reviewing comments and suggestions made by employees and supervisors in OUSD(I)’s recent focus groups and town hall meetings; (3) reviewing results of a study recently conducted by OUSD(I)’s Human Capital Management Office (HCMO) to assess the value of the elements; and (4) conducting research of other performance management systems to gather information on how similar performance factors are treated. National Academy’s Phase I Findings and Recommendations The National Academy Panel’s Phase I report identified the standard performance elements mandated for use by ODNI as an area of concern. Specifically, during the Phase I review, employees raised concerns about the difficulty encountered in rating the elements and the perceived level of subjectivity they introduce into the rating process. The Panel’s report also found that the standards for the performance elements had the potential to result in unintended disparate treatment of employees who perform direct mission work compared to those who perform mission supporting work, such as finance or human resources. Based on these findings, the Panel’s report recommended that OUSD(I) work with ODNI to refine and modify the performance elements to ensure that they permit meaningful and appropriate assessments of factors affecting overall performance. Results of OUSD(I) Study Based on the Panel’s findings and recommendation, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Action Plan submitted to Congress in August 2010, called for a “value-added” evaluation of the performance elements. In the SECDEF Action Plan, OUSD(I) noted that rating officials and employees had voiced concerns regarding the performance elements “both on the grounds that their relationship to the objectives is not clear and that they are, in some cases, redundant or confusing as to the value they add to the evaluation process.” In accordance with the SECDEF Action Plan, OUSD(I)’s HCMO recently conducted a study of performance elements, assessing both the structure and content of the elements. The study concluded that there was no “groundswell” of support for the notion of eliminating the elements, as most employees viewed them as important aspects of performance. However, there were concerns raised about elements that overlapped other elements and objectives. The study proposed the following options for revising the elements:

1. Retain all six of the elements but streamline them and eliminate redundancy.


35

2. Remove elements that overlap with objectives, such as Accountability for Results and Technical Expertise, and merge Personal Leadership and Integrity with Engagement and Collaboration.

3. Remove Accountability for Results and use this element to rate the accomplishment of performance elements.

To date, none of the options proposed by the HCMO study has been adopted, but work is continuing to review the elements in the context of the broader review of the DCIPS performance management system. Comments and Issues Raised in Focus Groups and Town Hall Meetings In a series of worldwide town hall meetings and focus groups, OUSD(I)’s HCMO gathered input from employees on the performance management system, including their views on the performance elements. Specifically, employees and supervisors were asked to respond to the following questions:

- How did your supervisor explain and use the elements? - What are your thoughts on their utility in the evaluation and feedback process? - Which of the feedback items from other focus groups resonate with you? - Which recommendations from the Working Group would improve the effectiveness of

performance management from your perspective? - What other changes would you suggest in their structure, use or standards against which

you are evaluated? These questions generated a diverse set of comments with respect to the performance elements and their use in the performance rating process. In the field visits to non-headquarters locations, participants commented on the lack of clarity between the elements and the objectives, inconsistent use of the elements, and the redundancy resulting from rating both elements and objectives. There was, at least on one occasion, a comment that supervisors were “surprised” by the elements and were not aware that they were required to rate them as well as the objectives. There was much more commonality among the comments received in the headquarters sessions attended by the Academy Study Team members. While not universal, a recurring theme was that the requirement to rate the elements in addition to the objectives results in duplication, since most supervisors are naturally inclined to address, or at least take into account, the elements as part of their evaluation of the objectives. (See Appendix B for a more detailed summary of the comments and concerns raised in the focus groups.) With this background, the Academy Study Team sought to identify other Federal performance management systems that make use of both performance objectives and behavioral criteria similar to the elements to assess the applicability of those approaches to DCIPS. In this initial document, three alternative approaches have been identified for consideration and are described below.


36

Approaches Used in Other Federal Performance Management Systems Three systems were identified that may be useful in developing a better balance between the elements and the performance objectives. Although they are designed to conform to the regulations in title 5 U.S.C., rather than title 10, they offer some principles that can be considered for application to DCIPS. While the three systems differ in their treatment of behavioral aspects of performance, the common denominator in each of these systems is the requirement to link performance to organizational goals and objectives.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—A Competency-Based Approach DHS employs a results-oriented competency-based43 performance appraisal program that balances competency measures with achieving results. DHS has established six core competencies (similar to the DCIPS performance elements) for most employees, with two additional competencies for supervisors and managers, which all rating officials use in appraising performance. The specific core competencies are:

• Achieving Results (performance goals), • Technical Proficiency, • Customer Service (except for positions in the 1811 and 1896 series), • Communications, • Teamwork/Cooperation, • Representing the Agency, • Assigning, Monitoring, and Evaluating Work (supervisors and managers only), and • Leadership (supervisors and managers only).

The first core competency, “Achieving Results (performance goals)” is the results-based portion of the rating. Similar to DCIPS’ performance objectives, this core competency includes individual performance goals that are established jointly by the rating official and employee to reflect the specific results—or goals—that the employee is expected to accomplish. It accounts for one-half of the employee’s annual rating of record, i.e., it is equal in importance to the employees’ performance on all of the remaining behaviorally-based competencies combined. It ensures that the DHS performance management program focuses on, and rewards, results. Once performance goals have been established under the “Achieving Results” competency, rating officials have the option of assigning weights to each goal. How much weight is assigned to each goal is discretionary. If the rating official opts to not assign weights to goals, each goal will automatically receive equal weight. In assigning weights to goals, the rating official takes into account, for example, the scope of the goal, the amount of time spent on the goal, and the

43 By definition, a competency is a cluster of related knowledge, skills, and attitudes that affects a major part of one’s job that correlates with performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, and that can be improved via training and development. (Parry, S.R. “The Quest for Competencies: Training,” July 1996, pp. 48-56.)


37

importance of the work. Rating officials do not have the option of assigning weights to the remaining core competencies. Although the DHS system uses competencies similar to DCIPS’ behavioral elements, the integrated structure of the system makes it clear that the accomplishment of established goals results from application of the most important competency. Therefore, there is no need to rate a competency that addresses technical skill or proficiency, as is done with DCIPS. The DHS system, then, reduces the potential for the kind of redundancy that has been identified as an issue with DCIPS.

U.S. Department of Education – Incorporating Performance Behaviors into Standards The Department of Education uses a simplified approach to performance management and appraisal.44 The system is designed to recognize and acknowledge differing levels of performance (Outstanding, Highly Successful, Successful, Minimally Successful, and Unacceptable) through rating two to three critical elements against pre-determined standards. For non-supervisory employees, the system uses two critical elements:45

• Organizational Priorities and • Customer Service.

Supervisors are rated on these same two elements and one additional element, Management and Leadership. The Organizational Priorities element is intended to measure each employee’s contribution to the Department’s success in meeting agency goals and objectives. This element measures achievement of results or what will be accomplished. The Customer Service element is based on the premise that the agency’s success is tied to its ability to satisfy the needs of its internal and external customers. This element is intended to address how employees perform their responsibilities related to delivering products/services to their internal and/or external customers. Performance standards, written at the Successful level, are used to define performance thresholds, requirements, or expectations that must be met to be appraised at a particular level of performance. For both the Organizational Priorities and Customer Service elements, supervisors must construct original standards with clear and concise statements of each employee’s responsibilities/expected results that are to be measured by the standards. The Management and Leadership element that applies to supervisory positions has five required standards that are consistent for all supervisory positions, with the flexibility to add up to three additional standards.

44 U.S. Department of Education Personnel Management Instruction, Education Department Performance Appraisal System, dated September 5, 2006. 45 A critical element is a component of a position consisting of one or more duties and responsibilities which is of such importance that unacceptable performance on the element would result in an overall performance level of Unacceptable. Critical elements are used only to rate performance at the individual level.


38

For the Organizational Priorities element, supervisors and employees, working together, are required to develop a minimum of three to a maximum of eight job-specific standards. The standards developed under this element must be results-driven and reflect each employee’s accountability for achieving measurable results. Unlike DCIPS, under the Department of Education’s system, desired behaviors are not rated as separate aspects of performance. Rather, relevant behaviors are assessed under the Customer Service element by comparing performance to standards that include such behavioral aspects as teamwork and cooperation, communication, adaptability/flexibility, initiative and working around barriers. Supervisors and employees are required to develop a minimum of three and a maximum of eight job specific standards for this element. In summary, the use of two basic performance elements, with standards that measure the behavioral aspects of performance, simplifies the performance appraisal process and allows the Department of Education to focus on achieving organizational goals and supporting the agency’s key value: Customer Service. The Defense Department’s National Security Personnel System—Elements as Contributing Factors46 The Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act terminated the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), but certain aspects of its performance management system could potentially be enhanced and modeled for use in DCIPS. Under NSPS, the methodology used to evaluate an employee’s performance involves (1) assigning a rating to a set of job objectives that set performance targets at the individual, team, and organizational level and (2) evaluating the impact of standard contributing factors that describe sets of work behaviors that are related to and impact the performance of a job objective.47 Similar to DCIPS, NSPS used job objectives to define “what” the employee’s work priorities should be, while Contributing Factors were used to assess behaviors that address “how” employees should complete their work. NSPS used several Contributing Factors, which were similar to the IC standard elements employed by DCIPS. The NSPS Contributing Factors are listed below.

• Communication, • Cooperation and Teamwork, • Critical Thinking, • Customer Focus, • Leadership, • Resource Management, and • Technical Proficiency.

Under NSPS, supervisors were required to evaluate the impact of the Contributing Factors on an employee’s performance of a job objective, rather than rating the objectives and Contributing 46HCMO officials have described challenges with supevisors equitably implementing the concept of Contributing Elements, but the Academy Study Team believes that the concept is still worthy of consideration. 47Department of Defense 1400.25-M, SC 1940, Performance Management, dated April 28, 2006.


39

Factors separately. Supervisors had the flexibility to select relevant, critical, and meaningful Contributing Factors that correspond to the job objective, but generally, supervisors had to identify at least one and no more than three Contributing Factors for each objective. The Contributing Factors were evaluated using benchmark descriptors appropriate for the employee’s position. The benchmarks were described as “Expected” performance or “Enhanced” performance levels for each Contributing Factor. Ratings of job objectives could be adjusted based on the supervisor’s assessment of the Contributing Factors. Figure 1 shows how Contributing Factors were used in the evaluation of NSPS positions:

Figure 1. Contributing Factor Evaluation Process

Source: NSPS Personnel System, Contributing Factors Fact Sheet, July 2007.

The combination of the job objective rating and the assessment of Contributing Factors (expressed as +1, 0, or -1) resulted in an adjusted rating for each job objective. The adjusted ratings were then averaged to obtain the overall average score, which was then converted to an overall Rating of Record. Using this approach, supervisors were able to manage the impact of the Contributing Factors to ensure that their weight was meaningful and appropriate in the overall rating process.

OPTIONS

There is general agreement among employees and supervisors that the DCIPS performance management system should provide a mechanism for supervisors to assess not only actual work performance outcomes but also the behavioral characteristics that have a bearing on how the work is performed. All three examples described above achieve this goal and provide the basis for crafting the following options for modifying the use of the DCIPS performance elements.

In the execution or accomplishment of the assigned job objective the employee demonstrated a manner of performance …

… matching or exceeding the description provided in the “Enhanced” benchmark descriptor(s).

… matching or exceeding the description provided in the “Expected” benchmark descriptor(s), but below that described by the “Enhanced” benchmark descriptor(s)

… below the description provided in the “Expected” benchmark descriptor(s).

+1

0

-1


40

Option 1: Eliminate the Accountability for Results element altogether and incorporate this element into the evaluation of performance objectives. Retain the other performance elements and rate them separately.

• Rationale: Accountability for Results greatly overlaps the performance objectives that hold employees accountable for achieving the goals of the NIS, DoD, and the employee’s organization. All of the other elements are important to successful performance and should have some impact on an employee’s final performance rating.

o Pros: This option eliminates the redundant requirement to rate performance objectives and an element that, by its very nature, requires addressing the same aspects of performance that are rated under the objectives. Eliminating this element will reduce the amount of time spent on the performance rating process by eliminating the need to write separate assessments of essentially the same aspects of performance.

o Cons: Eliminating this element may result in supervisors overlooking certain behaviors that impact the accomplishment of performance objectives, even though those objectives may be completed. For example, an employee may complete the work, but may have failed to properly organize the work and set priorities and timelines along the way. These aspects of performance are currently measured under Accountability for Results.

Option 2: Eliminate all of the performance elements except Engagement and Collaboration, which represents an IC-wide core value, but redefine it to focus on the results expected from building networks across the DoD components and the broader IC. Engagement and Collaboration would then be weighted at 50% of the overall rating. Merge the criteria included in Personal Leadership with Engagement and Collaboration and use the other elements as part of the standards that measure the accomplishment of performance objectives.

• Rationale: In light of the degree of redundancy that has resulted from attempting to rate each element separately, DCIPS supervisors may be better served by a system that requires them to focus on rating the accomplishment of performance objectives and the extent to which employees performed their work in a way that is consistent with the IC-wide values related to Engagement and Collaboration. The other elements are essentially competencies and under this option, they could be addressed as part of the standards used to evaluate the performance objectives.

o Pros: Eliminating all of the performance elements except Engagement and Collaboration will greatly simplify the DCIPS performance appraisal process, reduce the amount of time and effort spent on developing written performance appraisals, and require supervisors to focus on those aspects of performance that contribute to the broader goals of the IC. This approach will reinforce to employees the need to engage in those behaviors that contribute not only to their own individual performance achievements, but to the performance of their organization, DoD, and the IC.

o Cons: Eliminating all of the elements except Engagement and Collaboration introduces the risk of supervisors omitting from consideration in employee


41

appraisal certain behavioral aspects of performance that may not be easily structured as standards for use in evaluating Engagement and Collaboration.

Option 3: Retain all of the elements, but allow managers to selectively use them as Contributing Factors, rather than stand-alone aspects of performance to be evaluated separately. A minimum of three Contributing Factors would be used, and managers would select Factors appropriate for the nature of the work.

• Rationale: DCIPS’ policy requiring managers to rate three to six performance objectives and six elements has been viewed by employees and supervisors as especially burdensome and time-consuming. However, both employees and their supervisors expressed the opinion that the elements are important aspects of performance and should be considered in the overall rating.

o Pros: Using this approach will reduce the amount of overlap experienced in rating objectives and elements. It will, however, allow supervisors to consider those behaviors that contribute to successful performance and determine their impact on a case-by-case basis.

o Cons: Without a prescribed set of Contributing Factors, it is possible that managers may identify significantly different factors for identical work. This could lead to concerns about inconsistent rating criteria and could potentially raise issues about disparate treatment.

CONCLUSION

While each of the options presented here has the potential for application within the Defense Intelligence Enterprise, each will need to be further reviewed and analyzed before a decision is made on the best approach. Regardless of which approach is selected for further review, it is important to ensure that the system provides supervisors with criteria that will permit meaningful assessment of all relevant aspects of performance without creating unnecessary burden for supervisors and managers.


42

APPENDIX A

DCIPS PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS

Element Definition Nonsupervisory Employee Supervisory/Managerial Employee

1. Accountability for Results

Measures the extent to which the employee takes responsibility for the work, sets and/or meets priorities, and organizes and utilizes time and resources efficiently and effectively to achieve the desired results, consistent with the organization’s goals and objectives.

In addition to the requirements for nonsupervisory employees, supervisors are expected to use the same skills to accept responsibility for and achieve results through the actions and contributions of their subordinates and the organization as a whole.

2. Communication Measures the extent to which an employee is able to comprehend and convey information with and from others in writing, reading, listening, and verbal and nonverbal action. Employees also are expected to use a variety of media in communicating and making presentations appropriate to the audience.

In addition to the expectations for nonsupervisory employees, DCIPS supervisors are expected to use effective communication skills to build cohesive work teams, develop individual skills, and improve performance.

3. Critical Thinking

Measures an employee’s ability to use logic, analysis, synthesis, creativity, judgment, and systematic approaches to gather, evaluate, and use multiple sources of information to effectively inform decisions and outcomes.

In addition to the requirements for nonsupervisory employees, supervisors are expected to establish a work environment where employees feel free to engage in open, candid exchanges of information and diverse points of view.

4. Engagement and Collaboration

Measures the extent to which the employee is able to recognize, value, build, and leverage organizationally-appropriate, diverse collaborative networks of coworkers, peers, customers, stakeholders, and teams within an organization and/or across the DoD components with DCIPS positions and the IC.

In addition to the requirements for nonsupervisory employees, supervisors are expected to create an environment that promotes engagement, collaboration, integration, and the sharing of information and knowledge.


43

Element Definition Nonsupervisory Employee Supervisory/Managerial Employee

5. Personal Leadership and Integrity/ Leadership and Integrity

Measures the extent to which the employee is able to demonstrate personal initiative and innovation, as well as integrity, honesty, openness, and respect for diversity in dealings with coworkers, peers, customers, stakeholders, teams, and collaborative networks across the IC. Employees are also expected to demonstrate core organizational and IC values, including selfless service, a commitment to excellence, and the courage and conviction to express their professional views.

Supervisors and managers are expected to exhibit the same individual personal leadership behaviors as all IC employees. In their supervisory or managerial role, they also are expected to achieve organizational goals and objectives by creating shared vision and mission within their organization; establishing a work environment that promotes equal opportunity, integrity, diversity (of both persons and points of view), critical thinking, collaboration, and information sharing; mobilizing employees, stakeholders, and networks in support of their objectives; and recognizing and rewarding individual and team excellence, enterprise focus, innovation, and collaboration.

6. Technical Expertise/ Managerial Proficiency

Measures the extent to which employees acquire and apply knowledge, subject matter expertise, tradecraft, and/or technical competency necessary to achieve results.

Supervisors and managers are expected to possess the technical proficiency in their mission area appropriate to their role as supervisor or manager. They also are expected to leverage that proficiency to plan for, acquire, organize, integrate, develop, and prioritize human, financial, material, information, and other resources to accomplish their organization’s mission and objectives. In so doing, all supervisors and managers are expected to focus on the development and productivity of their subordinates by setting clear performance expectations, providing ongoing coaching and feedback, evaluating the contributions of individual employees to organizational results, and linking performance ratings and rewards to the accomplishment of those results.


44

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON PERFORMANCE ELEMENTS

FROM LOCAL FOCUS GROUPS AND TOWN HALL MEETINGS

USMC, Navy Annex

November 4, 2010

Managers and employees both raised concerns about the performance elements. They noted these elements are redundant, sometimes not applicable, and difficult to rate. Some offered that they should be considered in the assessments of objectives, while others called for eliminating them altogether. One employee noted that it is often a natural process to address the elements in the context of the objectives because when describing what is done, one generally goes on to say how it is done.

USMC, Quantico

November 22, 2010

Employees continue to express angst regarding the role of performance objectives and elements in the performance management process. There was a general sense from participants that elements should be melded with objectives, and that some elements that do not lend themselves to a five-point scale (e.g., Personal Leadership and Integrity) should be eliminated. There is still a perception among many in the workforce that all performance objectives must be quantified, even if they are difficult to quantify. This shows there is still a need to clarify the intent through better guidance and simplification.

USAF, Pentagon

November 30, 2010

There was considerable opposition to the current policy requirement to document, report on, and rate both employee performance objectives and elements. Several individuals suggested “folding” or building the elements into the objectives and not requiring separate processes for each. One individual suggested addressing all the elements in a single area of the performance appraisal rather than as separate items. The underlying concerns seemed to be that the current requirement is very time consuming, resource intensive (for both the employee and supervisor), results in duplication and overlap (in terms of the write ups), and creates confusion on what is really important in terms of the employee performance. Some attendees even went so far as to imply that requiring the elements was a bit insulting since employees pride themselves on accountability, integrity, etc. Several attendees spoke up on how important they felt having clear performance objectives are to achieving desired results and aligning supervisor and employee goals.

the defense civilian intelligence personnel system

Documents