HRM Policies and
                            Practices
                               in
                         Title 5-Exempt
                          Organizations
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                


United States
Office of
Personnel
Management
Office of Merit
Systems
Oversight and
Effectiveness



MSE-98-4
August 1998

                   HRM Policies and Practices
                               in
                  Title 5-Exempt Organizations


                        Table of Contents


   Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 i


I.         Introduction: The Changing World of Federal HRM . . . . 
 1


II.        Summary of Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
    A.  Merit System Principles & Merit-Based HRM Systems. . . . . 
    B.  Human Resources Management Policies & Practices. . . . . . 
      1.  Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
      2.  Classification & Compensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
      3.  Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
      4.  Monetary Awards & Non-Monetary Recognition Systems . . . 
      5.  Benefits & Family-Friendly Policies. . . . . . . . . . . 
      6.  Work Force Development & Training. . . . . . . . . . . . 
      7.  Employee Protections & Labor Relations . . . . . . . . . 
      8.  Integrated Human Resources Management System Change. . . 
      9.  Oversight & Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
 3
 3
 5
 5
 7
 7
 8
 9
 9
10
11
13


III.    Implications and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
          Merit as a Key Operating Principle . . . . . . . . . . . 
          Differences and Similarities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
          Building an Expanded Picture of Title 5-Exempt Systems . 
15
1516
17



Appendices
 Appendix A-Merit System Principles
 Appendix B-Study Methodology
 Appendix C-Telephone Survey
 Appendix D-Detailed Description of Study Findings
 Appendix E-Aggregate Telephone Survey Results
       Appendix F-Acknowledgments   



   HRM Policies and Practices in Title 5-Exempt Organizations

                        Executive Summary

As OPM and other Federal organizations seek models for more flexible and responsive merit-based
human resources management (HRM) systems, interest has increased in those Federal entities that
already operate outside of central Federal regulatory systems with HRM systems exempt from some
or all of the requirements of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.  To tap this rich source of information on
which there is little centralized data, the Office of Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness
(O&E) initiated this current study.  We interviewed HRM representatives in 18 organizations that
are fully or partially exempt from Title 5 with two overall objectives in mind: 1) to discover how
they embed the merit system principles in their HRM systems and 2) to identify their most
innovative and effective HRM policies and practices.  In support of these objectives, we sought
information on what flexibilities they actually have in their human resources policies and practices,
how they integrate HRM into their strategic management practices, and how they decentralize HRM
responsibility to increase management accountability. 

This report describes the study findings in the major functional areas of Federal HRM -- merit
system principles, staffing, classification and compensation, performance management, monetary
awards and non-monetary recognition systems, benefits and family-friendly practices, employee
development and training, employee protections and labor relations, and HRM oversight and
accountability.  Important findings include the following: 

Human Resources Policies and Practices

   In all of the studied organizations with the exception of the government-sponsored enterprise
   (GSE), we found clear incorporation of the merit system principles or other merit-based
   organizational values.

   There are no discernable differences in recruiting and staffing for specialized or shortage
   category occupations between the non-Title 5 organizations and Title 5-covered organizations.

   We did find that there are increased staffing flexibilities in organizations exempt from veterans
   preference and "Rule of Three."  However, these flexibilities are tempered by concerns for merit
   and diversity and by negotiated labor agreements.

   There is increased use of automation and simplified HRM systems in the Title 5-exempt
   organizations specifically designed to delegate more responsibility to managers and to reduce
   time and resource requirements.

   Several organizations are moving in the direction of rank-in-person systems that allow for
   increased management involvement in qualifying, rating, ranking, and selecting candidates. 

   There is movement to market-based compensation and pay for performance systems which, in
   some cases, eliminate step increases and general increases and may include broadbanding,
   variable pay, and linkage of pay systems to organizational goals or performance.

   We found several instances of organization-specific benefits packages for retirement and health
   and life insurance along with other options, such as flexible spending accounts, greater thrift
   matching, and greater employer contributions to benefits packages.

   There is increased focus on employee development to meet future organizational requirements
   in competitive environments including the growing use of an internal university concept for
   workforce development and use of multi-source feedback systems for employee development.

   Generally, there are fewer externally-based employee protections, such as the Merit Systems
   Protection Board appeal rights, and a greater focus on internal negotiated procedures, mediation,
   and peer review processes.

   Several organizations that are currently struggling with changing environments such as
   deregulation and competitive markets are reinventing themselves to meet these challenges
   through better integration of HRM systems with overall management goals.

   The oversight of HRM policies and practices is incorporated in internal organizational
   accountability for central management systems under general Government regulation rather than
   through a specific external HRM authority, such as OPM, to hold agencies accountable for
   adherence to the Merit System Principles and effective human resources management (HRM).

The final section of the report draws implications and makes recommendations based on the study
findings.  Merit emerged as a key operating principle among the Title 5-exempt organizations, even
those that are often referred to as quasi-Federal organizations.  These merit-based HRM systems
serve as alternatives to the Title 5 HRM model as the organizations seek to continue improving their
HRM systems and services.  While their policies and practices remain similar in many respects to
those of Title 5 organizations, they display a capacity to readily respond as part of the management
structure in a way that Title 5 agencies may wish to emulate. 

At the same time, such flexibility raises questions about accountability to the public and the role of
central management agencies, such as OPM.  In this new Federal HRM environment, OPM
potentially can serve as the linchpin by acting as the President's agent in holding all agencies
accountable for upholding merit and encouraging them to manage human resources effectively.  In
this role, OPM could be responsible for maintaining a repository of information about the Federal
workforce in its entirety and coordinating a range of legislated or administratively authorized merit-based HRM systems, while continuing to maintain the Title 5 HRM system that agencies can
participate in or use as a benchmark for their own systems.        I.  Introduction: The Changing World of Federal HRM

Human resource management (HRM) systems in the Federal Government are in a state of transition,
necessitated by major changes in the workplace and in the economy itself.  Work is more
knowledge-intensive and more automated, and workers are different too -- more mobile and more
insistent that their jobs be stimulating and satisfying and provide for individual growth.  Com-petitive pressures to "do more with less" have become almost universal for organizations as a whole
as well as the HR staffs within them.  

Starting with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and continuing with the Reinventing Gov-
ernment movement of the last 5 years, efforts have been made to align the Federal HRM system
with the new workplace.  A particularly prominent theme of this movement has been flexibility --
enabling individual workers and their agencies to focus less on conforming to centralized HRM
system requirements and more on developing HRM policies and practices to support their own
mission-related needs.  

In the Federal Government, the trend toward flexibility has manifested itself a number of ways,
including the attempt by a number of agencies to move away from the specific requirements of Title
5.  Full or partial exemption from Title 5 is of course nothing new.  Agencies such as the Tennessee
Valley Authority and the Federal Reserve Board have been outside Title 5 for decades.  But the
movement in that direction has gained momentum, to the extent that nearly half of Federal civilian
employees are now outside of some aspect of Title 5 coverage (the U.S. Postal Service, with over
800,000 employees, constitutes the majority of the Title 5-exempt work force).  Agency interest in
waivers from Title 5 through OPM-sponsored demonstration projects is also at an all time high.  

In order to better understand the increasingly varied world of Federal HRM, the Office of Merit
Systems Oversight and Effectiveness (O&E) initiated this study on "HRM Policies and Practices in
Title 5-Exempt Organizations."  The broad purpose of the study was to gain further knowledge of
human resource systems, policies, and practices in such organizations.  Specifically, the two overall
objectives of the study were to:

      1.  Discover how Title 5-exempt organizations build the values and principles of merit, 
           efficiency and effectiveness into their human resources systems and services; and

 2.  Identify innovative human resources management policies and practices to share with        other Federal organizations.  

Although there have been other studies completed on this topic or on single agencies that are
exempt from Title 5, few have defined the objectives as broadly or included this large number of
organizations.  The study team contacted 28 organizations exempt from Title 5.  Twenty-one of
those organizations responded to the survey and 18 met the criteria for inclusion in the study report. 
The large number of study participants and the range of HRM information gathered allow us to
draw conclusions regarding the broad range of Title 5-exempt organizations that have not been
possible previously. 

These conclusions challenge commonly held notions about the dichotomy between " Title 5" and 
"Non-Title 5" agencies.  What has often been viewed as two distinct worlds appears in this light to
actually be the same world, but with shades of difference within it.  Rather than being able to place
agencies in one of two clear cut, "black-and-white" categories, we found instead that they can better
be understood as falling on a kind of legal continuum -- moving from totally Title 5 on the one end
to totally non-Title 5 on the other, with many gradations in between. 

For example, organizations such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the United States Postal
Service (USPS) have the most exemptions from Title 5, while other organizations such as the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight (OFHEO) are only partially exempt.  OFHEO is exempt from Title 5 only for class-
ification and compensation and must adhere to all other provisions of the title such as staffing,
performance management, and adverse actions.  In addition, there are some organizations where
only certain classes or portions of employees are exempt from Title 5 while the remainder of the
organization is covered.  Examples of this case include the Department of State, where only the
employees in the Foreign Service are outside of Title 5 and the Smithsonian Institution, where
approximately one-third of the work force is funded and operates under a trust fund with the
remainder covered under the Title 5 system.  This is just a small sampling from the world of Title 5-exempt agencies, which includes government corporations, independent establishments, ordinary
Executive Branch agencies with legislative approval to create alternative personnel systems, and
other legal entities.  A complete list of the study participants is available in Appendix B of this
report.

As the next section elaborates, our findings also call into question the notion of a great divide
between how Title 5 and non-Title 5 agencies actually practice HRM.  We found instead agencies
on virtually all points of the legal continuum demonstrating active concern with the broad concept
of merit and how to operationalize it in the management of their human resources.  With a few
notable exceptions, we also found much commonality among the operating HRM systems designed
by Title 5 and non-Title 5 agencies, in spite of the greater flexibility generally available to the non-Title 5 agencies.  In the final section we discuss the implications of these broad findings, and make
recommendations for action.  

                  II.  Summary of Study Findings

Conventional wisdom suggests that organizations exempt from Title 5 requirements can be more
flexible and responsive to changing organizational needs.  These study findings offer a broad look at
"how the other half lives" -- to show how the principles of merit are built into Title-5-exempt
environments and to identify what HRM policies and practices are especially effective in meeting
the needs of their organizations and employees.  Our interest was not in constructing detailed case
studies of these organizations but in drawing a broad picture of critical HRM policies and practices
operating in a potentially less regulated environment.  

This section of the report highlights the general findings in the major functional areas of Federal
HRM -- merit system principles, staffing, classification and compensation, performance manage-
ment, award and recognition systems, benefits and family-friendly practices, employee development
and training, employee protections and labor relations, and HRM oversight and accountability.  We
also included a section (Integrated Human Resource Management System Change) describing the
significant efforts being made in several organizations to create integrated HRM systems in
response to changing environments.  A more detailed presentation of these findings, including what
specific agencies are doing, is available in Appendix D of this report.

The Merit Systems Principles and Merit-Based HRM Systems

The constraints and inflexibilities (perceived and actual) of the merit processes embedded in the
current Title 5 system have served as a rallying cry for what is wrong with government.  One of the
most complex issues for Federal HRM today is how to create policies and practices that are at once
responsive and efficient and based on merit.  

The concept of merit in the American civil service has its roots in the reform movement of the late
19th century.  The Pendleton Act of 1883 created a Civil Service based on the merit principles of fair
and open competition and competence in contrast to the corruption and incompetence that were
rampant under the practice of patronage.  Since then, merit has served as both an overarching
tradition in public service as well as a unifying theme in public personnel management.  It repre-
sents the principles of fairness, equity, and earned achievement in public employment in lieu of
political or other acts of favoritism. The merit system principles were  formally incorporated into
law in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.  (See Appendix A for a list of the Merit System
Principles.)

Determining how to define and implement the Merit System Principles in specific HRM policies
and practices is a complex and continuing process.  While most people in and out of government
recognize the importance of merit in public employment, there is an equal call for  more flexible and
timely HRM systems to meet the government's changing needs.  In this study, we began to explore
the role merit plays in the institutional HRM policies and practices in organizations that are not
restricted by the Title 5 requirements.  So, in addition to asking directly if the organizations were
covered by the Merit System Principles, we looked for evidence of merit processes throughout the 
HRM system, especially in the areas of staffing, classification and compensation, and employee
protections.  

The responses to the question about actual coverage by the Merit System Principles revealed some
uncertainty about specific coverage.  Five respondents stated they are covered by the Merit System
Principles and 13 said they are not (although three said they administratively follow the Merit
System Principles in their HRM policies and practices.)  A strict reading of Title 5 on Merit System
Principle coverage would suggest that some of the organizations may actually be covered; but it
would take a careful reading of the individual legislative authorities to make a final determination.  

Of greater importance in the responses, however, was the unequivocal position of all but one of the
organizations took on embracing the Merit System Principles or some statement of merit-based
organizational values within their HRM systems.  The only organization that did not identify merit
as a fundamental value was the sole government-sponsored entity (GSE) included in the study,
where the employees are considered private sector rather than public.  While the GSE incorporates
some due process elements in its HRM policies, the survey responses indicate that HRM is more
driven by corporate principles that ensure employment decisions are within compliance with all
relevant laws than by a concept of merit in public employment.  The other organizations cited either
the Merit System Principles or organizational core values, such as equity, fairness, and open
competition, as key merit values underlying HRM policies and practices.  

In looking for substantive HRM practices that support their merit-based philosophies, we found that
all of the organizations (excluding the GSE) incorporate at a minimum; open competition, some
form of rating and ranking, classification/compensation systems based on rank or position, and
formal due process procedures.  While the language of merit and fairness is embedded in the
language of the HRM policies and practices in these organizations--more clearly in some more than
others--there is little doubt about merit as a key value in these HRM systems.  Unions and other
employee groups appear to play a role in building merit practices into collective bargaining
agreements or in monitoring merit-based HRM activity in the organization.  Of course, all of the
studied organizations are covered by civil rights laws, which also seem to reinforce concern for
merit practices.

In summary, with the understandable exception of the GSE (as a private organization), the study
organizations are clear about the importance of merit as the foundation of their HRM systems.  It
should be noted, though, that this finding is based on the organizations' description of themselves,
since a more in-depth review of their merit processes was beyond the scope of this study.   Also, this
does not mean that they necessarily interpret and implement the Merit System Principles or merit
processes as Title 5 and its implementing regulations direct.  The findings on the various HRM
policies and practices will show both similarities to and differences from Title 5.

HRM Policies and Practices

The next set of study findings provides a broad picture of the core HRM policies and practices in
non-Title 5 organizations -- staffing, classification and compensation, performance management,
monetary awards and non-monetary recognition systems, benefits and family-friendly policies,
workforce development and training, and employee protections and labor relations -- as well as the
data on HRM oversight and managerial accountability for HRM.  In each area, the analysis
identifies the number of organizations that reported they either are covered by or exempt from Title
5 requirements in that area.  Although 18 organizations are represented in the survey data, the
numbers do not always add up to 18 since some questions were not answered by all organizations in
the survey.  We also note where organizations reported that they have chosen to administratively
follow Title 5 even though not required to do so.  For an overall view of Title 5 coverage in each
category, the chart in Appendix E shows aggregate numbers of organizations that are covered or
exempt. 

Staffing

The merit staffing process in Federal HRM has
traditionally been perceived to be time consuming
and labor intensive.  It has been asserted that it
takes too long to fill a job and the results are
sometimes challenged in the grievance or EEO
process.  Since the Title 5-exempt organizations
have fewer regulatory requirements in the hiring
process, we expected to find clear differences in
their hiring policies and practices.  In fact, we
found few differences in their recruitment, hiring, and promotion practices with the important
exceptions of the "Rule of Three" and veterans preference.  None of the organizations exempt from
Title 5 staffing regulations follow the "Rule of Three" unless they are obligated also to apply
veterans preference.  

Three of the study organizations are fully covered by Title 5 for hiring and staffing.  Of the 15
organizations not covered by Title 5 regulations, 12 use some level of rating and ranking procedures
and 5 apply some form of veterans preference procedures for hiring and/or RIF.  Two organizations
report that they informally consider veterans preference when candidates are otherwise equal in
hiring or RIF situations. 

All of the organizations use a variety of mechanisms to advertise vacancies including the Internet. 
Each organization specifically mentioned the use of targeted advertising to ensure a diverse
applicant pool.  Most of the 15 organizations exempt from Title 5 staffing requirements expect
selecting officials to play a major role in the hiring process, for example, in participating in the
rating and ranking process and especially in providing written justification to document selections.

Management responsibility for staffing decisions is most pronounced in the rank-in-person systems. 
In a rank-in-person system an employee is "classified" by a panel of managers/experts according to
the skills and achievements he or she brings to the work of the organization.  This contrasts with the
"rank-in-position" approach in the Title 5 classification system which classifies jobs based on the
specific duties of specific occupations.  Four organizations have rank-in-person systems where
hiring and promotion decisions are based on expert panel reviews of qualifications.  Promotions are
made from eligibility lists; some organizations have "up or out" promotion requirements which limit
the idea of guaranteed employment based on seniority and focus on the qualifications of the
employee rather than the requirements of the position.

In general, rating and ranking procedures vary among the organizations, from formal testing and
central registers to simple resume reviews.  Most use some process for grouping the applicants. The
organizations generally seem to be most concerned about matching qualifications with job
requirements and ensuring selecting officials take responsibility for justifying selections.  

Like many other Federal organizations, the non-Title 5 organizations also struggle with improving
the usually long and cumbersome recruitment and hiring processes.  In response to organizational
needs, these exempt organizations are moving to develop institutional mechanisms to improve the
timeliness and quality of the hiring process.  For example, one organization holds managers and
HRM staff accountable for maintaining strict time frames established for their hiring process.  A
tracking system monitors the status of all vacancies.  

Automation is also helping to improve the hiring process.  Several organizations are using or
planning to use the same commercial software for managing their HR Information System (HRIS)
systems, tracking resumes, and qualifying applicants (PeopleSoft  and Resumix  were frequently
noted).  In addition, a number of the study organizations have developed or are in the process of
developing other internal automated systems or interactive voice response systems to streamline and
assist in the recruitment and staffing process.

Overall, staffing processes in the study organizations are by and large very similar to those in Title 5
agencies, with targeted recruitment for diversity or hard-to-fill positions a goal shared by both types
of organizations.  The major differences appear in the absence of veterans preference and the "rule
of 3" in many Title 5-exempt organizations.  The 15 organizations exempt from staffing regulations
seem to have more flexibility in staffing with their exemptions from the "rule of 3" and, for most,
veterans preference.  Examples of such staffing flexibilities used in some Title 5-exempt agencies
include the ability to conduct "on-the-spot" hiring for special program needs, the use of a central
applicant pool that provides automatic consideration for applicants and the opportunity for
managers to hire without announcing the vacancy, and elimination of time-in-grade requirements. 
Such flexibility is limited, however, by concerns for merit, equal employment opportunity,
collective bargaining, and the resources required to develop and defend alternative systems.  

Classification and Compensation

Throughout the study we found that flexible,
competitive and efficient classification and
compensation systems were critical to the efforts
of Title 5-exempt agencies to meet institutional
needs.  Of the 18 non-Title 5 organizations
represented in this study, 17 were exempt from
Title 5 for classification and 16 were exempt for
compensation.  Most have developed their own
systems, which diverge considerably from the
Title 5 classification system.

Overall, alternative classification and compensation systems provide the exempt organizations
flexibility to meet competitive needs and to move from seniority-based pay systems to performance-based alternatives.  Nine of the study organizations have developed (or are in the process of
developing) their own classification systems, based on benchmarking, factor evaluation systems, or
other job analysis assessments.  Several others use Hay- or market-based systems.  Corres-
pondingly, the majority of the organizations exempt from Title 5 compensation systems have also
established pay systems that are more flexible and better fit their unique environments and
organizational needs (pay-for-performance systems, broad bands, variable pay and others).

It should also be noted, however, that five exempt organizations reported that they administratively
follow Title 5 for classification and compensation because it is easier than establishing their own
systems, particularly if only a portion of the organization is outside of Title 5.  For example, in one
organization approximately one-third of the work force is outside of Title 5 -- these employees are
administered through a trust fund system.  To promote fairness and equity between them and Title 5
employees with whom they work side-by-side, the organization has chosen to manage both sets of
employees in essentially the same manner and under the same systems.  Another agency follows the
Title 5 pay structure for ease of pay administration and to sustain inter-agency transfer options for
its employees.

Performance Management

Fourteen of the organizations reported that they
are exempt from the Title 5 laws and 
regulations relating to performance
management systems, while three are covered. 
One organization chose to administratively follow the Title 5 practices. However, recognizing the
need for change throughout Government, Title 5 regulations governing performance management
have been revised to give agencies and components within agencies much more flexibility to design
performance appraisal and reward systems that are adapted to individual agencies' needs.  Because
there is already a great deal of flexibility in this area under Title 5, we were looking more for
innovative approaches to performance management in the organizations under study than to
compare the differences between Title 5 and non-Title 5 organizations.  Nevertheless, an important
difference emerged relating to the extensive use of performance factors in determining pay in the
Title 5-exempt organizations.  Approaches vary and pay for performance means different things in
different organizational contexts, but a definite trend in that direction was found.

Each of the 18 organizations represented in this study reported that they have some sort of
performance management and appraisal system and there was a range of different approaches.  For 
example, some of the organizations use a pass/fail system rather than the more traditional five level
rating system. 

Another noteworthy finding is that 12
of the 18 organizations reported that
their performance management systems
are linked to organizational goals (i.e.,
individual performance plans and
objectives are linked back to the overall
agency objectives).  In addition, 13 of
the 18 organizations reported that
performance management is linked to compensation (i.e., increases to pay are linked to individual
performance ratings or results).  As noted in the compensation section, other organizations are
developing or have already transitioned to "pay for performance" systems where compensation is
directly linked to employee performance.  Several of these systems have eliminated "automatic" pay
increases such as "step increases" and comparability adjustments that are elements of the Title 5
General Schedule compensation system. 

Monetary Awards and Non-Monetary Recognition Systems

Although 16 of the 18 agencies represented in
this study reported that they were exempt from
Title 5 for monetary awards, we did not find
significant differences or innovations which
differed from Title 5 organizations.  Most of the
non-Title 5 organizations used the same types of
monetary awards as are used under Title 5
including Special Act or Service, annual
performance awards (based on performance rating), Quality Step Increases (QSIs), Sustained
Superior Performance (SSPs), On-the-Spot cash awards, and Time-Off awards.

We also found that overall there is not significant emphasis placed on non-monetary awards and
recognition systems and the programs in this area in the Title 5-exempt organizations were also very
similar to those found in Title 5 organizations.  We found programs such as individual and team
recognition certificates, employee of the month, and merchandise awards. 

Benefits and Family-Friendly Policies

Five of the 18 Title 5-exempt organizations we
studied reported that they are covered by the Title 5
provisions for benefits, while 12 are exempt.  
Three of the organizations reported that they
administratively follow the Title 5 provisions for
benefits.

For the most part, the organizations that are outside of Title 5 for benefits offer the same types of
benefits as the Title 5 organizations (i.e, life and health insurance, annual and sick leave, and
retirement).  However, there were some significant differences from Title 5 including a number of
organizations that have established their own benefit programs or systems. 

Family-friendly policies is another area where we did not find significant differences in the types of
programs offered between the Title 5-exempt organizations and those covered by Title 5.  In fact, in
some of the organizations the family-friendly benefits and programs were fewer than those offered
in most Title 5 organizations.  Generally, the organizations offered some sort of flexible scheduling,
access to fitness centers, child and elder care information or facilities, transportation subsidies, and
health screenings.  It is also important to note that a number of the organizations have followed the
guidelines developed and implemented under Title 5 for programs such as flexible work schedules,
leave banks and leave transfer. 

Work Force Development and Training

Educating and training employees for better organizational and individual performance is one of the
Merit System Principles as well as an area of emphasis nationally.  Workers must be prepared for
the greater demands of a highly technological, knowledge-based workplace.  We included this topic
in the study recognizing full well that it is an area where both Title 5 and non-Title 5 organizations
have similar issues and problems.  The limitations are more budgetary than regulatory.  

There appear to be several trends in the workforce development arena -- developing and using
competencies as the basis for training, linking training more directly to organizational needs and the
budget process, and creating organizational corporate universities to build employee capability and
organizational capacity for the future.  In several organizations, the corporate universities are the 

vehicle for enhancing workforce development and encouraging continuous learning through a range
of training opportunities that address the business needs of the organization. 

Employee Protections and Labor Relations

Title 5 agencies are often said to be frustrated with
the complexity of the system for taking adverse
actions for conduct or poor performance.  At the
same time, it is recognized that employees should be
protected from undue political influence or arbitrary,
capricious, and discriminatory administrative action. 
Our examination of Title 5-exempt organizations
gives some evidence of a growing interest in
developing systems to meet their specific needs
rather than follow a standardized process, and shows
what such systems could look like.

Overall, the findings reveal fewer protections for employees in the Title 5-exempt organizations. 
Fourteen organizations are exempt from the adverse actions regulations, 11 from the whistleblower
protections, and nine from the Hatch Act provisions.  Nine of the 18 organizations in the study are
exempt from all three.

The most common difference from the Title 5 system among the organizations exempt from adverse
action laws and regulations involves access to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). 
Thirteen organizations offer internal appeals procedures only, with no access to the MSPB.  Two
others offer MSPB appeal rights under certain conditions, and one provides for an MSPB appeal in
reduction-in-force (RIF) situations only while another offers an appeal in RIF and adverse action
situations for those eligible for veterans preference.  It should noted that the jurisdiction of MSPB is
set by statute and OPM regulation only; therefore, individual Title-5 exempt organizations wanting
to develop employee protection systems to meet their specific needs do not have the flexibility to
permit appeals to MSPB, even on a limited basis.  However, there is no lack of opportunities for
employees to have their cases heard.   Fourteen of the participating organizations have negotiated
grievance and arbitration procedures.  Several organizations mentioned the availability and use of
the Inspector General and the General Counsel as sources for whistleblower and Hatch Act
complaints.  As mentioned earlier, civil rights remedies are available to employees of all of the
organizations. 

Closely related to employee protections programs are
labor relations programs.  Of the 18 organizations in
the study, 14 have collective bargaining units or other
employee representative organizations.  Six of the
organizations with bargaining units are covered by
Chapter 71 of Title 5.  At least five of the Title 5-exempt organizations have multiple unions.

The management officials we spoke with report that the general experience of these organizations
with labor relations is mixed, just as it is under Title 5.  Some have historically good relationships
with their unions and some have had a stormy relationship.  Most of the study organizations are
participating in partnership activity even though only those covered by Title 5 are covered by the
President's executive order on labor-management partnerships.  Some of these partnerships preceded
the executive order.  

The scope of bargaining is broader for non-Title 5 organizations than for those covered under
Chapter 71 of Title 5, including bargaining over pay and benefits.  Of particular note are those
organizations trying to move toward pay-for-performance systems, which have reported meeting
strong union resistance in establishing such systems for bargaining unit employees.  Officials in one
organization that recently negotiated a performance-based pay system indicated that initially the
costs will be higher, but the long term goal of moving away from a seniority-based pay system is
worth the protections the unions negotiated for bargaining unit employees.  

Overall, the large number of unions in these organizations means that their role in curbing the
authority of management is particularly important.  On the one hand, union influence and the
collective bargaining process often reinforce the adherence to merit-based systems in these
organizations.  Obviously, though, a strong union voice adds another complicating factor to efforts
to make use of the flexibilities available from being exempt from Title 5. 

Integrated Human Resources Management System Change

Most organizations have recognized that a strong and integrated human resources management
system is vital to successful mission accomplishment.  In the previous sections we focused on a
large number of changes in the separate functional areas of human resources management.  While
changes in the individual functional areas are important and deliver necessary improvements, it is
also important to highlight organizations that are redesigning their entire HRM system to become an
integral part of achieving overall organizational goals.

While virtually all of the Title 5-exempt organizations we studied acknowledged that they are
operating in ever-changing environments, some are using this opportunity to undertake major
human resources reorganization or reengineering efforts.  In some of the organizations these efforts
are focused solely on the human resources functions while others include human resources functions
as part of an overall organizational restructuring.  These efforts are in response to major changes
taking place both in the organizations' internal and external environments.  Several organizations
which had operated in almost an exclusive or monopolistic market are now facing deregulation
and/or competition within their markets.  Others are facing downsizing or being forced by tighter
budgets or other constraints to develop HRM systems that better support the organization's
effectiveness and accomplishment of its overall mission.

Several organizations are focusing on integrating all aspects of HRM management (e.g., staffing,
classification, compensation, performance management, etc.).  For example, one agency has
launched a comprehensive effort to systematically identify the skills, knowledge, and abilities
necessary to perform the jobs within the agencies.  Once established, this system will classify jobs
based on the skills needed rather than looking at the tasks of the position.  Another outcome of this
effort will be the establishment of a data base which will identify all employees' skills so that when
vacancies arise, there will be immediately available information on qualified candidates from within
the agency.  The data base will also serve as a tool to identify organizational and individual training
needs. 

The performance management reform at this agency focuses on a metrics-based model with
measurable performance elements for all employees.  These objectives will eventually provide the
basis for new skills and performance-based compensation initiatives.   The new performance
management system will also provide for employee skill and career development through multi-rater (360 degree) feedback.  To support these reform efforts, the agency is undertaking a significant
HR automation effort.

Several other study agencies have focused their reform efforts on the role of HRM in mission
accomplishment.  These organizations have established HR goals and measures that link directly to
agency strategic plans.  Once these strategic frameworks are in place, managers are held accountable
for aligning their programs to fit the organizational framework and achieving the stated goals.

This is only a brief discussion of the changes some Title 5-exempt organizations are facing and the
integrated HRM systems these organizations are designing to meet these challenges.  These
challenges, and the integrated responses these organizations have adopted to meet them, can be
applied in the Title 5 universe as well.  HRM systems and staff must become less process oriented
and more advisory; employees must focus on acquiring and maintaining the competencies and skills
necessary to function well in a job and the HRM system must identify and provide the tools
necessary to build those competencies and skills; managers, with support from human resources
staff, must be held accountable for effectively managing their human resources to achieve the
mission of the organization; and automation must play a key role in making this possible.

Oversight and Accountability

Finally, we looked at the extent to which these Title 5-exempt organizations hold themselves
accountable for effective HRM systems and adherence to the Merit System Principles (as appro-
priate) or other organizational values and policies.  Consistent with OPM's general use of the term,
we define HRM accountability as the responsibility placed on organizations to show that they are
making effective use of their human resources, within the values expressed by the Merit System
Principles or other merit-based organizational values defined by the non-Title 5 agencies.  

Our findings show that most of the organizations studied do not have a formal internal oversight or
accountability mechanism and there is limited external oversight of overall HRM programs and
merit systems among the exempt organizations.  Most organizations identified the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB), the General Accounting Office (GAO), and their Inspector General (IG)
as organizations that periodically look at their operations.  But there was no systematic regulatory
review of the HRM operations from an external source, although, as noted previously, merit is a
clear component of HRM within these organizations.

Some exempt organizations enter into interchange agreements with the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM).  Such agreements authorize OPM to review their merit systems in exchange
for conferring Federal "status" on employees who apply for jobs at Title 5 agencies.   OPM's
review, however, is limited to certifying the systems as merit-based, and is much narrower than its
typical review of Title 5 covered organizations.  Central HRM staffs in some of these organizations
also provide policy direction and oversight to subordinate HRM units in the field.  Some HRM
representatives stated they periodically review management practices under delegated HRM
authority.

This is especially important, since many of the organizations have given line managers more
authority and/or responsibility for managing HRM.  They expect line managers to be responsible for
HRM as part of their managerial responsibilities, with less reliance on the HRM staff.  In particular,
such delegations fall in the area of selection, where managers are required to justify in writing the
reasons for selection sufficient to withstand legal challenge.  Although many Title 5 organizations
are moving in the direction of more responsibility for line managers, we found a distinct difference
in the perspective of Title 5-exempt organizations, where managers play a more integral role in
HRM activities, from Title 5 organizations that have depended traditionally on a dedicated HRM
staff to implement and manage the personnel system.  

With this increased HRM authority and responsibility for managers, the need for HRM account-
ability becomes more apparent.  We found a number of examples of HRM accountability including
one agency that holds managers accountable for employee and organizational performance through
an established performance measurement system based on the Balanced Scorecard approach. 
Another organization includes HRM accountability factors in its executive and supervisor
performance evaluations.  Their leadership sets the tone and sends the accountability message
downward throughout the organization.  

Nevertheless the lack of third-party oversight of the Title 5-exempt agencies to ensure adherence to
Merit Principles and to encourage HRM effectiveness is noteworthy.  Similarly, these agencies lack
a central source of information, such as OPM, on effective HRM practices.  The final section, which
follows, takes up these and other findings to identify implications and make recommendations for
the future.
              III.  Implications and Recommendations

This study describes the HRM policies and practices of non-Title 5 Federal organizations as they
blend merit principles and practices with their own institutional approaches and mission require-
ments.  These merit-based HRM systems serve as alternatives to the Title 5 HRM model.  They
demonstrate responsiveness to the organization's unique needs while retaining key merit-based
administrative values and practices that are shared throughout the Federal HRM community.  While
their HRM practices do not in most cases differ significantly in overall organization and operation
from those of traditional Federal agencies, their experiences further our understanding of merit-based systems in a more deregulated environment.  Among other things, they teach us that there is
no magic bullet when it comes to creating high quality HRM systems.  

The organizations that participated in the study revealed that they, too, are seeking ways of adding
value to their organizations, and they are interested in learning what is being done in Title 5
organizations as well as in other exempt organizations.  Continuing communication with non-Title 5
organizations can be a positive outcome of this study and, by broadening our understanding of the
wide range of HRM issues and alternative responses, benefit the whole Federal HRM community.  

Merit as a Key Operating Principle

The following are key implications and recommendations drawn from the findings about the role of
merit in Title 5-exempt organizations:

  As evidenced by the organizations studied, merit remains a cornerstone of Federal HRM policies
  and practices for organizations not covered by Title 5.  However, this does not mean that Title 5-exempt organizations interpret and implement the Merit System Principles or their merit
  processes as Title 5 and its implementing regulations direct.  In other words, there are already
  multiple merit-based HRM systems in the larger Federal community--multiple merit systems
  that may fit the looser network of organizational and management relationships called for in
  today's complex political, economic, and social environments.  

  At the same time, this situation raises legitimate issues about accountability to the public and the
  responsibility of the central management agencies, such as OPM.  Based on the study data, most
  organizations outside Title 5 do not have a formal oversight or accountability mechanism.  One
  way to ensure accountability in such a decentralized environment would be to make organ-
  izations fully responsible for defining and defending their merit system policies and practices
  under the umbrella of the Merit System Principles and their legislative or administrative
  authorization.  OPM can become potentially instrumental in managing this diversity as the
  President's agent for holding agencies accountable for upholding the Merit System Principles.  

  OPM could also serve as the repository of information about the Federal work force as a whole,
  a clearinghouse of public HRM policies, practices, and evaluation, and most importantly, a
  center of leadership for Federal human resources management.  Through its oversight and
  effectiveness role, OPM could broadly coordinate a range of legislated or administratively
  authorized merit-based HRM systems.

This approach recognizes the unique missions of many different Federal agencies and offers an open
framework to adjust to changing requirements rather than the single one-size-fits-all approach many
organizations are endeavoring to escape.  At the same time, it will ensure adherence to merit and
provide the important context of government-wide needs and values. 

Differences and Similarities

The following are key implications and recommendations drawn from our findings about HRM
systems and practices in Title 5-exempt organizations:

        We started the study with the working hypothesis that there would be substantial differences in
        the HRM systems of non-Title 5 organizations compared with Title 5 agencies.  In general, we
        found that the actual system differences are important but more limited than anticipated.  

        Our findings revealed that exemptions from Title 5 requirements can provide the organizations
        with a greater flexibility in responding to changing needs both in the structure of the HRM office
        and in the policies and practices that support the mission.  Also, in those organizations that are
        fully exempt from Title 5, the HRM staff become more involved in the research and implemen-
        tation of alternative HRM policies and practices, and acquire both expertise and a sense of
        participating in such activities.  On the other hand, developing and defending new HRM systems
        can be complex and perilous.

        Overall, the greatest differences in HR systems and programs occurred in classification,
        compensation, and benefits, along with the area of employee protections.  Fewer differences
        were found in recruitment and staffing (except for those not required to follow veterans
        preference and the "rule of 3"),  performance management (except where agencies report
        implementation of more rigorous pay-for-performance systems), worker-friendly programs, and
        training.   

        In labor-management relations, we noted that a large number of the studied organizations have
        one or multiple represented units, with the respondents suggesting that unions serve as a brake
        on management -- supporting adherence to merit principles, but sometimes constraining full use
        of certain flexibilities.  They also experience a range of positive and negative relationships with
        their unions just as Title 5 agencies do.


        Significantly, in some organizations we also found substantial cross-functional activity
        surrounding the reorganization, reengineering, or reinvention of the overall HRM systems and
        structures to meet the changing needs of the organization.  There was a greater integration of the
        HRM role into the management of organizations in order to make them more competitive with
        the private sector or to respond to other changing conditions.  These efforts are particularly
        instructive in light of Government-wide efforts to tie HRM systems more directly to agency
        mission requirements.  

As more flexibility is built into Title 5 and as increasing numbers of agencies engage in demonstra-
tion projects, these experiences can serve as a guide to other agencies as they develop alternative
HRM systems.

Building an Expanded Picture of Title 5-Exempt Systems

Given the importance of the example of Title 5-exempt organizations, it is clear that we could
benefit from more detailed information about them.  As noted at the outset, this study was intended
only to sketch a broad picture of non-Title 5 HRM policies and practices.  The next step toward
building a more complete picture of these systems would be to take a more in-depth look at specific
HRM functions, for example, staffing systems and practices that meet the need for timely hires of
skilled candidates in a merit-based process or competitive compensation systems that reward
performance in order to support the unique needs of the organization.  Such studies could also go
beyond this one by including information from managers and employees on their views of the
responsiveness and quality of these HRM systems and services, rather than relying only on the
views of HRM managers and staff.  

Several other issues concerning Title 5-exempt agencies emerging from this study might also be
pursued further: 

        The cataloging and categorization of Federal organizations.  Of particular interest may be those
        organizations that are partially covered under Title 5 and partially exempt -- such hybrid
        organizations are difficult to describe and their dual HRM systems may be more complex to
        administer;

        The organization of the HRM office staff and its relationship to the management of the
        organization; and

        The degree of decentralization of HRM authority to line management and the process for
        accountability.
                      Merit System Principles

2301(b) of Title 5, United States Code

1. Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to
 achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be
 determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open
 competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.

2. All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in
 all aspects of personnel management, without regard to political affiliation, race, color,
 religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper
 regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.

3. Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both
 national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives
 and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.

4. All employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the
 public interest.

5. The Federal work force should be used efficiently and effectively.

6. Employees should be retained on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, inadequate
 performance should be corrected, and employees should be separated who cannot or will not
 improve their performance to meet required standards.

7. Employees should be provided effective education and training in cases in which such
 education and training would result in better organizational and individual performance.

8. Employees should be--
   (A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan
   political purposes, and
   (B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of
   interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election.
 
9. Employees should be protected against reprisal for the lawful disclosure of information
 which the employees reasonably believe evidences--
   (A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
   (B) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and
      specific danger to public health or safety.Study Methodology 

Because of the breadth and diversity of Title 5-exempt organizations, a three phase plan was used
to conduct this study.  The phases were as follows:  1) identification, categorization, and back-
ground study of the Title 5-exempt organizations, 2) an initial telephone survey of 21 Title 5-exempt organizations, and 3) on-site and further telephone interviews of ten selected
organizations.

Phase I

In Phase I, the study team spent a significant amount of time attempting to identify and cate-
gorize the Title 5-exempt organizations.  Categorization of the Title 5-exempt organizations was
more difficult than it appears because the organizations studied represent a complex array of 
coverage under, and exemptions from, Title 5 requirements.  Only six reported being completely
outside of Title 5, including benefits.  Several others reported being covered only for benefits or
for Hatch Act or whistleblower requirements.  Several of the organizations operate multiple
HRM systems with some employees covered by Title 5 and others by alternative HRM systems.  

The many different types found (e.g., government corporations, independent authorities, etc.) and
the complex legislative histories of each of these entities further complicates any effort to
account fully for their legal status or to understand completely their HRM systems.  A truly
comprehensive list of Title 5-exempt organizations would require an exhaustive analysis of each
organization's authorizing legislation.  For the purposes of this study, the study team therefore
chose not to attempt to develop that comprehensive listing of Title 5-exempt organizations, but
rather to categorize a large number of the most significant organizations in a way that supports
the stated objectives of the study.  Therefore, for the purposes of this report we refer to only two
categories of non-Title 5 organizations: 

 1. Organizations partially exempt from Title 5, and 

 2. Organizations fully exempt or not covered by Title 5.  

As noted, the study team initially selected 28 organizations for potential participation in the
study.  The initial selection was based on the following criteria:

1.  Organizations from each of the two Title 5-exempt categories listed above;

2.  A cross-section of organizations based on size, mission, location, and degree of                unionization; and

3.  Organizations judged to have potential value to the study (e.g., extent of Title 5              exemptions, known human resources innovations, etc.).

Participation in this special study was voluntary and of the 28 organizations contacted, 21 agreed
to participate.  Of these, there were 18 organizations that, upon further examination, actually met
the criteria for participation in the study.  A nineteenth participant, the National Security Agency,
was added later based on the referral by another organization.  The following chart lists the study
participants:

Phase II

The second phase of the study included developing and administering a telephone survey to the
organizations agreeing to participate.  In order to obtain a significant amount of data from each of
these organizations, the study team chose to develop a broad-based data collection survey which
provides a general picture of the HRM systems and an understanding of their approach to merit
rather than a detailed or in-depth assessment of any of the individual HRM functions.  The
survey captured data in the following areas:

   Demographic and Background Information
   Staffing
   Classification and Compensation
   Performance Management
   Monetary Awards and Non-Monetary Recognition Systems
   Benefits and Family-Friendly Policies
   Employee Development and Training
   Employee Protections and Labor Relations
   HRM Oversight and Accountability






   The study team contacted the human resources departments of these organizations and conducted
the interviews with either the head of human resources or his or her designee(s).  (The telephone
survey is included in Appendix C of the report.)

 Phase III

 Based on the results of the telephone survey, the study team selected ten of the Title 5-exempt
organizations for participation in the third phase of the study.   In this phase, the goal was to
gather more in-depth information through on-site visits or through more extended telephone
interviews.  The organizations were selected for this phase based on the following criteria:

1.  Evidence of further value to the study, making it worthwhile to learn more about the          organization's HRM policies and practices;

2.  Use of the merit system principles or evidence of a merit environment;

3.  Potential applicability to other organizations; and

4. The organization's willingness to participate further.

Organizations warranting comprehensive further examination of their HRM systems included the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the United States Postal Service (USPS), and two
organizations from the intelligence community -- the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and
National Security Agency (NSA).  The TVA and the USPS are organizations that have under-
gone significant change in how they approach HRM and are continuing to implement new
programs and expand existing programs to larger portions of the work force within their
organizations.  The CIA and NSA are part of the intelligence community and are also facing
significant changes.  These organizations provided a great deal of information on current trends
in many areas of human resources management.  

The other six organizations were looked at further in selected areas of HRM only (e.g.,
classification, compensation, training and development) rather than focusing on the entire HRM
structure.  These organizations include the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Library of Congress, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

Study Limitations

The limitations of this study result from both its scope and its methodology.  As noted above, not
every partially or fully Title 5-exempt organization was included in this study, although a large
majority of the exempt work force can be found in the organizations covered here.  In order to
develop, in a short time frame, a broad picture of how HRM systems operate in a non-Title 5
world, we also limited our data gathering in the organizations covered to survey responses and
conversations with HR managers and staff, and relied heavily on this self-reported data.   Finally,
as noted above we did not undertake the labor-intensive task of systematically examining each
organization's authorizing legislation.  Instead, this study focuses on identifying broad categories
of agencies and presenting a general picture of their HRM practices, especially as they relate to
merit and innovation and point toward possible avenues for future study.

                 Office of Personnel Management
                         Special Study on
                   Title 5-Exempt Organization
                        Telephone Survey

Introduction:  
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is conducting this Special Study to better understand how
organizations that are fully or partially exempt from civil service personnel laws and regulations create
and manage their HRM systems and services to meet the needs of the organization and its employees
within the framework of the merit system principles.  This information is important for addressing the
challenges that organizations government-wide are facing as they reinvent the HRM role in the
organization and develop more business-like management practices.

Study Objectives:
   Identify how Title 5-exempt organizations build the values and principles of merit, efficiency,
  and effectiveness into their HRM policies and practices, and
   Identify innovative HRM practices that might be adapted for use government-wide.

This telephone survey will take approximately 60 minutes to complete.

Survey Questions

Section I: Organizational Demographics and Background Information:

1.  Please provide the following demographic information:
 a.  Number of employees _________________
 b.  Number of bargaining units_____________________
 c.  Number of field units___________________
 d.  Number of personnel systems under different authorities (i.e., Title 5 and non-Title 5)______
 and number of employees under each system -- 
    1)  Authority_________    Employees________
    2)  Authority_________    Employees________
    3)  Authority_________    Employees________

2.  How is your HRM Office organized to service the organization (e.g., what functions are centralized
vs. decentralized, delegations to line managers )?  Describe.


3.   Is your organization covered by the Title 5 Merit System Principles?  
    Yes -- How does your HRM system incorporate the Merit Principles generally into your HRM
  policies and practices?

    No (or don't know) -- What values/principles form the basis of your HRM system and how are
 they incorporated into your HRM system?

4.  Does your organization have written human resources regulations, policies, and operating
instructions? 
    Yes -- Who develops the regulations and who provides oversight for their implementation?
    
    No -- What guidance is available for HR staff and line managers?
    
Section II:  Career Systems--Staffing, Training, and Performance Management

Staffing -- Please respond to the following questions on your recruitment and selection systems and
practices:
1.  What are your major occupations?

2.  What occupations do you have the greatest turnover in, the most difficulty recruiting for?

3.  Is your organization covered under Title 5 regulations for recruitment and staffing?
       Yes -- Skip to question 9.
          No -- Do you administratively follow Title 5? 
              Yes -- Why?  Then skip to question 9.
           
            No -- Describe what authorities you have and how you implement
                     them.

4.  How do applicants apply for your job openings? (e.g., advertisements, open continuous
announcements, recommendations by current employees, other.)

5.  Do you rate and rank candidates?
    Yes -- Describe.

    No -- How do you differentiate among candidates?
 
6.  How do you apply veterans' preference? 

7.  Are there any other special preferences applied (e.,g. unions, internal candidates)?
    Yes -- Describe.
 
    No

8.  How are promotions determined?  (e.g., career ladders, competition, competency/skill acquisition)

9.   How do your selection and promotion systems protect your organization from discrimination
charges?
 
10.  What role do supervisors and managers play in the hiring and promotion process?  

11.  Please describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using in the recruitment and
staffing areas.

 Some possible areas include -- 
    Electronic application or rating and ranking systems
    Recruitment partnerships with educational institutions
    Recruitment bonuses (What occupations?  How effective?)
    Delegations to line managers
    Publicizing job openings (e.g., Internet, targeted advertising)
    Other (describe)

Training and Development
1.  Do you have a training and development plan for the organization?
    Yes -- 
    a.    Describe how the training supports the mission of the organization.
 
       b.  Is training centrally funded or part of operating unit budgets?
       
       c.  Does the organization designate a certain percentage of the operating budget for 
           employee training?
 
    No -- What types of training does the organization offer?  Require?

2.  Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using in the area of training and
development.

 Some possible examples include:
    Automated training request and registration tools/processes
    Training partnerships with educational institutions
    On-site college programs
    Career resources center/counseling
    Training for organizational or occupational competencies
    Other (describe)

Performance Management
1.  Is your organization covered by Title 5 regulations for performance management? 
    Yes -- Skip to question 5
    No (or don't know) -- Do you have a performance management system in place?
       Yes -- Answer all of the questions in this section.
       No -- Skip to question 8.

2.  Are there different performance management systems for different occupations or groups of
employees?
    Yes -- Describe.
    No

3.  Do you have written performance plans and formal appraisals/ratings?
    Yes -- Describe.
 
    No

4.  Is the performance management system linked to employee compensation?
    Yes -- Describe.

    No 

5.  Are individual or team performance plans linked to organizational goals?
    Yes -- How?

    No

6.  How are performance standards and measures developed for individuals and teams?

7.  What approaches do you take for managing poor performance? (e.g., retraining, reduction in pay or
status, discipline, termination)

8.  Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using in performance management.  

 Some possible examples include:
    Automated systems (please briefly describe)
    Team-based performance plans and/or assessment
    Competency-based performance assessments
    Multi-source Feedback (360 degree)
    Upward feedback
    Other (describe)

Recognition Systems (Non-monetary)
1.  Does your organization have an established recognition system for employees?
    Yes -- Describe

    No

2.  Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using to recognize employees or
teams.  

Section III - Classification, Compensation, Awards, and Benefits
Identify if each of the following areas is covered by Title 5:

Classification                        Yes       No
Compensation                          Yes       No
Awards                           Yes       No
Benefits                         Yes       No

(If yes for any item, answer only the last question under that topic.) 

Classification
1.  Does your organization have a job classification system?
    Yes -- Describe.  (e.g., based on graded duties/occupations, competencies)

    No

2.  Who has the authority to classify jobs/duties? (e.g., HR only, line managers)

3. Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using to classify positions/duties (e.g.,
automated job requests or position descriptions or grade assignment).  

Compensation
1.  Does your organization administratively follow the General Schedule? The Executive Schedule? the
Federal Wage System (Wage Grade)?
    Yes -- Why?  Then skip to question 3.
 

    No -- Describe the pay systems used (e.g., broad banding, executive level).

2.  What is/are the basis/bases for basic pay progression?  
    Seniority/length of service (Are there waiting periods?)
    Performance (based on ratings?)
    Acquisition of competencies/skills
    Training Completed
    Other (describe)

3.  Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using in the pay/compensation area.  

 Some possible examples include:
    Automated tools (describe)
    Pay Banding or Broad Banding
    Special bonus plans (describe)
    Variable Pay (describe)
    Other (describe)

Awards
1.  Does your organization have an awards system (monetary) for managers and employees?
    Yes -- Describe.

    No

2.  Are awards linked to individual and/or team performance?
    Yes -- Describe.

    No 

3. Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using in the awards area. 

Benefits
1.  Does your organization have authority to create alternative retirement/health/life insurance programs?
    Yes -- Describe.

     No

2.  Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using in the benefits area (e.g.,
cafeteria plans).

Section IV - Employee Relations--Family Friendly Policies, Employee Protections

Family Friendly Policies
1.  Describe policies established for employee personal, professional, and family needs and interests.

 Some possible examples include:
    Child care/Eldercare
    Fitness/Health Centers
    Flextime
    Alternative Work Schedules (AWS)
    Leave banks
    Family-friendly leave
    Other (describe)

Employee Protections
1.  Is your organization covered by Title 5 regulations for:
 a.  Adverse actions --               Yes       No   
 b.  Whistleblowing --                Yes       No 
 c.  Hatch Act --           Yes       No

2.  If no for adverse actions -- What procedures/processes are in place for adverse actions (discipline and
discharge)?
 a.  What appeal rights do employees have?


3.  If no for Whistleblower protections -- What protections do you have in place?

4.  If no for the Hatch Act -- What protections do you have in place?

5.  Do you have employee attitude surveys or other data that reflect employee perceptions of fairness in
HRM policies and practices?  
    Yes
    No

6.  Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using to manage conduct problems.

 Some possible examples include:
    Pre-employment clearance
    Alternative Dispute Resolution
    Peer Review of Grievances
    Other (describe)

Section V -- Labor Management Relations (Please answer these questions if your organization has
unions; otherwise, skip to the next section.)

1.  Is your organization covered by Title 5 regulations relating to labor management relations?
    Yes -- Skip to question 3.
    No

2.  Which HRM areas, if any, are restricted from negotiations with the unions, e.g.,
    Pay
       Benefits
    Hiring, qualifications, or selection criteria
    Discipline
    Other (describe)

3.  Describe any innovative or highly successful practices you are using in the labor relations area.

 Some possible examples include:
    Formal partnership agreement(s)
    Joint committee(s) for HRM policies and practices
    Other (describe)

Section VI - Conclusion
1.  What would you describe as your overall best practices in HRM?

2.  What are your major challenges in HRM?

3.  How do you ensure line-management accountability for managing human resources in achieving
organizational results?

4.  Have your HRM responsibilities expanded into areas of organizational development, organizational
change, strategic planning, conflict resolution or other new areas?
    Yes -- Describe.

    No

5.  Is there anything else you would like to add about the concept of merit in your HRM system or any
other innovative practices that we did not ask about?             Detailed Description of Study Findings

The following sections describe in more detail the study findings outlined in the "Summary of
Study Findings" in the body of this report.  Each section contains contextual or summary
information similar to the summary section in the body, but also provides more in-depth
information on specific examples or programs found in individual organizations.  By offering
more detailed information here, we hope to enhance the value of this report to readers seeking
information about specific agency practices in the various areas of HRM.  

The Merit System Principles and Merit-Based HRM Systems

The responses to the question about actual coverage by the Merit System Principles revealed
some uncertainty about specific coverage.  Five respondents stated they are covered by the Merit
System Principles and 13 said they are not (although three said they administratively follow the
Merit System Principles in their HRM policies and practices.)  A strict reading of Title 5 on
Merit System Principle coverage would suggest that some of the organizations may actually be
covered; but it would take a careful reading of the individual legislative authorities to make a
final determination.  Several organizations described specific responses to ensure their HRM
systems reflect what we would call merit principles:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which is party to an interchange agreement with
OPM, maintains a highly visible merit staffing system based on the NRC's organizational values
and the Merit System Principles.  A recent staffing initiative, a special Merit Staffing course,
developed in January 1997, helps supervisors improve their skills in rating, ranking, selecting,
and giving constructive feedback to job applicants.  A labor-management partnership group and
EEO Advisory Committees help monitor the system.

As a recent initiative, supervisors are participating more fully in the total hiring process.  A
special Merit Staffing Course, begun in January 1997, instructs supervisors in assuming
responsibility for qualifying, rating, ranking, selecting, and giving constructive feedback to job
applicants.  A labor-management partnership group and the EEO Advisory Committee help
monitor the system.

The Library of Congress, as a member of the Legislative Branch, is not covered by Title 5
requirements.  In settlement of an EEO complaint calling for fair treatment in employment, the
Library established a formal, merit-based HRM system that mirrors Title 5 staffing regulations
with a focus on objectivity, automation, timeliness, and quality results to meet the organization's
needs.  The organization had voluntarily adopted the Title 5 classification and pay systems
earlier.  The Library sees a merit-based HRM system as a protection for both the organization
and its employees in a highly complex and dynamic environment.

The 1996 legislation granting the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authority to create
its own responsive HRM system exempted the organization from most Title 5 requirements,
including the Merit System Principles.  The FAA, however, has declared that its newly emerging
HRM system should be consistent with those principles.  For FAA, merit policies and practices
require a balance between fairness and the flexibility to achieve organizational results.  The
organization has established the National Employees' Forum (representatives of employee
associations and special emphasis groups) to serve as a one point of check and balance to ensure
appropriate representation and protection for employees against undesirable practices.

Staffing

Since the Title 5-exempt organizations have fewer regulatory requirements in the hiring process,
we expected to find clear differences from Title 5 in their hiring policies and practices.  In fact,
we found few such differences in their recruitment, hiring, and promotion practices with the
important exceptions of the "rule of three" and veterans preference.  None of the organizations
exempt from Title 5 staffing regulations follow the "rule of three" unless they are obligated also
to apply veterans preference.

Three of the organizations are fully covered by Title 5 for hiring and staffing--the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).  Of the 15 organizations not
covered by Title 5 regulations, 12 use some level of rating and ranking procedures and five apply
some form of veterans preference procedures for hiring and/or RIF.  Two organizations report
that they informally consider veterans preference when candidates are otherwise equal in hiring
or RIF situations. 

All of the organizations use a variety of mechanisms to advertise vacancies including the
Internet.  Each organization specifically mentioned the use of targeted advertising to ensure a
diverse applicant pool.  OFHEO noted use of a Minority On-line Information System (MOLIS)
that sends vacancy announcements via the Internet to minority institutions.  Targeted recruitment
is also aimed at specific occupations and skills, such as foreign language competencies for the
Library of Congress.  There is some use of recruitment and relocation bonuses for hard-to-fill
occupations in organizations such as the Veteran's Health Administration (VHA) for Title 38
employees and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).  The TVA has a large internship
program for targeted areas (e.g., nuclear engineering) and offers scholarships to dependents of
employees.  The VHA operates a highly publicized Central Placement Service, which is a
nationwide automated inventory of applicants for Title 38 positions.  The OTS has a Fellows
Program in which up to ten Fellows receive 14-month appointments with benefits.

Most of the 15 organizations exempt from Title 5 staffing requirements expect selecting officials
to play a major role in the hiring process, for example, by participating in the rating and ranking
process and especially in providing written justification to document selections.  The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has delegated merit selection to line managers who are
responsible for hiring and promotion decisions.  The Library of Congress holds managers
accountable for filling positions based on the organization's staffing plan that shows diversity
imbalances in the workforce.  The Peace Corps holds managers and supervisors responsible for
differentiating among candidates and for justifying their selections.  The USPS and the TVA
have introduced structured interviewing to help selecting officials improve their hiring selections. 
The TVA also uses a management selection board for some hiring.  The selecting official
identifies the selection criteria, then the selection board (comprised of the selecting official's
peers, customers, etc.) interviews applicants for behavioral competencies while the selecting
manager interviews for technical competencies.  The board ranks the candidates and the selecting
official makes the selection.  

Management responsibility for staffing decisions is most pronounced in the rank-in-person
systems.  In a rank-in-person system an employee is "classified" by a panel of managers/experts
according to the skills and achievements he or she brings to the work of the organization.  This
contrasts with the "rank-in-position" approach in the Title 5 classification system which
classifies jobs based on the duties of specific occupations.  Four organizations--the Central
Intelligence Agency, the State Department Foreign Service, the Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS) (Title 22 employees), and the Veteran's Health Administration (Title 38
employees)--have rank-in-person systems where hiring and promotion decisions are based on
expert panel reviews of qualifications.  Promotions are made from eligibility lists; some
organizations have "up or out" promotion requirements which limit the idea of guaranteed
employment based on seniority and focus on the qualifications of the employee rather than the
requirements of the position.  The State Department Foreign Service promotion panels include,
by law, one public member from outside the U.S. Government.

In general, rating and ranking procedures vary among the organizations, from formal testing and
central registers in the USPS to simple resume reviews by selecting officials at Sallie Mae.  Most
use some process for grouping the applicants; for example, the NRC places applicants in one of
three categories while the Library of Congress uses a statistically validated scoring scheme to
identify the most qualified.  The organizations generally seem to be most concerned about
matching qualifications with job requirements and ensuring that selecting officials take
responsibility for justifying selections.  The USPS, the largest of the Title 5-exempt organ-
izations (and now larger than any Title 5 organization including DoD), has the most formal
selection process, which includes the use of national test registers and veterans preference.  A
new approach under consideration would move away from national registers to a testing process
that places the responsibility on the applicant to apply for vacancies with score in hand rather
than waiting on a register, sometimes for years, and then not being interested or available when
the call comes.  The goal is to develop a system that generates more self-initiative and personal
responsibility in the application process.

In all, four organizations studied use formal validated examinations in the hiring process.   The
Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority (MWAA) uses tests for police and firefighter
positions; the USPS continues to use the clerk test and maintains large national registers; the
Foreign Service has an entry-level exam; and the Foreign Agricultural Service has an internal
exam for selection for Title 22 (Foreign Service) positions.  Several of these exams have
survived legal challenge.  The MWAA is also currently in the process of validating physical
requirements for their police and firefighter positions.

Most of the organizations use a one-year probationary period (one indicated this can be extended
if circumstances warrant); the USPS has a 90-day probation.  Three organizations have
particularly interesting probation and appointment policies.  The FAS selects candidates for its
Title 22 Foreign Service Officer positions from current employees who take a competitive
examination.  Successful candidates move laterally into the Foreign Service.  After a candidacy
period of five years, they must be certified by a tenuring board or they return to a position in the
competitive service at the FAS.  The Peace Corps has a five-year employment rule.  Employees
can have a maximum of two 2 year appointments.  It reports that this limitation both restricts
the hiring pool and reduces performance and conduct related actions. 

Like many other Federal organizations, the non-Title 5 organizations also struggle with
improving the usually long and cumbersome recruitment and hiring processes.  In response to
organizational needs, these exempt organizations are moving to develop institutional mechan-
isms to improve the timeliness and quality of the hiring process.  Here are several examples of
recruitment and hiring process improvements:

The Library of Congress holds managers and HRM staff accountable through the performance
system for maintaining the strict time frames embedded in their hiring procedures.  A tracking
system monitors the status of all vacancies.  

The Federal Aviation Administration has implemented several tools to continuously improve
the hiring process:  the use of a Centralized Applicant Pool System that provides automatic
consideration for applicants and the opportunity for managers to hire without announcing a
vacancy, "on the spot" hires for special program needs and hard-to-fill positions, elimination of
time-in-grade, use of the Internet for job applications, non-competitive conversion from
temporary to permanent status if competition is held initially for the temporary position,
standardized position descriptions, and reduction in the number of hiring authorities to three
(permanent, temporary with time limit, and temporary without time limit).

Automation is also helping to improve the hiring process.  Several organizations are using or
planning to use the same commercial software for managing their HR Information System
(HRIS) systems, tracking resumes, and qualifying applicants (PeopleSoft  and Resumix  were
frequently noted).  The Veterans Health Administration's placement service will be augmented
by an interactive website where candidates can file their applications electronically and get
information about the VA.  Several other organizations are also using or planning to use
interactive voice response systems for applications (and other services such as benefits).  In the
FAA's automated staffing system, Selections Within Faster Times (SWIFT), vacancy
announcements are placed on the Internet and automated tools are available for creating,
copying, and storing vacancy announcements.  FAA states that this has reduced the time required
to advertise vacancies by more than 80 percent and provides greater assurance that employees
and outside applicants have timely access to vacancy announcements. The Centralized Applicant
Pool System  will review qualifications and assign ratings and rankings, enabling managers to
get referral lists over 90 percent faster.  Standard position descriptions, now available in the
PDLibrary, also reduce the time for creating a job by more than 90 percent.

One shared concern that came up in several organizations involved decisions concerning external
versus internal recruitment/promotion.   One organization has separate lists for internal and
external candidates so internal candidates will not have to compete with sometimes more
experienced external applicants.  Another runs a special selection/training program that moves
nonprofessional employees to a professional positions based on training and experience rather
than the positive education requirement otherwise needed to qualify for the position.

Classification and Compensation

Of the 18 non-Title 5 organizations represented in this study, 17 were exempt from Title 5 for
classification and 16 were exempt for compensation.  Most have developed their own systems,
which diverge considerably from the Title 5 classification system.

Overall, alternative classification and compensation systems provide the exempt organizations
flexibility to meet competitive needs and to move from seniority-based pay systems to
performance-based alternatives.  The Federal Reserve Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
the Federal Aviation Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the Office of Thrift Supervision, Metropolitan Washington
Airport Authority, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), and
Sallie Mae have all developed (or are in the process of developing) their own classification
systems, based on benchmarking, factor evaluation systems, or other job analysis assessments. 
Several others including the USPS and TVA use Hay- or market-based systems.  Corres-
pondingly, the majority of the organizations exempt from Title 5 compensation systems have
also established pay systems that are more flexible and better fit their unique environments and
organizational needs (pay-for-performance systems, broad bands, variable pay and others).

An example of an organization with special needs in the areas of classification and compensation
is OFHEO, where the authorizing legislation requires that the organization have comparable pay
and benefits programs with other Federal regulators (e.g., Office of Thrift Supervision, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, etc.).  OFHEO uses a broad band pay system to help recruit for unique and hard-to-fill
positions.  Examiners and financial analysts at OFHEO must have a high level of knowledge and
expertise related to the banking industry.  Therefore, a high level of the OFHEO's recruiting
efforts are concentrated in the banking industry, Wall Street, and other financial forums.  To
attract high-quality candidates, OFHEO must be able to offer comparable compensation
packages and the broad band system has given it more flexibility to do so.

The USPS has implemented both a broad band system and merit-based pay for all of its non-bargaining unit positions (approximately 80,000 employees).  Increases in salary are determined
solely by performance and there are no longer any step increases or cost-of-living adjustments
(COLAs).  Other organizations that have implemented pay-for-performance systems include
OTS, which has also eliminated step increases and annual pay adjustments, and the OFHEO,
which has implemented a broad band system with salary increases based solely on merit.  Several
of these organizations, including the USPS and OFHEO, reported that there have been some
problems or expected problems with employees reaching the top of their pay band too quickly,
particularly if the employees are recruited at high points in the pay band.  To remedy this
situation, the organizations have devised formulas for employees at the top of their pay bands so
that some portion or all of the salary increases are granted as cash awards rather than increases to
base salary.

Several of the organizations outside the Title 5 classification system have moved to or are in the
process of moving to market-based classification and/or compensation systems.  For example, in
order to be competitive in the newly-deregulated utilities industry, the TVA is moving away
from a traditional Hay-based classification and compensation system to a market-based system. 
TVA officials state that their former classification system tended to put value on power and
authority and subtly encouraged managers to build large staffs with specific technical skills.  
This is inconsistent with TVA's movement toward deregulation, downsizing, and increased
emphasis on the "softer" skills such as leadership and management.  

TVA officials acknowledge that the former system strongly encouraged internal equity within
and between pay grades and job classes.  However, they point out that individual jobs are
different even within the same occupations and there is a need for classification and pay structure
focused externally through which positions are rated relative to the market rather than on specific
technical skills and knowledge.  As an example, TVA's HRM positions tested in a market system
showed they would be paid less than they are being paid in the current internal equity-based
system.

It should also be noted, however, that five exempt organizations reported that they admin-
istratively follow Title 5 for classification and compensation because it is easier than establishing
their own systems, particularly if only a portion of the organization is outside of Title 5.  For
example, approximately one-third of the Smithsonian Institution's work force is outside of
Title 5 -- these employees are administered through a trust fund system.  However, to promote
fairness and equity between them and Title 5 employees with whom they work side-by-side, the
Smithsonian has chosen to manage both sets of employees in essentially the same manner and
under the same systems.  The NRC states that it follows the Title 5 pay structure for ease of pay
administration and to sustain inter-agency transfer options for its employees.

Performance Management

Fourteen of the organizations reported that they are exempt from the Title 5 laws and regulations
relating to performance management systems, while three are covered.  One organization chose
to administratively follow the Title 5 practices. 

Each of the 18 organizations represented in this study reported that they have some sort of
performance management and appraisal system and there was a range of different approaches. 
For example, some of the organizations use a pass/fail system rather than the more traditional
five level rating system.  The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has a unique performance
management system.  While it uses a multi-source feedback system (managers, peers, and self), it
is for employee development only.  There is no overall formal rating.  The steps in the TVA
performance appraisal process include:

 1.  Managers and employees set annual performance objectives which must be linked to           TVA's seven organizational values and annual strategic goals.

 2.  Quarterly updates are conducted between managers and employees to assess progress          toward the stated objectives.

 3.  At year-end, employees are given a final rating on each element, however, there is no           overall performance rating.

Another noteworthy finding is that 12 of the 18 organizations, including TVA, reported that their
performance management systems are linked to organizational goals (i.e., individual's perform-
ance plans and objectives are linked back to the overall agency objectives).  In addition, 13 of the
18 organizations reported that performance management is linked to compensation (i.e.,
increases to pay are linked to individual performance ratings or results).  As noted in the
compensation section, other organizations including the United States Postal Service, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight are developing or have already transitioned to "pay for performance" systems where
compensation is directly linked to employee performance.  Several of these systems have
eliminated "automatic" pay increases such as "step increases" and annual pay adjustments that
are elements of the Title 5 General Schedule compensation system. 

Monetary Awards and Non-Monetary Recognition Systems

Although 16 of the 18 agencies represented in this study reported that they were exempt from
Title 5 for monetary awards, we did not find significant differences or innovations which differed
from Title 5 organizations.  Most of the non-Title 5 organizations used the same types of mon-
etary awards as are used under Title 5 including Special Act or Service, annual performance
awards (based on performance rating), Quality Step Increases (QSIs), Sustained Superior
Performance (SSPs), On-the-Spot cash awards, and Time-Off awards.

However, one organization has implemented an impressive variable pay system.  Through its
Customer Perfect! management system, the United States Postal Service has instituted a
variable pay system with cash award payouts for groups based on the achievement of stated
goals.  The Customer Perfect! management system is based on three components or "voices": 1)
Voice of the Business, 2) Voice of the Customer, and 3) Voice of the Employee.  Performance
measures have been established for each of the three "voices."  On an annual basis, performance
goals are established for each of the three areas.  These goals are then cascaded to each of the
USPS's 85 Performance Clusters.  The cash payout is a flat percentage of salary based on the
achievement of the stated goals for each performance cluster made to various covered groups of
employees.  The USPS system is defined as "variable" in the sense that the size of the award may
differ from year to year based on organizational performance.  If the performance clusters do not
achieve their stated goals for any of the three areas, there will not be a payout for that element for
that particular performance cluster. 

We found that overall there is not significant emphasis placed on non-monetary awards and
recognition systems, and the programs in this area in the Title 5-exempt organizations were also
very similar to those found in Title 5 organizations.  We found programs such as individual and
team recognition certificates, employee of the month, and merchandise awards. 

Benefits and Family Friendly Policies

Five of the 18 Title 5-exempt organizations we studied reported that they are covered by the Title
5 provisions for benefits, while 12 are exempt.  Three of the organizations reported that they
administratively follow the Title 5 provisions for benefits.

For the most part, the organizations that are outside of Title 5 for benefits offer the same types of
benefits as the Title 5 organizations (i.e, life and health insurance, annual and sick leave, and
retirement).  However, there were some significant differences from Title 5 and a number of
organizations have established their own benefit programs or systems.  The Metropolitan
Washington Airport Authority has created two retirement systems as well as health and life
insurance systems; Sallie Mae offers a 401k Plan and a stock purchase plan; the Federal
Reserve Board offers two additional retirement plans and 80 percent matching on the thrift plan;
the Office of Thrift Supervision provides additional optional life insurance, business and travel
insurance and long term disability, and flexible spending accounts up to $5,000 plus $750
contributed by OTS per employee; and the Tennessee Valley Authority has its own retirement,
health (medical, dental and vision) and life insurance systems. 

Several of the organizations noted that the benefits offered under Title 5 are generous, com-
prehensive and at competitive rates.  It is interesting to note that the United States Postal
Service, which is the largest organization exempt from Title 5, has the authority to offer different
health and life insurance benefit packages, but instead offers its employees the same benefits as
those under Title 5.   However, the USPS employer contribution is greater through its collective
bargaining agreements.

There are other noteworthy benefits practices in the organizations outside of Title 5.  For
example, the TVA has implemented Live Well Centers at all of its major facilities.  These centers
offer a variety of benefits including the following:

   Fitness centers are available to employees and their spouses at no cost to the employee.  The
   employees may use the facilities before or after duty hours or during the work day by
   extending their duty hours under a flexible schedule.

   Trained medical staff are available on site.  Various health screening procedures (breast
   cancer, high blood pressure, etc.) are offered and conducted by the medical staff.

   Educational health care literature in layman's terms have been developed for critical areas
   such as heart disease and high blood pressure.

   Touch-screen systems are available for employees to request various medical information. 
   The information is sent to the employee's home to ensure confidentiality.

The USPS has established flexible spending accounts where employees may contribute pre-tax
dollars on an annual basis to special accounts (e.g., dependent care and health care) to
supplement their regular benefits.  

In addition, several organizations we spoke to indicated that they are moving toward a service
center concept for benefits administration and placing much more of the responsibility back on
the employee.  For example, the TVA is currently developing an Employee Call Center which
will consolidate all of the previously decentralized clerical processing activities such as name
and address changes, requests for provider lists, and answers to basic questions into one inter-
active voice response (IVR) system accessible to all employees.  The IVR will also be linked
directly with their health care provider.  

Family-friendly policies is another area where we did not find significant differences between the
Title 5-exempt organizations and those covered by Title 5.  In fact, in some of the organizations
the family-friendly benefits and programs were significantly less than offered in most Title 5
organizations.  Generally, the organizations offered some sort of flexible scheduling, access to
fitness centers, child and elder care information or facilities, transportation subsidies, and health
screenings.  It is also important to note that a number of the organizations have followed the
guidelines developed and implemented under Title 5 for programs such as the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), flexible work schedules, and leave banks and leave transfer. 

Work Force Development and Training

There appear to be several trends in the workforce development arena -- developing and using
competencies as the basis for training, linking training more directly to organizational needs and
the budget process, and creating organizational corporate universities to build employee capa-
bility and organizational capacity for the future.

The use of competencies as guides for employee development helps organizations and employees
focus resources and energies.  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation provides an
example of a corporate decision to develop an agency-specific competency-based management
excellence program.  A contractor developed the competencies for each level of supervision
based on FDIC's vision of how it wanted to define management excellence for the organization. 
The mandatory training curriculum and a 360-degree assessment process support individual
competency development.  The competencies are now linked to performance management and,
in fiscal year 1999, will be linked to organizational goals and compensation.  In a much larger
environment, the United States Postal Service is initiating a process to improve proficiencies
(competencies) in all of their occupations, beginning initially with identification of the
competencies for three critical positions -- window clerks, bulk mail acceptance clerks, and
maintenance technicians -- to be supported by specific training programs.

Several organizations are making serious efforts to link training more directly to organizational
needs.  The USPS is reorganizing and consolidating its employee development structure to
support the Voice of the Employee, which is part of the Customer Perfect! strategic management
program.  Since fiscal year 1996, the USPS has identified mandatory training hours each year for
managers, other non-bargaining unit employees, and bargaining unit employees that promote and
reinforce the organization's strategic initiatives for that year.  Managers are held accountable
(through the variable pay system) for ensuring that employees complete the training and are
supported in the work environment.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which is committed to making training throughout the
organization support the mission, has decentralized and deregulated training funding and
decision making.  In line with the strategic goals of the organization, each organizational "line of
business" will identify its needs and develop a training plan.  They will have more flexibility to
make decisions about employee training, including support for employees pursuing degree
programs that address the organization's mission. 

The Central Intelligence Agency, on the other hand, is introducing a corporate-level training
program with mandatory courses to be taken over a five year period to bring an agency-wide
perspective to workforce orientation and development.  Employees will have cross-functional
training within the CIA and inter-agency experience in the intelligence community through the
Intelligence Community Assignment Program (ICAP).

The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has instituted a comprehensive annual training cycle
for office training plans that are recorded and linked to the budget electronically. In the Budget
and Training Plan Cycle, the Training Steering Committee develops an annual organization
training plan through a needs assessment process and an automated forecasting system that
projects costs of training requested in the assessment and provides the basis for decisions on
course approval for each employee for the year in line with organizational needs, certification
training requirements, and budget availability.  The OTS also has an on-line database, the
National Training System, that contains records of courses taken by employees toward
certification, shows course availability, and allows for course registration and scheduling.
Employees can query their own records. 

Corporate universities are also becoming popular vehicles for enhancing workforce development
and encouraging continuous learning through a range of training opportunities that address the
business needs of the organization.  The Tennessee Valley Authority and the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) have universities in place and the Library of Congress is on the way to
establishing one.  Their structure and programs are different, but they share a common organ-
izational approach to determining the effective use of training to enhance work force competence
and organizational competitiveness.

The TVA University (TVAU), for example, operates in a matrix structure instead of as a fully
centralized training function.  There is a "dotted line" relationship between the University and
the line units to ensure that training is linked to the TVA's new competitive business needs.  A
cross-organizational Education and Training Managers Forum has worked to integrate the many
different training functions into the university structure.  Based on a needs assessment that
identified the strategic needs of the organization, such as addressing deregulation, financial
management, diversity management, and others, a core curriculum was developed for four levels
of the organization. Mid and senior level managers act as faculty for some of these courses.  All
employees must complete these courses, which are funded at the corporate level, within their first
3 years. Technical training and electives are funded by the individual business units.  The TVA
has also developed a decision model to help determine how much investment should be made in
a particular training or educational activity. 

There are five TVAU campuses with classroom, distance, and self-directed learning programs
available.  The TVA partners with several academic institutions to provide college programs for
skills upgrading and continuing education units for certification and licensure and hopes in the
future to have its courses accredited by academic institutions. The TVA also allocates
approximately $2 million a year for employees to attend outside accredited institutions. 

The Library of Congress also plans to establish an on-site university.  It will consolidate all
training resources under the Libraries and provide accredited academic courses taught by in-house faculty.

Employee Protections and Labor Relations

Our examination of Title 5-exempt organizations gives some evidence of a growing interest in
developing employee protection systems to meet their specific needs rather than follow a
standardized process, and shows what such systems could look like.  Overall, the findings reveal
fewer protections for employees in the Title 5-exempt organizations.  Fourteen organizations are
exempt from the adverse actions regulations, 11 from the whistleblower protections, and nine
from the Hatch Act provisions.  Nine of the 18 organizations in the study are exempt from all
three.

The most common difference from the Title 5 system among the organizations exempt from
adverse action laws and regulations involves access to the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB).  Thirteen organizations offer internal appeals procedures only, with no access to the
MSPB.  Two others offer MSPB appeal rights under certain conditions, and one provides for an
MSPB appeal in reduction-in-force (RIF) situations only while another offers an appeal in RIF
and adverse action situations for those eligible for veterans preference.  It should be noted that
the jurisdiction of MSPB is set by statute and OPM regulation only; therefore, individual Title-5
exempt organizations wanting to develop employee protection systems to meet their specific
needs do not have the flexibility to permit appeals to MSPB, even on a limited basis.  However,
there is no lack of opportunities for employees to have their cases heard.   Fourteen of the
participating organizations have negotiated grievance and arbitration procedures.  Several
organizations mentioned the availability and use of the Inspector General and the General
Counsel as sources for whistleblower and Hatch Act complaints.  As mentioned earlier, civil
rights remedies are available to employees of all of the organizations. 

Several organizations noted specific efforts to ensure employees are treated fairly:

The Federal Reserve Board has an Adjusting Work-Related Problems Policy.  In addition, 
employees and supervisors can choose to use the Mediation Program at any time, putting formal
resolution efforts aside while mediation occurs.

The Library of Congress is using dispute resolution techniques and last chance agreements in
lieu of standard disciplinary actions.

The State Department Foreign Service and Veterans Health Administration have a peer
grievance review process.

The Federal Aviation Administration has initiated a new appeals process called Guaranteed
Fair Treatment.  A three-member panel consisting of one advocate chosen by each side in a
dispute and a neutral arbitrator resolves appealed actions.  The panel issues a decision within 10
days of the hearing and the decision is final and binding but not precedential.  This process
replaces the MSPB appeal process and greatly reduces time frames for resolving disputes.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is piloting a negotiated procedure for settling EEO
grievances (not complaints).  Early in the process an employee can request mediation through the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS).  Both labor and management must agree to
the request and split the cost.  Mediation is limited to two sessions before the case goes directly
to arbitration.

Sallie Mae's Internal Audit acts as a neutral and confidential source through which employees
can take reports, complaints, or evidence of any illegal or unethical activity for investigation.

Closely related to employee protection programs are labor relations programs.  Of the 18
organizations in the study, 14 have collective bargaining units or other employee representative
organizations.  Six of the organizations with bargaining units are covered by Chapter 71 of Title
5.  At least five of the Title 5-exempt organizations have multiple unions with the Tennessee
Valley Authority's 23 bargaining units representing the largest number of unions.  The United
States Postal Service has the largest covered workforce, numbering approximately 735,000.  

The management officials we spoke with report that the general experience of these organ-
izations with labor relations is mixed, just as it is under Title 5.  Some have historically good
relationships with their unions and some have had a stormy relationship.  Most of the study
organizations are participating in partnership activity even though only those covered by Title 5
are covered by the President's executive order on labor-management partnerships.  Some of these
partnerships preceded the executive order.  

The scope of bargaining is broader for non-Title 5 organizations than for those covered under
Chapter 71 of Title 5, including bargaining over pay and benefits.  Of particular note are those
organizations trying to move toward pay-for-performance systems, which have reported meeting
strong union resistance in establishing such systems for bargaining unit employees.  Officials in
one organization that recently negotiated a performance-based pay system indicated that initially
the costs will be higher, but the long term goal of moving away from a seniority-based pay
system is worth the protections the unions negotiated for bargaining unit employees.

Integrated Human Resources Management System Change

While virtually all of the Title 5-exempt organizations we studied acknowledged that they are
operating in ever-changing environments, some are using this opportunity to undertake major
human resources reorganization or reengineering efforts.  In some of the organizations these
efforts are focused solely on the human resources functions while others include human
resources functions as part of an overall organizational restructuring.  These efforts are in
response to major changes taking place both in the organizations' internal and external environ-
ments.  Several organizations which had operated in almost an exclusive or monopolistic market
are now facing deregulation and/or competition within their markets.  Others are facing
downsizing or being forced by tighter budgets or other constraints to develop HRM systems that
better support the organization's effectiveness and accomplishment of its overall mission.

This section briefly describes what is happening in some of the organizations we found to be
undertaking major change efforts.  These include the intelligence community (focusing on the
Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency), the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the United States Postal Service. 

In the fall of 1996, the intelligence community began a joint effort to reform their human
resources management systems.  This does not mean that the intelligence agencies will have
identical HRM systems, but that they will be complementary to enable better cross-agency
communication and facilitate exchange programs.  For example, all the intelligence agencies are
committed to developing and implementing skill-based, competency driven human resources
management systems.  For the purposes of this study, we interviewed two of the larger
intelligence agencies--the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency.

There were a number of external drivers of change at the CIA, including the move from a near
monopoly of intelligence information to a highly competitive information environment and
increasingly constrained resources.  In its HRM reform efforts, the CIA had to first address the
fact that it had multiple human resources offices and operations.  The overall objective has been
to establish an HRM system that is aligned with the agency's strategic plan and supports the
needs of the organization.   

The desired outcomes of the CIA's reform efforts include: strengthening a corporate identity;
establishing an HRM system that recruits, trains, rewards, and retains the next generation of CIA
leaders; leveraging talent across the entire organization; increasingly investing in work force
development in order to maintain a highly adaptable cadre of intelligence personnel; reengi-
neering and automating the human resources processes so that they assist, but do not control, the
organization; and coordinating these efforts with the other intelligence agencies.  The CIA will
change the role of personnelists from administrative to advisory.  The leaders of this CIA reform
effort emphasize that unless HR supports the business of the agency, it is of no value.  To this
end, the CIA's human resources professionals are focusing on jobs, skills, and workforce
analysis; automation; and appropriate compensation and performance management systems to
ensure that they support agency mission accomplishment.

The National Security Agency is facing a similar set of circumstances as the CIA in that its HRM
systems have not kept up with the changing needs of the organization.  The HRM reform efforts
at NSA to date have focused on skills identification and management, performance management,
and automation.  

NSA is involved in a comprehensive effort to systematically identify the skills, knowledge, and
abilities necessary to perform the jobs within its agency.  Once established, this system will
classify jobs based on the skills needed rather than looking at the tasks of the position.  Another
outcome of this effort will be the establishment of a data base which will identify all employees'
skills so that when vacancies arise, there will be immediately available information on qualified
candidates from within the agency.  The data base will also serve as a tool to identify organ-
izational and individual training needs. 

The performance management reform at NSA focuses on a metrics-based model with measurable
performance elements for all employees.  Managers and employees will work together to identify
measurable and appropriately weighted mission-related performance objectives.  These
objectives could eventually provide the basis for new skills and performance-based compen-
sation initiatives.   The new performance management system will also provide for employee
skill and career development through use of an individual development plan, a sophisticated
skills analysis tool/system, and, eventually, through multi-rater (360 degree) feedback.  

To support these HRM reform efforts, NSA is undertaking a significant HR automation effort. 
NSA has committed to using PeopleSoft  and changing its practices to be compatible with their
system.  It plans to distribute the PeopleSoft  system to all employee desktops so that many
administrative HR tasks can be completed by employees rather than HR staff and so that
managers will have instant access to important HR data.  NSA estimates that it will be able to
reduce its HR and other administrative staff by as much as 40 percent through efforts such as
these.

The changes at TVA arise primarily from the deregulation of the utilities industry.  TVA was
established in 1933, and after operating as a regulated monopoly for over 60 years, is now facing
an environment of competition and open markets for the first time.  These changes have a
significant impact on all aspects of TVA's operations including human resources management. 
In addition to the deregulation, TVA has been in a downsizing mode since 1988 and has reduced
its work force by almost half during that time.

In order to operate in a deregulated, competitive, and downsized environment, the TVA must
build and maintain additional, and often very different, skills for the organization.  It must move
from a construction-based organization where the occupations were primarily scientific,
engineering, and plant operations to an environment that can not only build and provide utility
systems but also market them.  In order to meet the needs of the future, TVA is currently
undergoing a significant organizational restructuring effort to facilitate the necessary structural
and culture changes that have been identified.  The focal point of the HRM restructuring is to
ensure that the HRM systems align with TVA's overall strategic framework which includes an
organizational vision, goals, and values.  Examples of initiatives under this framework are
comprehensive HRM strategic planning to ensure future HRM needs are met, as detailed above,
and the establishment of the TVA University to help build the skills needed for the transition to
the deregulated environment.

The United States Postal Service has long had private-sector competition in letter and package
delivery functions.  However, in today's environment, where many people have access to
electronic information exchange methods (e-mail, the Internet, etc.), the USPS must compete on
a more sophisticated and difficult level.  In this more competitive environment, USPS officials
recognized that it must be much more focused on customer satisfaction.  In order to address these
changes, the USPS implemented the Customer Perfect! management system in fiscal year 1995
to improve processes and customer satisfaction.  Earlier we described how this system is based
on the Voice of the Customer, Voice of the Business, and Voice of the Employee.  Each of these
"voices" has performance indicators and measures to determine progress in meeting
organizational goals.  

The Voice of the Employee has the most impact on the USPS's HRM policies and practices. 
Under the Voice of the Employee, every employee has a mandatory number of training hours to
complete each fiscal year.  In addition, the USPS is developing competencies for all of its
occupations.  In order to achieve this goal, each year the USPS will focus on identifying and
developing the competencies for three or four key occupations and will continue until all
occupations have been covered.  
Oversight and Accountability

Finally, we looked at the extent to which these Title 5-exempt organizations hold themselves
accountable for effective HRM systems and adherence to the Merit System Principles (as
appropriate) or other organizational values and policies.  Our findings show that most of the
organizations studied do not have a formal oversight or accountability mechanism, and there is
limited external oversight of overall HRM programs and merit systems among the exempt
organizations.  Most organizations identified the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the
General Accounting Office (GAO), and their Inspector General (IG) as organizations that
periodically look at their operations.  But there was no systematic regulatory review of the HRM
operations from an external source.  In Title 5-exempt organizations, HRM is strongly identified
with the overall central management systems, and is responsive to the changing needs of the
organization rather than to an externally imposed HRM authority.  Yet, as noted previously,
merit is also a clear component of HRM within these studied organizations. 

Some exempt organizations enter into interchange agreements with the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM).  Such agreements authorize OPM to review their merit systems in
exchange for conferring Federal "status" on employees who apply for jobs at Title 5 agencies.  
OPM's review, however, is limited to certifying the systems as merit-based, and is much
narrower than the review of Title 5 covered organizations.  The organizations in this study with
interchange agreements include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley
Authority and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)--Title 38 employees.  MSPB
studies of the TVA and VHA in 1989 and 1991, respectively, found strong merit-based
operations with no evidence of discriminatory practices.  

Central HRM staffs in some of these organizations provide policy direction and oversight to
subordinate HRM units in the field.  Some HRM representatives stated they also periodically
review management practices under delegated HRM authority.

This is especially important, since many of the organizations have given line managers more
authority and/or responsibility for managing HRM.  They expect line managers to be responsible
for HRM as part of their managerial responsibilities, with less reliance on the HRM staff.  In
particular, such delegations fall in the area of selection, where managers are required to justify in
writing the reasons for selection sufficient to withstand legal challenge.  Although many Title 5
organizations are moving in the direction of more responsibility for line managers, we found a
distinct difference in perspective in Title 5-exempt organizations, where managers play a more
integral role in HRM activities from Title 5 organizations that have depended traditionally on a
dedicated HRM staff to implement and manage the personnel system. 

The VHA, as a rank-in-person system, places primary responsibility for qualifications, placement
and pay on panels of managers and occupational experts.  In addition, managers at the VHA
develop specific work-area outcomes consistent with the organization's mission.  Collectively,
these outcomes represent the organization's performance improvement plan.  The Peace Corps'
managers have full authority to write position descriptions and classify positions as well as to
rank applicants and make or justify selections.  

Although more traditional in its operations, the Library of Congress expects managers to
assume responsibility for meeting requirements set out in the staffing plan and for meeting the
time frames of the selection process.  These requirements are included in their performance
evaluations. 

Traditionally, TVA has had decentralized HR functions with HR staff in each location or plant. 
In their restructured environment, there will be approximately two HR staff members for each
region, representing a reduction of almost half of TVA's HR staff.   Line managers will be
expected to take more responsibility for day-to-day HRM activities.   For example, upcoming
efforts at strategic work force planning and management will include the expectation that line
managers become more responsible for predicting and planning for their future human resources
needs.

With increased HRM authority and responsibility for managers, the need for an HRM
accountability system becomes more apparent.  For the purposes of this report, we define HRM
accountability as the responsibility placed on organizations to show that they are making
effective use of their human resources, within the values expressed by the Merit System
Principles or other organizational values defined by the non-Title 5 agencies.  The preceding
examples showed how HRM authority and responsibility is changing in these organizations.  The
following two examples take the next step and show how some Title 5-exempt organizations are
holding line managers accountable for effective HRM.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation includes HRM accountability factors in its
supervisor and executive performance evaluations.  Their leadership sets the tone and sends the
accountability message downward throughout the organization.  Examples of these
accountability factors include: 

 1.  Create a high-performance environment:  Create and maintain an environment where           all employees are challenged and encouraged to achieve excellence;

 2.  Manage performance effectively:  Provide clear expectation for the work and behavior       of others, give constructive feedback, and follow up to ensure that performance is on          track;  and

 3.  Develop others:  Provide opportunities, guidance, and feedback to help others enhance                                                                                                     their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

At the United States Postal Service, accountability is managed through the Balanced Scorecard
approach and through variable pay.  The Balanced Scorecard relates to achievement in financial,
customer, and employee goals for the year.   Once goals for each of these areas are set by head-
quarters, managers in each of the USPS's 80 Performance Clusters must ensure that each of these
goals is met or they will not receive a variable pay bonus award for that goal.
Aggregate Telephone Survey Results
(Self-Reported by Organizations)

Category
Covered
Not Covered
Admin. Follow
Other
Yes
No
?


MSPs
5
10
3






Staffing
3
14
1






Rate & Rank




15
3



Veteran's Preference


2

7
9



Performance Management
3
13
1






Perf. Linked to Compensation




13
3
2


Perf. Linked to Org. Goals



1
12
4
1


Classification
1
15
2






Compensation
2
14
2






Award
2
13
3






Benefits
5
9
3






Adverse Actions
4
13
1






Hatch Act
9
8
1






Whistle Blower
7
11







MSPB Appeal Rights



2 (partial)
4
12



Labor Relations
6
10




2

                         Acknowledgments

We would especially like to thank the managers and staff of the Title 5-exempt organizations
who agreed to be study participants and willingly provided their time and information on their
human resource management systems and practices.

Special acknowledgment goes to the study leader and report co-author, Lisa Roth, and to co-author, Colleen Woodard.

Many thanks also to the members of the Merit Systems Oversight and Effectiveness staff who
contributed and assisted during the course of  the study:

Sue Arnold
Mario Caviglia
Stephanie Fontenot
Don Jansen
Kamaron Kellum
Andrea Lewis
Roberta Peters
Anthony Ryan
Laura Shugrue
Paul Thompson
Judy White