a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

July 2005 HUMAN CAPITAL

Symposium on 

Designing and 

Managing 

Market-Based and 

More PerformanceOriented Pay Systems

GAO-05-832SP
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-832SP.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact J. Christopher 

Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-832SP 

July 2005

HUMAN CAPITAL

Symposium on Designing and Managing 

Market-Based and More PerformanceOriented Pay Systems 

While implementing market-based and more performance-oriented pay 

systems is both doable and desirable, organizations’ experiences show that 

the shift to market-based and more performance-oriented pay must be part 

of a broader strategy of change management and performance improvement 

initiatives. GAO identified the following key themes that highlight the 

leadership and management strategies these organizations collectively 

considered in designing and managing market-based and more performanceoriented pay systems. 

 

1. Focus on a set of values and objectives to guide the pay system. 

Values represent an organization’s beliefs and boundaries and objectives 

articulate the strategy to implement the system. 

 

2. Examine the value of employees’ total compensation to remain 

competitive in the market. Organizations consider a mix of base pay plus 

other monetary incentives, benefits, and deferred compensation, such as 

retirement pay, as part of a competitive compensation system. 

3. Build in safeguards to enhance the transparency and ensure the 

fairness of pay decisions. Safeguards are the precondition to linking pay 

systems with employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to results. 

4. Devolve decision making on pay to appropriate levels. When 

devolving such decision making, overall core processes help ensure 

reasonable consistency in how the system is implemented. 

5. Provide training on leadership, management, and interpersonal 

skills to facilitate effective communication. Such skills as setting 

expectations, linking individual performance to organizational results, and 

giving and receiving feedback need renewed emphasis to make such systems 

succeed. 

6. Build consensus to gain ownership and acceptance for pay reforms. 

Employee and stakeholder involvement needs to be meaningful and not pro 

forma. 

7. Monitor and refine the implementation of the pay system. While 

changes are usually inevitable, listening to employee views and using metrics

helps identify and correct problems over time. 

These organizations found that the key challenge with implementing marketbased and more performance-oriented pay is changing the culture. To begin 

to make this change, organizations need to build up their basic management 

capacity at every level of the organization. Transitioning to these pay 

systems is a huge undertaking and will require constant monitoring and 

refining in order to implement and sustain the reforms. 

Critical to the success of the 

federal government’s 

transformation are its people—

human capital. Yet the government 

has not transformed, in many 

cases, how it classifies, 

compensates, develops, and 

motivates its employees to achieve 

maximum results within available 

resources and existing authorities. 

One of the questions being 

addressed as the federal 

government transforms is how to 

update its compensation system to 

be more market based and 

performance oriented. 

To further the discussion of federal 

pay reform, GAO, the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management, the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, 

the National Academy of Public 

Administration, and the 

Partnership for Public Service 

convened a symposium on March 9, 

2005, to discuss organizations’ 

experiences with market-based and 

more performance-oriented pay 

systems. Representatives from 

public, private, and nonprofit 

organizations made presentations 

on the successes and challenges 

they experienced in designing and 

managing their market-based and 

more performance-oriented pay 

systems. A cross section of human 

capital stakeholders was invited to 

further explore these successes 

and challenges and engage in open 

discussion. While participants 

were asked to review the overall 

substance and context of the draft 

summary, GAO did not seek 

consensus on the key themes and 

supporting examples. 
Page i GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Contents

Letter 1

Appendixes

Appendix I: Key Themes from the Symposium 7

Focus on a Set of Values and Objectives to Guide the Pay System 7

Examine the Value of Employees’ Total Compensation to Remain 

Competitive in the Market 9

Build in Safeguards to Enhance the Transparency and Ensure the 

Fairness of Pay Decisions 13

Devolve Decision Making on Pay to Appropriate Levels 15

Provide Training on Leadership, Management, and Interpersonal 

Skills to Facilitate Effective Communication 16

Build Consensus to Gain Ownership and Acceptance for Pay 

Reforms 19

Monitor and Refine the Implementation of the Pay System 20

Appendix II: Symposium Agenda 24

Appendix III: Symposium Participants 26

Appendix IV: Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background Information and 

Presentations 34

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 34

Commonwealth of Virginia 46

IBM Corporation 61

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 70

American Red Cross 79

Appendix V: Presentation by the Director of the Human Resources 

Management Consortium of the National Academy of Public 

Administration 83

Appendix VI: Presentation by the Director of the Office of Policy and 

Evaluation of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 91
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Abbreviations

CHCO chief human capital officer

FDIC Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FIRREA Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act 

of 1989

MSPB U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SES Senior Executive Service

SRS standardized rating score

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Comptroller General A of the United States

July 27, 2005 Letr

The federal government must adapt to a range of major trends and 

challenges in the nation and the world, and to respond, it must have the 

institutional capacity to plan more strategically, identify and react more 

expeditiously, and focus on achieving results. Critical to the success of this 

transformation are the federal government’s people—its human capital. 

Yet the government has not transformed, in many cases, how it classifies, 

compensates, develops, and motivates its employees to achieve maximum 

results within available resources and existing authorities. One of the 

questions being addressed as the federal government transforms is how to 

update its compensation system to be more market based and performance 

oriented.1

 In this type of system, organizations consider the skills, 

knowledge, and performance of employees as well as the labor market 

when making pay decisions.2

 Recognizing that the federal government’s 

pay system does not align well with modern compensation principles, 

Congress has provided various agencies exemptions from current statute in 

performance management and pay administration, as outlined in various 

chapters of title 5 of the United States Code.

3

 Most recently, the 

Departments of Homeland Security and Defense received the authority to 

establish “flexible and contemporary” human capital and pay systems. 

To further the discussion of federal pay reform, the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the National Academy of Public 

Administration (NAPA), and the Partnership for Public Service convened a 

symposium on March 9, 2005, to discuss organizations’ experiences with 

market-based and more performance-oriented pay systems. 

Representatives from public, private, and nonprofit organizations made 

presentations on the successes and challenges they experienced in 

designing and managing their market-based and more performance1

GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).

2

GAO, Human Capital: Implementing Pay for Performance at Selected Personnel 

Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-83 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2004).

3

GAO, Human Capital: Selected Agencies’ Statutory Authorities Could Offer Options in 

Developing a Framework for Governmentwide Reform, GAO-05-398R (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 21, 2005).
Page 2 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

oriented pay systems.4 These organizations are the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 

Commonwealth of Virginia, IBM Corporation, and American Red Cross. We 

invited these organizations because they have been implementing this type 

of pay system and consider it to be important to achieving their missions 

and goals. To learn from their experiences, further explore these successes 

and challenges, and engage in an open discussion of ideas, a cross section 

of senior leaders attended the symposium, including congressional staff 

who have oversight responsibility for federal management issues, chief 

human capital officers or other officials from the executive branch who are 

responsible for managing human capital in their respective agencies, 

employee representatives who are currently engaged in pay reform efforts, 

and academics and other human capital stakeholders who have experience 

with and knowledge of human capital issues. 

Overall, the symposium highlighted a variety of approaches that 

organizations have used in designing and managing market-based and more 

performance-oriented pay systems. While we believe that implementing 

this type of pay system is both doable and desirable, these organizations’ 

experiences show that the shift to market-based and more performanceoriented pay must be part of a broader strategy of change management and 

performance improvement initiatives. Market-based and more 

performance-oriented pay is only one part—albeit a critical one—of a 

larger effort to improve the performance of an organization. 

Further, market-based and more performance-oriented pay cannot be 

simply overlaid on most organizations’ existing performance management 

systems. Rather, as a precondition to effective pay reform, individual 

expectations must be clearly aligned with organizational results, 

communication on individual contributions to annual goals must be 

ongoing and two way, meaningful distinctions in employee performance 

must be made, and cultural changes must be undertaken. Most 

fundamentally, to implement these types of pay systems successfully, the 

organizations found that they must change the culture from compensation 

that is based on position and longevity to one that is performance oriented, 

affordable, and sustainable. Specifically, these organizations recognize that 

pay increases are no longer an entitlement but should be based on 

employees’ contributions to the organization’s mission and goals. 

4

For more information on these organizations’ missions and key milestones for 

implementing their pay systems, see app. IV.
Page 3 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

To begin to make this cultural change, there was widespread recognition 

that organizations need to build up the basic management capacity of their 

organizations. In particular, there needs to be growth and development at 

every level of the organization: top leaders with the vision, commitment, 

capabilities, and persistence to lead and facilitate the change; managers 

with the skills and abilities to fairly and honestly assess employee 

performance; and individual employees who are engaged and empowered 

to seek opportunities to enhance their careers. In addition, human capital 

professionals will need to acquire a new set of skills for implementing 

market-based and more performance-oriented pay systems. Transitioning 

to these pay systems is a huge undertaking for organizations and will 

require constant monitoring and refining in order to implement and, very 

importantly, sustain them successfully. How it is done, when it is done, and 

the basis on which it is done can make all the difference in their success.

The organizations described the tools and techniques they used for 

designing and implementing their pay systems in order to best meet their 

needs. Based on these organizations’ experiences and following 

discussions, we identified several key themes that highlight the leadership 

and management strategies these organizations collectively considered in 

designing and managing market-based and more performance-oriented pay 

systems. These key themes are as follows. 

1. Focus on a set of values and objectives to guide the pay system. 

2. Examine the value of employees’ total compensation to remain 

competitive in the market.

3. Build in safeguards to enhance the transparency and ensure the 

fairness of pay decisions.

4. Devolve decision making on pay to appropriate levels. 

5. Provide training on leadership, management, and interpersonal skills to 

facilitate effective communication. 

6. Build consensus to gain ownership and acceptance for pay reforms. 

7. Monitor and refine the implementation of the pay system.

As I discussed at the symposium, it is possible to enact broad-based human 

capital reforms that would enable agencies to move to market-based and 
Page 4 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

more performance-oriented pay systems. However, any such effort should 

require that the agency implement key reforms only after it meets certain 

procedural management assessment and independent certification 

requirements relating to its institutional infrastructure.5

 This institutional 

infrastructure includes, at a minimum, a human capital planning process 

that integrates the agency’s human capital policies, strategies, and 

programs; the capabilities to develop and implement a new human capital 

system effectively; and a modern, effective, credible, and validated 

performance management system that provides a clear linkage between 

institutional, unit, and individual performance-oriented outcomes, and 

adequate safeguards to ensure the fair, effective, and nondiscriminatory 

implementation of the system, including internal reconsideration and thirdparty appeal processes.

Appendix I of this document provides a more detailed summary of the key 

themes from the symposium discussion along with examples from the 

presentations to illustrate these themes. Appendix II presents the 

symposium agenda. Appendix III lists the hosts, moderators, presenters, 

and human capital stakeholders who participated in the symposium. 

Appendix IV includes the presentations and background information on the 

organizations’ pay systems. Appendixes V and VI include the presentations 

given by directors at NAPA and MSPB on issues related to market-based 

and more performance-oriented pay systems. 

The purpose of the symposium was not to reach a consensus on how 

market-based and more performance-oriented pay systems should be 

designed and managed, but rather to engage in an open discussion of the 

leadership and management strategies the presenting organizations have 

considered with their systems. We asked the participants to review the 

overall substance and context of the draft summary of the symposium 

discussion and incorporated their comments, as appropriate. Therefore, 

no assumptions should be made that every participant agreed with the key 

themes and supporting examples. 

I would like to thank the hosts, moderators, presenters, and participants in 

the symposium for taking the time to share their experiences and 

5

For more information, see GAO and the National Commission on the Public Service 

Implementation Initiative, Highlights of a Forum: Human Capital: Principles, Criteria, 

and Processes for Governmentwide Federal Human Capital Reform, GAO-05-69SP

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1, 2004).
Page 5 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

knowledge on this important matter. I look forward to working with the 

participants on other important issues of mutual interest and concern in 

the future. 

David M. Walker

Comptroller General 

of the United States
Page 7 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium ApApenednxidexiIs

To further the discussion of pay reform, the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM), the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the National 

Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), and the Partnership for Public 

Service convened a symposium on March 9, 2005, to discuss organizations’ 

experiences with market-based and more performance-oriented pay 

systems. Representatives from public, private, and nonprofit organizations 

made presentations on the successes and challenges they experienced in 

designing and managing their market-based and more performanceoriented pay systems, followed by an open discussion among key human 

capital stakeholders to learn from their experiences. The organizations 

described the tools and techniques they used for designing and 

implementing their pay systems in order to best meet their needs. Based 

on these organizations’ experiences and following discussions, we 

identified several key themes that highlight the leadership and management 

strategies these organizations collectively considered in designing and 

managing market-based and more performance-oriented pay systems. 

Focus on a Set of 

Values and Objectives 

to Guide the Pay 

System

In their discussions, the presenters highlighted the need to focus on a set of 

values and objectives when designing and managing their market-based 

and more performance-oriented pay systems. Values are inherent and 

enduring principles that represent the organization’s beliefs and 

boundaries. In addition, objectives articulate the strategy an organization 

plans to take to implement a market-based and more performance-oriented 

pay system to help it recognize and reward employees and maintain a 

competitive position in the market. 

The Comptroller General of the United States highlighted GAO’s 

experiences in implementing its competency-based performance 

management system. GAO’s core values—accountability, integrity, and 

reliability—were a focus in identifying and validating the competencies in 

GAO’s new system. Most recently, GAO received additional authority to 

adjust the rates of basic pay on a separate basis from the annual 

adjustments authorized for employees of the executive branch. With 

additional authority from Congress, GAO is implementing a market-based 

and more performance-oriented compensation system that places greater 

emphasis on a person’s skills, knowledge, and job performance and not the 

passage of time while, at a minimum, protecting the purchasing power of 

employees who are performing acceptably and are paid within applicable 

competitive compensation ranges. Employee compensation will now 

consider current salary and allocate individual performance-based 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 8 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

compensation amounts between a merit increase (e.g., salary increase) and 

a performance bonus (e.g., cash). 

Similarly, OPM’s Acting Director stated that as the federal government 

moves forward with modernizing the civil service system, the shift to 

market-based and more performance-oriented pay should be grounded in 

the core values of the civil service system: merit system principles and 

prohibited personnel practices. Examples of these merit principles include 

promoting employees based on merit and protecting employees against 

arbitrary action or personal favoritism. An example of a prohibited 

personnel practice is violating veterans' preference requirements. 

Protecting merit principles and prohibiting certain personnel practices 

must remain intact as the federal pay system is modernized, according to 

OPM’s Acting Director. 

While core values define the organization’s beliefs and boundaries, 

objectives articulate the strategy the organization plans to take to 

implement a market-based and more performance-oriented pay system to 

help it recognize and reward employees and maintain a competitive 

position in the market. To this end, among IBM’s pay objectives is to 

“differentiate strongly” among employees by giving larger pay increases or 

bonuses to those employees who are most deserving. IBM’s Director of 

Global Services Compensation noted that IBM believes that by rewarding 

its highest performing employees with the largest pay increases, these 

employees will stay with and lead the organization, and as a result, other 

employees will stay as well. For example, the highest performing 

employees who were in the top of their pay bands and were considered to 

be paid over the market average still received pay increases because IBM 

wanted to “protect them” from its competitors. He attributed this approach 

to helping IBM weather both the late 1990s talent wars and the current 

market for information technology positions. To help differentiate among 

employees in making pay decisions, IBM provides general guidance on the 

“differentiation ratio” whereby the largest pay increases are to be far 

greater than the smallest increases. Further, IBM employees understand 

that pay increases are not an entitlement but are based on each individual’s 

contributions to IBM’s goals. Specifically, in 2003, the Director said a 

significant percentage of the population did not receive increases because 

they were already paid competitively for their level of contributions and 

performance. This approach allows more of the budget for merit pay 

increases to go to the highest contributing employees. 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 9 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

A main objective of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) 

pay system is to maintain comparability regarding compensation and 

benefits with the other federal financial regulatory agencies that are 

subject to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement 

Act of 1989 (FIRREA).1

 OCC defines its market as other FIRREA agencies, 

the Federal Reserve Banks, and other agencies such as the U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission that are exempt from certain provisions of title 

5. To maintain comparability with this market, OCC participates in an 

annual survey administered by the HayGroup, which gathers data on these 

organizations’ total compensation packages in order to benchmark against 

various positions and job families, such as bank policy and bank 

supervision. The OCC presenters said that the 2004 survey results showed 

that OCC’s base pay was on average 8 percent above the market average, 

which was within its competitive range of plus or minus 10 percent of the 

average pay rates of the FIRREA market. These data helped OCC set its 

pay increase budget for 2005. 

The American Red Cross’s Director of Corporate Compensation noted that 

the Red Cross recognizes that salary is its main lever to fulfill its mission 

and values, and thus one of its pay objectives is to pay salaries that are 

externally competitive and internally equitable. To meet this objective, the 

Director said the Red Cross sets its employees’ pay slightly higher than the 

market in order to remain competitive. The Director noted that since the 

Red Cross is a not-for-profit humanitarian organization, this pay objective 

is critical as the Red Cross does not have variable pay, stock options, or 

other incentives to attract, motivate, and retain its employees, as 

organizations in the private sector can offer. 

Examine the Value of 

Employees’ Total 

Compensation to 

Remain Competitive in 

the Market

The presenters underscored that a competitive compensation system that 

provides employees a mix of base pay plus other incentives can help 

organizations attract, motivate, and retain a quality workforce. In addition 

to base pay, total compensation includes features such as geographic 

differentials; monetary incentives, such as awards and bonuses; benefits, 

such as health care and tuition reimbursement; and deferred 

compensation, such as retirement pay. The presenters noted it is important 

for organizations to be flexible in the mix of what constitutes total 

1

FIRREA gives specific federal financial regulatory agencies the authority to establish their 

own compensation and benefits programs without regard to the provisions of title 5 of the 

United States Code. 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 10 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

compensation so they can remain competitive with the market. On the 

other hand, a presenter also identified challenges that the federal 

government may face, such as statutory pay caps and other limitations, as it 

shifts to market-based and more performance-oriented pay that may hinder 

its ability to offer competitive compensation.

In discussing what incentives attract individuals to public service, the 

Director of the Office of Policy and Evaluation at MSPB reported that 

people come to work for and stay with the federal government for a variety 

of reasons besides base pay. Among these reasons is the desire to make a 

contribution and the personal pride or satisfaction in their work as well as 

the variety of benefits provided to employees, as reported in MSPB’s “Merit 

Principles Survey 2000” that obtained federal employees’ views on how 

well the workforce is being managed. Pay alone usually does not influence 

whether employees remain with an organization in the private sector as 

well. IBM’s Director of Global Services Compensation believes IBM has 

been successful in competing in the market and retaining its employees 

because of the “total rewards” package it offers its employees along with 

pay. For example, the package includes work-life benefits such as tuition 

reimbursement for employee development, along with retirement and 

health care benefits.

To make it more competitive in local markets, OCC offers a pay differential 

based on local labor costs. OCC recently shifted to a cost of labor system 

called “geo pay” from a “complex” methodology largely based on cost of 

living. According to OCC presenters, the newer OCC salaries better reflect 

the local market labor rates. Specifically, as part of its geo pay system, 

OCC groups its cities where it has offices into seven pay zones by using the 

Economic Research Institute’s cost of labor data to identify the 

differentials in labor costs between its employees and the labor market. 

For example, employees in zone 1 (e.g., Atlanta) receive no differential, 

employees in zone 3 (e.g., Washington, D.C.) receive an 8 percent 

differential, and employees in zone 7 (e.g., San Francisco) receive a 28 

percent differential. OCC presenters said that with the new geo pay 

system, 49 of its 80 cities have no geographic differentials. Of the 

employees who receive a differential, most receive from about 3 to 13 

percent. OCC presenters noted that about two-thirds of the employees 

receive a smaller differential under the geo pay system than the previous 

differentials OCC used. During the transition to the geo pay system, the 

presenters said OCC has promised to “maintain the total compensation” of 

these employees who now receive a smaller differential by rolling most of 

these differences into the employees’ base pay. 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 11 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

In addition, to help its employees settle into more expensive cities, OCC 

offers relocation incentives in the form of lump sum payments that are not 

built into employees’ base pay. One OCC presenter noted that these 

incentives helped OCC recruit employees for critical jobs in New York City 

in 2004. For example, the enhanced mortgage and rent subsidies are 3-year 

allowances designed to help employees get into the housing or rental 

markets when moving to selected higher cost cities from cities in a lower 

geo pay zone. In addition, OCC offers an annual lump sum for 3 years to 

employees when they move to selected high-cost cities from cities in a 

lower geo pay zone to compensate for the higher living costs in the new 

city. 

However, a presenter identified challenges that the federal government as a 

whole may face in offering competitive compensation to its senior leaders 

who are subject to a statutory pay cap. The Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium at NAPA discussed how the statutory 

pay cap could restrict rewards, demoralize employees, and nullify marketbased pay for senior leaders. Participants also commented on how the 

statutory pay cap may have a negative effect on the retention of the senior 

leaders if they could receive higher pay in the private sector. The Director 

noted that about 70 percent of the members in the Senior Executive Service 

(SES) had their pay capped in 2004, which reflected the agencies’ limited 

ability to offer performance-based rewards and market-based pay. She also 

observed that the recently enacted SES performance-based pay system 

provides an interim solution to this pay compression by allowing agencies 

to increase the pay cap for their senior executives.2

 

However, the Director and other participants noted that pay compression 

may return despite the higher pay cap for SES members. The new 

performance-based pay system replaces the six SES pay levels with a 

single, open-range pay band for all SES members. A participant noted that 

having one pay band is being perceived as loss of rank among some of the 

SES. To help make distinctions in rank among their SES members, this 

participant said some agencies are grouping their executives into smaller 

pay bands according to their responsibilities. As a result, the participant 

2

By law, a SES member’s total compensation may not exceed the total annual compensation 

payable to the Vice President for agencies that have their performance management systems 

certified by OPM with the Office of Management and Budget’s concurrence. For more 

information on senior executive pay and performance management, see GAO, Human 

Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be Significantly Strengthened 

to Achieve Results, GAO-04-614 (Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2004).
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 12 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

observed that these SES members may in effect have their pay capped 

more quickly based on the placement in these smaller pay bands. Another 

participant commented that SES pay compression might return if agencies 

do not demonstrate the necessary rigor and discipline in applying their new 

SES performance management systems to ensure performance ratings and 

pay adjustments are consistent with the performance of the organizations 

and make meaningful distinctions in performance. The Director agreed 

that the long-term effect of SES pay compression remains to be seen.

To help address the issue of market-based and more performance-oriented 

pay for the government’s senior leaders, the National Commission on the 

Public Service suggested, in its 2003 report, that the challenge is to 

convince Congress that the pay cap undermines rewarding performance 

and to help build the rationale for tying government pay to relevant 

markets across all three branches of government.3

 For example, the 

Commission reported that in the judicial branch, the salaries for U.S. 

federal court judges are considerably less than those of deans and senior 

professors of top law schools. 

However, a participant observed that he felt the federal government’s main 

pay system—the General Schedule—is already market based and 

performance oriented. Specifically, in setting the pay levels for federal 

employees, the participant stated that the Department of Labor conducts 

extensive market-based surveys for comparing the knowledge, skills, and 

responsibilities of federal positions with the private sector market. He also 

commented that the pay system is performance oriented in that agencies 

can reward employees’ exceptional performance with quality step 

increases, bonuses, and nonmonetary incentives. He added that another 

performance-based aspect of the General Schedule system is within grade 

increases, which require agencies to certify that an employee is performing 

at an acceptable level.

Federal agencies now have more flexibility in terms of the total 

compensation they can offer employees in addition to base pay. A 

participant pointed out that through the recently enacted Federal 

Workforce Flexibility Act, agencies have the authority to use recruitment, 

relocation, and retention incentives or bonuses in more strategic ways to 

help them improve their competitiveness in recruiting and maintaining a 

3

The National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for America: 

Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century (January 2003). 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 13 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

high-quality workforce. However, the participants discussed the impact of 

using bonuses or other monetary incentives on employees’ retirement 

calculations. They observed that bonuses are not included in calculating 

retirement benefits and suggested that potential legislative changes could 

have cash bonuses calculated toward retirement and thrift savings benefits. 

Specifically, it was suggested that bonuses should be factored into an 

employee’s “high-3” average basic pay when retirement benefits are 

calculated. A participant also observed that federal employees’ decisions to 

remain in government or seek nonfederal employment could depend on the 

specific retirement system that covers them.

Build in Safeguards to 

Enhance the 

Transparency and 

Ensure the Fairness of 

Pay Decisions

Agencies need to have modern, effective, credible, and as appropriate 

validated performance management systems in place with adequate 

safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate 

accountability mechanisms, to ensure fairness and prevent politicization 

and abuse. Performance management systems with adequate safeguards 

are the precondition to linking pay, incentive, and reward systems with 

employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to organizational results. 

The presenters gave examples of safeguards in their organizations’ marketbased and more performance-oriented pay systems that were designed to 

help promote reasonable transparency as well as achieve consistency and 

equity across employee groups and teams.

The presenters discussed how their organizations provided both general 

and individualized information on pay decisions to help promote 

reasonable transparency in their market-based and more performanceoriented pay systems. For example, the Director of Corporate 

Compensation at the Red Cross stressed that employees need to know the 

details of how the pay system is designed and implemented in order to 

understand how pay decisions are made. The Red Cross provides its 

employees general information on what the salary ranges are for each pay 

band, how their pay compares to the market, and how their performance 

ties to the pay decisions. According to OCC presenters, to help foster 

transparency on its geo pay system and help employees understand how 

the system works, OCC posted on its intranet site formulas for calculating 

the geo pay rate for each zone and the resulting rates, as well as the other 

information sources OCC uses to establish the rates. 

In addition to general information, IBM believes showing each employee 

how he or she fits into the organization’s pay system is critical to the 

understanding of how the pay system works. IBM provides each employee 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 14 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

with an annual total cash summary statement showing, among other things, 

where he or she falls in the pay range and relative to the market along with 

the performance rating, and pay increase, if applicable. IBM’s Director of 

Global Services Compensation noted that there should be no mystery about 

how employees’ pay compares to others in their pay range in any given 

market and whether they deserve a pay increase based on their 

contributions that year. 

To help achieve consistency and equity in pay decisions across employee 

groups and teams, organizations built in several accountability 

mechanisms, such as conducting predecisional internal checks to help 

ensure there is no discrimination in pay decisions. For example, IBM 

conducts a base pay equity analysis to review the pay of women or minority 

employees if their proposed pay is one standard deviation away from the 

mean of the majority of employees. The Director said IBM looks for an 

explanation for these pay differences, such as poor performance, a recent 

promotion into the pay band, or an extended leave of absence. 

In addition, the IBM Director stated that while there is a total commitment 

from all levels of management to ensure consistency in the compensation 

process, IBM built in second-level reviews of pay decisions before 

employees receive any pay increases. Specifically, the first-line managers 

propose pay increases for the employees they supervise. These managers 

then discuss their decisions with other first-line managers and managers at 

the next level—the up-line managers—to ensure the assessments and 

justifications are consistent across groups. Up-line managers can also shift 

pay allocations across groups if necessary in order to ensure employees 

who perform similarly are compensated the same regardless of their firstline managers. As a final check, the senior managers sign off on the pay 

decisions for each employee. 

The Comptroller General discussed GAO’s recent use of standardized 

rating scores (SRS) for employees to ensure consistency in ratings and in 

applying performance standards within and across GAO’s teams. 

Implemented for the first time for the fiscal year 2004 performance 

appraisal cycle, the SRS indicates the employee’s position relative to the 

average rating of that employee’s team. Employees in different teams with 

the same SRS have the same relative performance, thus achieving better 

comparability in ratings across teams. Employees’ SRS and the midpoint 

for their pay range are key factors in calculating their performance-based 

compensation for that year. The Comptroller General noted that he plans 

to continue working with the employees to identify the best way to 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 15 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

communicate the SRS information as part of GAO’s ongoing commitment 

to employee feedback on the new system and transparency about pay 

decisions. 

The organizations also discussed grievance processes to address 

employees’ complaints about pay or performance management decisions. 

Both IBM and Virginia have internal grievance processes in place for their 

employees if they want a review of their pay decision. For example, 

Virginia’s Director of Human Resource Management stated that Virginia’s 

process provides for grievances to be elevated up to the central office—the 

Department of Human Resource Management—if necessary. In addition, 

IBM’s Director of Global Services Compensation noted that IBM has an 

open-door policy, and employees may appeal pay and performance 

management decisions through its internal grievance process up to the 

corporate office if they feel that these decisions were not fair. 

Devolve Decision 

Making on Pay to 

Appropriate Levels

In implementing market-based and more performance-oriented pay 

systems, organizations will need to determine what parts of their pay 

systems should be maintained centrally and what can be devolved to 

“lower” levels of the organization. For example, IBM devolves its pay 

decisions to first-line managers, and Virginia devolves these decisions to its 

agencies. Regardless of the context, the presenters noted that as decision 

making is devolved, organizations will need to build in overall core 

processes to help ensure reasonable consistency in how their systems are 

implemented.

IBM designed its compensation program to be as simple and flexible as 

possible in order to keep the control at the first-line manager level. The 

Director of Global Services Compensation noted that IBM uses the phrase 

“lower the center of gravity” to mean that line managers need to have 

central roles in pay and related compensation decisions since they are the 

best sources of knowledge about their employees. Nevertheless, IBM 

maintains certain overall core processes. For example, the corporate 

office determines the funding for employee pay increases that is necessary 

to maintain competitiveness with the market and the managers within the 

business units are held accountable for planning how to allocate the money 

to the employees. To help distribute the money among the employees, IBM 

provides managers with an automated salary planning tool that identifies a 

variety of factors considered in determining pay increases for each 

employee. These factors include the employee’s job family, performance 

rating, current pay, and the “market reference point” or midpoint in the pay 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 16 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

range for the employee’s pay band. Using the tool, the manager is 

responsible for allocating money for pay increases among the employees 

before the pay decisions are approved by higher levels of management and 

employees receive the increases. 

With its statewide compensation reform initiatives, Virginia shifted 

responsibility for administering pay from its central office, the Department 

of Human Resource Management, to the agencies and their managers. The 

Director of Human Resource Management noted that by increasing their 

accountability, it reduces the agencies’ and managers’ excuses, such as “HR 

won’t let me” for not making needed revisions in their pay systems. The 

Director said there is a statewide salary plan that provides broad guidelines 

for all the agencies regarding the commonwealth’s overall compensation 

philosophy, funding for pay increases, and the pay ranges for the 

employees’ positions that reflect market conditions, but each agency is 

held accountable for developing its own salary administration plan. As part 

of this plan, the agency is to select from among designated “pay practices” 

that it considers useful to best meet its specific needs. These practices—

such as promotions or in-band pay adjustments to recognize employees for 

taking on additional duties—are designed to provide agencies with 

approaches to reward and recognize high performance among employees 

while providing a higher degree of accountability in reaching pay decisions. 

The Department of Human Resource Management approves each agency’s 

salary administration plan before it is implemented.

Provide Training on 

Leadership, 

Management, and 

Interpersonal Skills to 

Facilitate Effective 

Communication

There was widespread agreement that clear, consistent, and frequent 

communication was critical to the successful implementation of marketbased and more performance-oriented pay systems. A presenter discussed 

how the organization trained individuals to ensure they would be able to 

clearly and simply communicate information so that employees at all levels 

understood how these compensation reforms would be implemented. 

Using employee groups to develop the training without using technical 

compensation terms was especially valued. There was also 

acknowledgment among the presenters that there needs to be a renewed 

emphasis on leadership, management, and interpersonal skills, such as 

setting expectations, linking individual performance to organizational 

results, and effectively giving and receiving feedback, to make marketbased and more performance-oriented pay succeed. Lastly, defining a new 

role for employees by holding them accountable for their own careers and 

for identifying the necessary training to develop their skills was also 

mentioned as beneficial to the individual as well as the organization. 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 17 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Virginia’s Department of Human Resource Management developed a 

central “train the trainer” approach to provide comprehensive 

communication on the compensation reforms that agencies then 

customized and delivered to their employees. Trainers were nominated by 

the agencies’ human resources directors based on their interpersonal skills, 

experiences, and knowledge of compensation, among other things. 

Further, the Director understood that employees need information on the 

compensation reforms in as simple and clear a format as possible with little 

room for misinterpretation. She observed that sometimes the 

misinterpretation of information is caused by the use of technical 

compensation terms or “HR” terminology to explain the initiative. As a 

result, Virginia has used its Employee Advisory Committee to help develop 

training and supporting materials on the compensation reform initiatives 

and communicate the information to the other employees. According to 

the Director, using the committee to clearly communicate the information 

was very effective because the straightforward discussion allowed 

employees to better understand how the reforms would affect them 

directly. 

The presenters acknowledged that there needs to be a renewed emphasis 

on leadership, management, and interpersonal skills to make market-based 

and more performance-oriented pay succeed. For example, the Chief 

Human Capital Officer (CHCO) from the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation (FDIC) discussed how managers need “the will” along with the 

tools to make distinctions in employees’ performance based on their 

contributions to FDIC’s goals and then give the appropriate pay increases. 

In his experience, the CHCO said that some managers have trouble making 

the distinctions because they have to face the people they are evaluating 

the next day, and they would prefer to give all employees the same pay 

increase rather than to have to make these distinctions. Providing training 

on how to make these distinctions helps the managers implement the pay 

system successfully. 

Similarly, IBM’s Director of Global Services Compensation recognized the 

value in training managers on how to give ongoing feedback to employees 

on their performance and its affect on pay decisions. Such training is 

especially important to managers since IBM holds them accountable for 

assessing employee performance and making pay decisions. To help 

managers in giving feedback, IBM developed scenarios where managers 

could play roles to help them have these meaningful discussions about the 

employees’ contributions to IBM’s goals throughout the year. IBM also is 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 18 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

committed to training employees on how the system works to help prepare 

them to receive performance feedback from their managers.

Similarly, the Director of MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation 

emphasized that supervisors will need to develop leadership and 

management skills that will help engage employees in order for the 

organization to be successful in its implementation of its pay for 

performance efforts and help improve its overall performance. These skills 

include

• clearly articulating organizational goals and how the employee fits into 

the goals of the organization, 

• setting realistic performance expectations, 

• adapting to changing circumstances, 

• finding solutions to problems, and

• demonstrating honesty and integrity. 

Virginia is defining a new role for employees by holding them accountable 

for their own careers and for identifying the training they need to enhance 

their skills. For example, the Department of Human Resource Management 

developed career guides to inform employees on what they may personally 

need to do to develop, advance, or change their careers. Posted on the 

Virginia Jobs Web site, the guides provide important occupational 

information for employees interested in developing their careers and 

improving opportunities for advancement in any work environment. The 

Director noted that an added benefit is that these career guides help 

employees understand that they have knowledge, skills, and abilities that 

cut across different occupations and that are transferable across the 

commonwealth’s government. For example, the career guide for 

accountants states that these positions are primarily assigned to the 

financial services career group, but accountants also have opportunities in 

other groups, such as program administration, procurement services, and 

policy analysis and planning. 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 19 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Build Consensus to 

Gain Ownership and 

Acceptance for Pay 

Reforms 

To help improve internal and external acceptance for pay reforms, the 

presenters discussed how they involved stakeholders when designing or 

implementing their market-based and more performance-oriented pay 

systems to build a reasonable degree of consensus on the reforms. 

Involving employees and other stakeholders helps to improve overall 

confidence and belief in the fairness of the system, enhance their 

understanding of how the system works, and increase their understanding 

and ownership of organizational goals and objectives. The Comptroller 

General observed that inclusion of employees and their representatives 

needs to be meaningful, not just pro forma. Similarly, the President of 

NAPA remarked that it is important for the organization to integrate any 

pay reforms within a larger strategy to help the organization achieve its 

mission and program operations. Because employees are critical to an 

organization’s success, the President of NAPA also noted that it is 

important for them to understand and accept the pay reforms. Without a 

sustained, disciplined, and focused commitment from top leaders, 

managers, and employees, a participant noted that it may be possible to do 

more harm than good when implementing these types of pay systems. 

Virginia involved stakeholders in designing and implementing its 

compensation reforms. For example, Virginia established the 12-member 

Commission on Reform of the Classified Compensation Plan that included 

representatives from Virginia’s legislative and executive branches, such as 

state senators and delegates and cabinet heads, as well as human resource 

representatives from private sector organizations. To serve as internal 

consultants to the Commission throughout the process, Virginia

established a Technical Advisory Committee comprising central agency 

representatives, chief human resource officers from agencies, and 

legislative fiscal analysts from the Senate Finance Committee and House 

Appropriations Committee. In addition, Virginia formed an Employee 

Advisory Committee comprising 20 nonsupervisory employees from 

diverse occupations, demographic groups, and geographic locations. The 

Director noted that the charge for the employees was to help the 

commonwealth as a whole improve its compensation program, not just for 

their select interest groups. Further, to implement the new statewide 

compensation program, Virginia’s Department of Human Resource 

Management collaborated with 150 human resource staff members and 

60 different agencies to form 10 implementation teams representing 

various priority areas, such as funding, compensation management, 

performance management, training, and communications. The Director 

noted that these implementation teams helped to ensure the details of the 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 20 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

various compensation reforms were consistently communicated to all the 

employees across the commonwealth. 

Similarly, the FDIC CHCO found that it was better to have the union 

involved in the implementation of its pay reforms. The CHCO said when 

negotiating compensation for its bargaining unit employees with 

representatives of the National Treasury Employees Union, he views them 

as true partners instead of following an “us versus them” approach. FDIC 

is to negotiate a new pay for performance system with its union this 

summer and he noted that they both want to work together to reach an 

agreement in terms of compensation levels that will satisfy both parties. 

Monitor and Refine the 

Implementation of the 

Pay System

High-performing organizations understand they need to continuously 

review and revise their performance management systems to achieve 

results and accelerate change.4

 The presenters acknowledged that when 

implementing their market-based and more performance-oriented pay 

systems, they identified problems and corrected them along the way. The 

presenters identified ways they monitor their systems, including listening 

to employees’ and stakeholders’ views—informally and formally—on the 

pay systems and using metrics to track the effectiveness of the pay systems 

over time. While the need for refining the system is inevitable, especially 

when new initiatives are introduced, they also observed that there is value 

in stabilizing the pay system for a period of time to let employees get 

accustomed to the new initiative and see how it works.

The presenters discussed the importance of listening to employees’ and 

stakeholders’ views—informally and formally—to monitor the 

implementation of the pay system. To ensure the pay for performance 

system has integrity among the employees and stakeholders, FDIC has 

found that listening to stakeholders, such as the union, is essential in 

evaluating the effectiveness of the pay system. The FDIC CHCO noted that 

the organization needs to listen to the “level of noise” among the employees 

and the union to find out whether an initiative is working well. In addition 

to informally tracking employee views, IBM sends out a pulse survey with 

only a few questions on the compensation program to a sample of its 

300,000 employees every quarter. IBM’s Director of Global Services 

Compensation noted that he feels IBM is doing well in implementing the 

4

GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 21 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

compensation program if over 70 percent of the employees’ responses to 

these questions are “neutral” or “favorable.” 

The organizations also identified metrics to track the effectiveness of their 

pay systems. For example, IBM tracks its attrition rates to determine why 

employees are leaving and compares them to its competitors’ attrition 

rates. Specifically, during the late 1990s, the Director stated that IBM had 

attrition rates that were considerably lower than its competitors. In 

addition, IBM and Virginia consider the use of the employee appeal process 

as an indicator of the employees’ acceptance of pay and performance 

management decisions. For example, IBM tracks the total number of 

grievances that are initiated by the employees. The Director indicated that 

typically employees’ appeals are resolved at a second-level review. 

Virginia’s Director of Human Resource Management tracks the number of 

employee grievances that are forwarded to the next level for resolution 

because she considers grievances that are resolved between the manager 

and the employee to be “successes” since both sides reached an acceptable 

outcome. She said her office works with managers to educate them on 

what these metrics mean and how they affect their agencies and 

employees. 

According to the presenters, organizations should be open to refining their 

systems to address unintended consequences that may arise when 

implementing their pay systems. For example, in order to spread the pay 

increases among as many employees as possible, FDIC found that 

managers tended not to award merit pay increases to top-performing 

employees when they were to be promoted in the career ladder. As a 

result, the CHCO said these high-performing employees were not getting 

the merit pay increases they deserved. The CHCO said FDIC recognized 

that this unintended consequence needed to be corrected in future 

iterations of the pay system and managers needed help in learning how to 

make the necessary distinctions in employees’ contributions. 

Virginia made the appropriate refinements to its pay system based on 

employee feedback. For example, when consolidating Virginia’s 

classification structure, the Director of Human Resource Management 

developed a crosswalk between the old and new classification structures to 

show employees how, for example, approximately 1,650 individual job 

classifications would be consolidated into 256 broader job roles. The 

Director noted that while most employees accepted the new structure, her 

office nevertheless made some revisions as a result of employee feedback 

so that employees could more easily see where they fit into these new job 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 22 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

roles. According to the Director, it is especially important that employees 

perceive that specific actions have been taken in response to their 

feedback. Anticipating that there may be unidentified issues as the 

classification structure is implemented, the Director said her office plans to 

continue soliciting feedback at least annually to see if further refinements 

need to be made to the structure. 

While the need for refining a system is inevitable especially when new 

initiatives are introduced, the presenters noted there is value in stabilizing 

the pay system for a period of time to let employees get accustomed to the 

new initiative and see how it works. For example, the OCC presenters said 

OCC plans to reassess its geo pay rates every 3 years rather than annually 

in order to provide continuity in implementing the system. This continuity 

benefits employees because they know how much their geographic 

differential will be for a period of time and benefits OCC because it makes 

managing the pay system more stable. The FDIC CHCO said that FDIC has 

not had its pay systems in place without any revisions long enough to 

determine if employees have accepted the new systems. Nevertheless, the 

CHCO said it is his opinion that there is much more acceptance 

surrounding pay for performance than when FDIC first began 

implementing the systems in 1997. 

In closing, the President and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service 

asked participants to identify what they regarded to be the next steps for 

pay reform in the federal government. There was general consensus 

among the participants that a shift from administering the federal 

government's current pay system—the General Schedule—to managing a 

market-based and more performance-oriented pay system will be a 

fundamental change for agencies' human capital offices. Specifically, 

participants noted that human capital professionals will need to acquire a 

new set of skills for implementing these types of pay systems. In the 

changing human capital environment of increased flexibilities, human 

capital professionals will need to transition to a larger strategic role rather 

than one of compliance. This transition will require training to play an 

active role in helping to determine the overall strategic direction of an 

organization. 

Overall, there was general agreement that basic management capacity 

needs to be built at all levels of the organization, starting with senior 

leaders who are to direct the change management initiatives that need to 

accompany pay reform. Market-based and more performance-oriented pay 
Appendix I

Key Themes from the Symposium

Page 23 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

are best understood as only one part—albeit a critical one—of larger 

efforts to improve the performance of an organization. As such, marketbased and more performance-oriented pay cannot be simply overlaid on 

most organizations’ existing performance management systems. Rather, as 

a precondition to effective pay reform, individual expectations must be 

clearly aligned with organizational results, communication on individual 

contributions to annual goals must be ongoing and two way, meaningful 

distinctions in employee performance must be made, and cultural changes 

must be undertaken. 
Page 24 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Appendix II

Symposium Agenda ApendxiI

1

Human Capital: 

Symposium on Designing and Managing Market-Based and 

More Performance-Oriented Pay Systems 

March 9, 2005 

Agenda 

8:30 a.m. Arrival and coffee 

8:45 a.m. Opening Remarks by 

x Dan G. Blair, Acting Director, OPM 

x C. Morgan Kinghorn, President, NAPA 

x David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, GAO 

9:00 a.m. Overview of GAO’s Classification and Compensation Efforts by David M. 

Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, GAO 

9:30 a.m. How is your organization managing the transition to a market-based and 

more performance-oriented pay system, in particular, the cultural 

dimensions of this change? 

x Presentation by Miguel A. Torrado, Chief Human Capital Officer, 

 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

x Questions from the audience 

10:15 a.m. Break 

10:30 a.m. How do you manage the pay system across the organization? 

x Presentation by Sara Redding Wilson, Director, Department of Human 

Resource Management, the Commonwealth of Virginia 

x Presentation by Arthur Amler, Director, Global Services Compensation, 

IBM Corporation 

x Questions from the audience 

12:00 p.m. Working Lunch 

“The Elephant in the Room - How to Approach the Pay Cap” 

x Presentation and open discussion led by Hannah Sistare, Director, 

Human Resources Management Consortium, NAPA 

U.S. Government 

Accountability Office 

U.S. Merit Systems 

Protection Board 

National Academy of Public 

Administration

Partnership for 

Public Service 

U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management
Appendix II

Symposium Agenda

Page 25 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

2

1:00 p.m. How does your organization manage pay given ongoing changes (e.g., cost 

of labor and budget pressures) while remaining competitive in the market?

x Presentation by Ben Katcoff, Director, Compensation and Benefits, and 

Rhonda Jones, Lead Expert, Compensation and Benefits, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency 

x Presentation by Philip A. Melita, Director, Corporate Compensation, 

Human Resources, American Red Cross 

x Questions from the audience 

2:30 p.m. Break 

2:45 p.m. “Facilitating Employee Engagement Through Pay for Performance” 

x Presentation and open discussion led by Steve Nelson, Director, Office of 

Policy and Evaluation, MSPB 

3:00 p.m. Next Steps by Max Stier, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service 

Closing Remarks by J. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues, 

GAO 

3:30 p.m. Adjourn 
Page 26 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Appendix III

Symposium Participants ApendxiI

Hosts David M. Walker

Comptroller General of the United States

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Dan G. Blair

Acting Director*

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Neil A.G. McPhie 

Chairman

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

C. Morgan Kinghorn 

President

National Academy of Public Administration

Max Stier 

President and CEO

Partnership for Public Service

Moderators Eileen Larence

Director, Strategic Issues

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Marcia Marsh

Vice President for Agency Partnerships

Partnership for Public Service

John Palguta 

Vice President for Policy and Research

Partnership for Public Service

Presenters Arthur Amler 

Director, Global Services Compensation

IBM Corporation
Appendix III

Symposium Participants

Page 27 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Rhonda Jones

Lead Expert, Compensation and Benefits

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Ben Katcoff

Director, Compensation and Benefits

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Philip A. Melita

Director, Corporate Compensation, Human Resources

American Red Cross

Steve Nelson

Director, Office of Policy and Evaluation

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Hannah Sistare

Director, Human Resources Management Consortium

National Academy of Public Administration

Miguel A. Torrado

Chief Human Capital Officer

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Sara Redding Wilson

Director, Department of Human Resource Management

Commonwealth of Virginia

Human Capital 

Stakeholders

David Amaral

Deputy Associate Director for Small Agencies Human Capital Management

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Carol A. Bonosaro

President

Senior Executives Association
Appendix III

Symposium Participants

Page 28 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Bradley Bunn

Deputy Program Executive Officer, National Security Personnel System

U.S. Department of Defense

Lois B. Cheney

Senior Advisor, Human Resources*

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Claudia A. Cross 

Chief Human Capital Officer/Director, Office of Human

Resources Management

U.S. Department of Energy

Amy Denning

Compensation Program Manager

IBM Global Services

Brian DeWyngaert

Chief of Staff

The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

Joan Dodaro

Human Resources Consultant and 

Former Assistant Comptroller General for Operations

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Michael D. Dovilla

Executive Director, Chief Human Capital Officers Council

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Debra Ellerbe

Human Resources Specialist

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Cynthia Ferentinos

Senior Research Analyst, Office of Policy and Evaluation

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Frank D. Ferris

National Executive Vice President

National Treasury Employees Union
Appendix III

Symposium Participants

Page 29 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Bethany Hardy 

Press Secretary

Partnership for Public Service

Sallyanne Harper

Chief Administrative Officer/Chief Financial Officer

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Doris Hausser

Senior Policy Advisor to the Director and Chief Human Capital Officer

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Jennifer Hemingway

Professional Staff Member

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

U.S. Senate

Allan Heuerman

Project Director, Academy Studies

National Academy of Public Administration

Jesse Hoskins

Chief Human Capital Officer

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Helen Hsing

Managing Director, Strategic Planning & External Liaison

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Deborah Jefferson

Director of Human Resources

U.S. Department of Commerce

Patrick Jennings

Senior Counsel

Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization

Government Reform Committee

U.S. House of Representatives
Appendix III

Symposium Participants

Page 30 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Craig Jerabek

Chief, Wage and Salary Division 

Civilian Personnel Management Service

U.S. Department of Defense

Ernestine Jones

Human Resources Specialist

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Richard Keevey

Director, Performance Consortium

National Academy of Public Administration

Susan Kladiva 

Special Assistant to the Comptroller General

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Rosslyn Kleeman 

Distinguished Executive in Residence

The George Washington University

Nanci Langley

Democratic Deputy Staff Director

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

U.S. Senate

Marc Porter Magee

Director of Research

Partnership for Public Service

Katie Malague

Program Manager, Agency Partnerships

Partnership for Public Service

Jenny Mallios

Chief of Executive Resources

U.S. Department of State
Appendix III

Symposium Participants

Page 31 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Sally Mavlian

Human Resources Specialist/Compensation*

U.S. Department of State

Jennifer D. Melvin

HR Specialist (Compensation/Classification), Human Resources

Strategy & Solutions

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources & 

Chief Human Capital Officer

U.S. Department of the Treasury

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Keith Nelson

Associate Deputy Secretary for Management

U.S. Department of Labor

Terrance Norflis

Legislative Assistant, Office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton

U.S. House of Representatives 

Lawrence B. Novey

Counsel 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

U.S. Senate

Aaron Pendleton

Deputy Human Resources Director

National Labor Relations Board

Marta Brito Perez

Associate Director, Human Capital Leadership & Merit System 

Accountability

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Patricia Prosperi

Director, Office of Human Resources Management

U.S. Department of Transportation
Appendix III

Symposium Participants

Page 32 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Theresa Prych

Professional Staff Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee

U.S. Senate

Ron Sanders

Associate Director, Division of Strategic Human Resources Policy*

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Jayne L. Seidman

Associate Executive Director, Office of Human Resources and 

Administrative Services

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Tania A. Shand

Professional Staff Member

Government Reform Committee

U.S. House of Representatives

Myra Shiplett

Project Director, Academy Studies

National Academy of Public Administration

Janet Silva 

Director, Human Resources Management Office

Federal Trade Commission

Aaron Smith

Government Affairs Assistant

Federal Managers Association

Ed Stephenson

Senior Project Advisor, Academy Studies

National Academy of Public Administration

Sharon Stewart 

Director of Human Resources, National Security Personnel System

U.S. Department of Defense
Appendix III

Symposium Participants

Page 33 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Michael B. Styles

National President

Federal Managers Association

Vincent T. Taylor

Chief Human Capital Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Robert M. Tobias

Professor

American University

Didier Trinh

Executive Director

Federal Managers Association

James Tsugawa

Senior Research Analyst, Office of Policy and Evaluation

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Dennis Turner

Chief, Classification and Pay Branch, Field Advisory Services

Civilian Personnel Management Service

U.S. Department of Defense

Kathleen Wheeler

Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer

U.S. Department of the Interior

Donald J. Winstead 

Deputy Associate Director for Pay and Performance Policy

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Erica Woods

Program Manager

Partnership for Public Service

*Title as of the date of the symposium, March 9, 2005.
Page 34 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations ApendxiIV

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Source: FDIC.

Mission of the 

organization

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an 

independent agency that is to maintain the stability and public 

confidence in the nation’s financial system by insuring deposits, 

examining and supervising financial institutions, and managing 

bank receiverships.

Number of 

employees 

Approximately 5,000 employees.

Union participation The National Treasury Employees Union for its bargaining unit 

employees. 

Key milestone dates • 1933: Congress established FDIC and gave it the authority to 

set the compensation of its employees without regard to federal 

compensation laws. 

• 1989: Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform, 

Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, which gave financial 

regulatory agencies pay authorities similar to FDIC and 

required these agencies to maintain compensation 

comparability so they would not compete with each other for 

employees.

• 1995: FDIC eliminated a pay system with increases in steps 

based on years of service.

• 1997: FDIC instituted pay for performance.

• 2003: FDIC began to implement three different pay systems for 

executive level employees, as well as bargaining unit and 

nonbargaining employees.

Source for additional 

information

http://www.fdic.gov
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 35 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 36 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 37 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 38 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 39 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 40 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 41 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 42 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 43 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 44 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation

Page 45 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Source: FDIC.
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 46 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Commonwealth of Virginia 

Source: Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mission of the 

organization

The commonwealth’s Department of Human Resource 

Management is to address the diverse human resources needs 

of its customers through guidance, consultation, and training 

throughout the commonwealth.

Number of employees Approximately 54,000 employees in various agencies across 

the commonwealth.

Union participation The commonwealth does not negotiate compensation with the 

unions. 

Key milestone dates • 1998: The Commission on Reform of the Classified 

Compensation Plan was formed to recommend modifications 

to the commonwealth’s classified compensation plan. 

• 2000: The Governor and Virginia General Assembly approved 

the Commission's recommendation to develop a new 

compensation system for employees.

• 2000: The new compensation system took effect with new pay 

practices and goals of greater opportunities for career growth 

within state government, greater management flexibility and 

accountability, and new ways to recognize and reward 

exceptional employee performance and acquired skills.

Sources for additional 

information

http://www.dhrm.va.gov

http://www.dhrm.virginia.gov/compreform/comp.htm
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 47 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

HUMAN CAPITAL

A Symposium on Designing and Managing a

Performance-Oriented and Market-Based Pay System

Washington, D.C.

March 9, 2005
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 48 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 49 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 50 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Job X (Washington, DC)

$57,120

Job X (New York, NY)

$62,946
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 51 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 52 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 53 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 54 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 55 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 56 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 57 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 58 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 59 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - 

Commonwealth of Virginia

Page 60 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Source: Commonwealth of Virginia.
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation

Page 61 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

IBM Corporation

Source: IBM Corporation.

Mission of the 

organization

IBM strives to lead in the invention, development, and 

manufacture of the industry's most advanced information 

technologies, including computer systems, software, storage 

systems, and microelectronics. IBM translates these advanced 

technologies into value for its customers through its professional 

solutions, services, and consulting businesses worldwide.

Number of 

employees

Approximately 300,000 employees in more than 160 countries. 

Union participation In the United States, unions do not represent IBM employees, 

but in other countries, some IBM employees belong to unions 

and/or work councils. Often, these arrangements are either 

encouraged or mandated by law. 

Key milestone dates • 1991: IBM introduced the employee bonus program where 

payments are based upon straight calculation with no manager 

discretion.

• 1996: IBM made multiple changes:

• Implemented broad bands.

• Started an annual common review date for salary increase 

decisions (instead of anniversary reviews).

• Introduced a compensation planning tool in the United 

States and Canada.

• 2005: IBM changed the employee bonus program to give 

managers more discretion for bonus payments.

Source for additional 

information

http://www.ibm.com
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation 

Page 62 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation

Page 63 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Total

Rewards

Package

Pay for

Performance

Pay

Competitively

Differentiate

Strongley
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation 

Page 64 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation

Page 65 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation 

Page 66 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation

Page 67 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation 

Page 68 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - IBM 

Corporation

Page 69 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Source: IBM.
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 70 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Source: OCC.

Mission of the 

organization

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is a 

bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. OCC is to 

charter national banks; oversee a nationwide system of banking 

institutions; and assure that national banks are safe and sound, 

competitive and profitable, and capable of serving in the best 

possible manner the banking needs of their customers. 

Number of employees Approximately 2,800 employees located in offices throughout 

the country.

Union participation The National Treasury Employees Union. 

Key milestone dates 1989: Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform, 

Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), which gave 

financial regulatory agencies, including OCC, similar pay 

authorities and required these agencies to maintain 

compensation comparability. 

1999: OCC conducted a comprehensive survey on the pay 

systems of the FIRREA agencies, other title 5-exempt 

organizations, and the Federal Reserve Banks, which served 

as the basis for a major review of its pay programs. 

2001: OCC implemented a new, broad-banded pay plan 

designed to encourage employees to achieve and to develop 

skills that support the mission of OCC.

2002: OCC implemented a new performance management 

system.

2004: OCC introduced changes to its “geo pay” system using 

cost of labor data to help ensure that pay is locally competitive 

and comparable to the FIRREA community. 

Source for additional 

information

http://www.occ.treas.gov
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 71 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 72 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 73 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Job Familes

Overall OCC to Market Average

Base Salary Base + Geo Base Salary Base + Geo

2003

FIRREAS Only

OCC Weighted Average*

2004

FIRREAS Only

OCC Weighted Average*
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 74 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Overall OCC to Market Average
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 75 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Overall OCC to Market Average
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 76 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Overall OCC to Market Average
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 77 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Overall OCC to Market Average
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency

Page 78 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Overall OCC to Market Average

Source: OCC.
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - American 

Red Cross

Page 79 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

American Red Cross 

Source: American Red Cross.

Mission of the 

organization

As a humanitarian organization led by volunteers and guided by 

its congressional charter and the Fundamental Principles of the 

International Red Cross Movement, the American Red Cross is 

to provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, 

prepare for, and respond to emergencies.

Number of employees Approximately 35,300 employees overall:

• About 3,300 employees in the National Headquarters 

(primarily in Washington, D.C.) who are part of the broadbanded, pay for performance system. 

• About 18,000 employees in Biomedical Services across the 

country who are under a pay for performance system with 

graded salary structures.

• About 14,000 employees in 864 chapters across the country 

who are under a pay for performance system with graded 

salary structures. 

Union participation None at the National Headquarters.

Key milestone dates 2002: The American Red Cross instituted broad salary bands for 

the National Headquarters. 

2003: The American Red Cross began using formal job family 

and survey job descriptors in lieu of job descriptions and 

instituted a fully automated, market-based job evaluation 

system.

2005: The American Red Cross began using a fully automated 

salary planning or compensation management system.

Source for additional 

information

http://www.redcross.org
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - American 

Red Cross

Page 80 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - American 

Red Cross

Page 81 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix IV

Organizations’ Pay Systems: Background 

Information and Presentations - American 

Red Cross

Page 82 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Source: American Red Cross.

Job X (Washington, DC)

$57,120

Job X (New York, NY)

$62,946
Page 83 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Appendix V

Presentation by the Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium of the 

National Academy of Public Administration ApendxiV

Advising
Appendix V

Presentation by the Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium of the 

National Academy of Public Administration

Page 84 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix V

Presentation by the Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium of the 

National Academy of Public Administration

Page 85 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

AN INTERIM SOLUTION

• Congress raised SES cap for agencies 

with certified performance based systems.

• January 2005: 5,000 of 7,000 top 

executives were covered.

• Now: OPM collecting data. When will the 

new cap be reached? 

5
Appendix V

Presentation by the Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium of the 

National Academy of Public Administration

Page 86 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix V

Presentation by the Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium of the 

National Academy of Public Administration

Page 87 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix V

Presentation by the Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium of the 

National Academy of Public Administration

Page 88 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix V

Presentation by the Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium of the 

National Academy of Public Administration

Page 89 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix V

Presentation by the Director of the Human 

Resources Management Consortium of the 

National Academy of Public Administration

Page 90 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Source: NAPA.
Page 91 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board

Page 92 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board

Page 93 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board

Page 94 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board

Page 95 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board

Page 96 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board

Page 97 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board

Page 98 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium
Appendix VI

Presentation by the Director of the Office of 

Policy and Evaluation of the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board

Page 99 GAO-05-832SP Pay Symposium

Source: MSPB.

(450423)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548