U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–120 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 112–74 

STRENGTHENING THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE 

SERVICE: A REVIEW OF CHALLENGES FACING 

THE GOVERNMENT’S LEADERSHIP CORPS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, 

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE, AND THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL 

WORKFORCE, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LISA M. POWELL, Staff Director 

CHRISTINE S. KHIM, Counsel 

ALAN ELIAS, Legislatve Assistant Minority 

AARON H. WOOLF, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011 

Nancy Kichak, Associate Director for Employee Services and Chief Human 

Capital Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel Management ..................................... 4 

Carol Bonosaro, President, Senior Executives Association .................................. 14 

Max Stier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for Public 

Service ................................................................................................................... 16 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bonosaro, Carol: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Kichak, Nancy: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Stier, Max: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

APPENDIX 

Background .............................................................................................................. 57 

Statement of Jeffrey D. Zients, Federal Chief Performance Officer and Deputy 

Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget ......................... 63 

Senior Level Pay Systems ....................................................................................... 66 

Questions and responses submitted for the record from: 

Ms. Kichak ........................................................................................................ 76 

Ms. Bonosaro ..................................................................................................... 80 

Mr. Stier ............................................................................................................ 83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

STRENGTHENING THE SENIOR 

EXECUTIVE SERVICE: A REVIEW OF 

CHALLENGES FACING THE GOVERNMENT’S 

LEADERSHIP CORPS 

TUESDAY MARCH 29, 2011 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka and Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. This hearing will come to order. 

Aloha and good morning to everyone. Thank you so much for 

joining us as the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia 

meets to examine challenges facing the Senior Executive Service 

(SES). 

Today’s hearing on strengthening the government’s leadership 

corps is timely and important in this challenging climate. Agencies 

and Federal employees are being asked to do more with less. Looking for ways to cut costs without compromising agency missions, 

they are rising to the challenge even while facing uncertainty about 

future resources and personnel. 

As the Federal Government’s senior managers, the SES is responsible for leading the workforce through these difficult times. 

The SES is essential to driving management priorities and promoting efficiency within agencies and across the government. Each 

year through Presidential Rank Awards, we recognize outstanding 

senior executives whose innovation and management expertise save 

taxpayers billions of dollars. I am proud that such talented people 

have chosen a career in public service, and I believe that America 

has benefited as a result. 

Although the SES is critically important to efficient and effective 

government, it has been a number of years since Congress took a 

comprehensive governmentwide look at the Senior Executive Service. Like any workforce, it faces its share of challenges. Many top 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

candidates do not want to apply to the SES. For years this Subcommittee has been working to fix the broken Federal hiring process, and we have made quite a bit of progress working closely with 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). 

But the hiring process for senior executive jobs is even more complicated and longer than other jobs. A survey of chief human capital officers and upper level General Schedule (GS) employees in 

2009 found that the complex process deterred many employees 

from applying to the SES. It is time to focus on fixing the SES hiring process. 

To make matters worse, there is little financial incentive to join 

the SES. In 2004, Congress enacted reforms that created a pay-forperformance system, raised the cap on SES pay and eliminated locality pay. The SES pay range is linked to congressional pay and 

over time it has not increase as fast as GS pay. As a result, the 

General Schedule pay scale overlaps substantially with the lower 

end of SES, particularly in areas where GS employees receive higher locality rates. 

Members of the SES carry critical responsibilities, often work 

long hours and have fewer employee protections, but they may 

bring home smaller paychecks than the employees they manage. 

The same 2009 survey found that many senior GS employees did 

not apply for the SES in part because the overlapping pay, often 

called pay compression, creates a financial disincentive. 

These general recruiting challenges have made attracting diverse 

candidates to government service and the SES even more difficult. 

In 2008, Congressman Danny Davis and I held a joint hearing to 

explore the issue of SES diversity. We also introduced legislation 

in the 110th and 111th Congresses aimed at increasing SES diversity. There has been slow progress. As of June 2010, only 17 percent of SES members were ethnic minorities, up from 16 percent 

3 years before, and only 31 percent were women, up from 29 percent. 

So I am pleased that President Obama and OPM are also focused 

on this issue, creating the Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI). 

However, much work remains to be done. 

With 90 percent of the SES workforce eligible for normal or early 

retirement, it is critical that agencies focus on these pressing recruitment challenges. We also need to make sure Federal employees are prepared when they apply for SES. This means mentoring 

employees throughout their careers and identifying those with 

leadership abilities. Agencies also must invest in in-depth opportunities, including interagency rotations. 

The important topics we are exploring this morning involve complicated issues without easy solutions, but the first step is focusing 

attention on the need for reform. I look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses this morning. 

And now I would like to call our Senator Ron Johnson for any 

comments he has to make, or an opening statement. 

Senator JOHNSON. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Senator Akaka. I would also 

like to thank the witnesses for your time and preparation, and 

coming to testify and be witnesses here today. 

First of all, I do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. This is extremely important. Our Federal Government, this year, is facing a $1.65 trillion deficit. We simply cannot 

afford to have inefficient and ineffective government. And, if we are 

going to become more efficient, if we are going to become more effective, it absolutely requires leadership, and that points to leadership from top managers within our government. 

In reviewing the briefing materials for today’s hearing, I thought 

it was somewhat interesting the SES, my understanding, was created about 32 years ago, in 1978 under the Civil Service Reform 

Act (CSRA). That is about as long as I have been in business. And 

just so the witnesses know, my background really is in building a 

business over the last 31 years from a small, to what I would consider a medium-size business. So I have gone through the challenges of hiring talent, top talent, in the private sector. 

So my perspective—I think the questions I will be asking—is 

going to come from that perspective of a small, innovative, lean, 

mean type of management machine which of course is what government is not. 

And I think in today’s economic environment with the budgetary 

constraints, I think that is exactly the type of culture, a culture of 

continuous improvement of efficiency and effectiveness, that we 

have to try and bring to government because—let’s face it—we ask 

government to do an awful lot and they are going to end up having 

to do a lot more with less money. So we are going to have to become efficient. 

But, Senator Akaka, I want to second what you said about the 

quality of the workforce. I mean in my very short period of time 

here I have met a number of people who work in agencies, and they 

are top-flight people. They are dedicated. They are hardworking. 

And so I think the question is how can we retain, how can we 

attract top people to provide that type of effective leadership because in the end leadership is just incredibly important. 

So again, I am looking forward to hearing the testimony. And, as 

a manufacturer, I am always looking for the root cause. So I guess 

one of the questions I will be starting out, and you can start thinking about it now, is what was the problem we were trying to solve 

in 1978, how well have we solved it and what needs to be fixed. 

So with that, I will turn over to Ms.—is it Kichak? Kichak, OK. 

Or, I guess probably back to the Chairman. You probably will turn 

it over to her, right? Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you so much, Senator Johnson, for your 

opening statement, and that helps us set the tone for today’s hearing. 

I would like to welcome today’s first witness to the Subcommittee—Ms. Nancy Kichak, Chief Human Capital Officer 

(CHCO) and Assistant Director of Strategic Human Resource Policy 

at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). She has been before 

this Subcommittee many times and has been very helpful to us 

over the years. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

As you know, it is a custom of the Subcommittee to swear in all 

witnesses, and I would like to ask you to please stand and raise 

your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 

so help you, God? 

Ms. KICHAK. Yes. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Let it be noted for the record that 

the witness answered in the affirmative. 

And I want the witness to know that while your oral statement 

is limited to 7 minutes your entire statement will be included in 

the record. 

Ms. Kichak, will you please proceed with your statement? 

STATEMENT OF NANCY KICHAK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR 

EMPLOYEE SERVICE AND CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER, 

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking Member 

Johnson. Thank you for inviting me here today to talk about the 

current State of the Senior Executive Service. 

We are in an unusually challenging period for the SES and for 

the civil service generally. Members of the Senior Executive Service 

are the leaders charged with recognizing challenging environments, 

overcoming obstacles and bringing about change in the way government does business. At a time when we truly need the best and the 

brightest in our executive corps, and when senior managers are expected to achieve even greater results with limited resources, the 

funds available for executive pay, awards, training and professional 

development are severely limited. 

At the same time, career SES members are being asked to lead 

and motivate a workforce whose own compensation and career opportunities are under attack. However, the government’s senior 

leaders have been chosen carefully and will rise to the occasion. 

Last year, the President’s Management Council (PMC) launched 

an initiative on improving the SES led by (OPM) and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). OPM and OMB began by consulting with a range of experts including past and present SES 

members, the Senior Executives Association (SEA) and the Partnership for Public Service (PPS). A number of working groups were 

formed, representing 19 Federal agencies. We are now working to 

implement their recommendations in the areas of senior leadership 

engagement, recruitment and career development. 

More than half of current SES members will be eligible to retire 

within the next 2 years. As these leaders are replaced, we must recruit from the most talented, diverse, high quality pools of executive candidates, including sources outside the Federal Government. 

The PMC working groups are currently coordinating among agencies to jointly recruit SES candidates with marketing and outreach 

strategies focused both inside and outside the government, with the 

objective of appropriately supporting diversity and veterans’ employment. 

Agencies cannot expect to have an effective senior executive 

corps if they do not provide robust career development opportunities. Some techniques for fostering career development in this curH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

rent fiscal climate include agencies pooling resources to provide 

shared educational offerings and partnering to share rotational opportunities. 

Another major element of the SES initiative is improving performance management. Under the PMC initiative, an agency working group is developing proposals to improve certification and performance management. The President’s Management Advisory 

Board, made up of leaders from the private sector, is also sharing 

its knowledge of effective private sector practices. 

We are working to improve the hiring process and reduce the 

current time to hire of 117 days. One improvement is allowing the 

applicant to apply with a resume that provides evidence of Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs). An independent Qualifications Review Board (QRB) confirms the qualifications have been met. 

As you said in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, we have 

made some progress on diversity, but it is not enough. We cannot 

be complacent about the importance of stepping up our efforts. We 

strive not only to improve the diversity of our senior leaders but 

also to foster a culture of inclusiveness. 

Measures designed to enhance diversity within the SES include 

connecting agencies with special emphasis and affinity groups, increasing the candidate pool through resume-based applications and 

providing increased rotational assignments for potential future 

leaders. In addition, Director Berry and Deputy Director Griffin established an Office of Diversity and Inclusion to develop and coordinate governmentwide policy and initiatives to promote diversity. 

Finally, we cannot forget that agencies’ ability to recruit and retain outstanding individuals into our senior executive corps is also 

affected by pay. Senior executives’ pay has not kept pace with that 

of the workforce they manage. Nevertheless, since most Federal 

employees’ pay is frozen at this time, we do not believe it is appropriate to exclude the workforce’s senior leaders from the freeze applied to the employees they manage. 

We must bring all of our best thinking and creativity to bear on 

how to make our SES recruitment, career development and performance management programs as effective as they can possibly 

be. We at OPM look forward to the work ahead. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. You testified that improvements to the SES depend on support from agency heads. 

What steps is OPM taking to engage senior leadership and focus 

attention on cultivating the SES? 

Ms. KICHAK. Well, first of all, the President has addressed the 

importance of the PMC, the President’s Management Council’s initiatives. Deputy Director Zients of OMB, has also placed emphasis 

on this along with Director Berry. So, we have the very senior leadership of government engaged. 

But in our hiring reform efforts for the government as a whole, 

we have made a major point of the fact that managers have to engage in the hiring process, that this is not something where you 

just post a job and somebody in the Human Resources (HR) shop 

looks to see who the best candidate is. So that emphasis at the 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

agency level is being driven by the CHCOs, as well as by the senior 

managers. 

So, once we engage the senior managers in all hiring, in hiring 

of the general workforce, it is going to become apparent that same 

engagement needs to happen with the Senior Executive Service. 

Senator AKAKA. Over the years, one of our challenges has been 

reducing hiring time. 

Ms. KICHAK. Right. 

Senator AKAKA. As you know, it takes 117 days on average from 

the end of an SES vacancy announcement until materials are reviewed by a qualifications review board. OPM is piloting a resumebased application process which could be one method for reducing 

hiring time while upholding high standards for SES selection. Will 

you please tell us more about that pilot program, including what 

challenges you have encountered and how you are addressing 

them? 

Ms. KICHAK. Yes. Thank you. 

We have three agencies that are using only resume-based applications. We also have a working group that continues to work on 

how to improve that process, and we run training sessions for the 

individuals in agencies who are focused on overseeing the hiring 

and the care and maintenance of the SES. So we are doing training. We are actively engaging in using it. There is nothing like testing it out to make it work better. 

One challenge that we are facing is that some folks do not know 

how to use a resume correctly; they have written a resume that 

they use to apply for any job; and they have not focused that resume on what is important to senior leaders. 

What we are looking for are people who can drive change. We are 

looking for people who are going beyond the managing a project 

well to managing a project well when they have to deal with many 

different interests in which some of the interests see things differently. So they have to work in somewhat of an adverse environment. 

And so resumes that focus on people’s activities rather than the 

results they have achieved and how they have changed the environment they are currently working in sometimes do not pass muster. People need to understand that these are very high level, very 

senior jobs that are driving change in the Federal Government. 

Senator AKAKA. Another kind of change we are looking at in an 

effort to increase progress is that of recruiting diverse candidates 

to public service. I care deeply about this and we have talked about 

it before. 

Are minorities, women, and other underrepresented groups being 

selected for career development programs at the same rate as their 

participation in the Federal workforce, and what is OPM doing to 

increase their participation in these programs? 

Ms. KICHAK. We are currently working with the PMC subgroups, 

or working groups, to develop ways to come together as agencies, 

to not just work in agency silos but to recruit across the diverse 

groups, so that we can increase our recruiting powers, so that we 

are not just waiting for people to come to us, but we are reaching 

out. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

We are establishing relationships with groups representing diverse populations. So, that they know the kind of jobs available in 

the Federal Government, and they will be drawn to apply for them. 

We are developing candidate development programs that have 

those same qualities, that have searched broadly for candidates inside and outside the Federal Government, so we can reach to the 

broadest pool possible. 

So those are some of the techniques we are using to appeal to 

these candidates. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Kichak, I recently held a hearing to explore 

how the Federal Government could better attract and accommodate 

people with disabilities. OPM keeps data on the number of women 

and ethnic minorities in the SES. My question is: Is similar data 

available for other groups such as people with disabilities? 

Ms. KICHAK. We do have some data for people with disabilities 

in the SES, and I can get that for you for the record. I have it in 

my notes somewhere, but I am not going to dig for it if that is OK. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. Well, you testified that overlapping pay 

rates between the GS and SES create a recruiting challenge—— 

Ms. KICHAK. They do. 

Senator AKAKA [continuing]. And sometimes result in employees 

making more than their supervisors. What specific solutions should 

Congress consider to address pay compression? 

Ms. KICHAK. Well, we would like to work with you on that in the 

future. We do believe that right now is not the appropriate time 

to promote any kind of increase in pay for the senior executives because they are leading a workforce whose pay is frozen. And for 

employee morale purposes, I think that the senior executives 

should be in the same boat with their employees. This is a payfreeze time and a difficult fiscal climate, and we in the executive 

service want to serve alongside the people who work for us. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Now let me call on Senator Johnson 

for any questions he may have for you. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Ms. Kichak, again, thanks. Thanks for coming before us 

here today. 

Let me get back to what I alluded to in my opening comments 

about bring me up to speed. What was the purpose of establishing 

the SES back in 1978? 

I mean what was the problem? What was trying to be addressed 

and how well has that been addressed over the last 31 years? 

Ms. KICHAK. It is my understanding that one of the things that 

happened at that time was to make the Senior Executive Service 

more like the private sector. And so the pay system was set so that 

the senior executives got not only a pay increase but a larger bonus 

than is normally given in the Federal Government, and that was 

looked at as part of the SES compensation, with the idea of driving 

more innovation and motivating the SES to be more creative and 

take more risks. 

Over time, in managing through difficult financial times, there 

have been requests to limit the bonuses for the SES, and there has 

been a lack of recognition that the pay system is different for the 

Senior Executive Service than the rest of the Federal Government. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

So, I think that is one thing where it has not quite worked out as 

intended. 

The other thing that is talked about is that the SES should be 

more mobile, and as they are trained they are a corporate resource, 

which is why OPM reviews the final selection of every SES. They 

are supposed to be appropriate for leadership in any agency. However, the SES has not moved that much. 

Now, I think the question to ask there is whether that original 

vision was a good vision or whether the fact that some SESers are 

becoming more specialized is also appropriate, and I know other 

witnesses are going to address that. But many of the SES jobs are 

such things as chief information officers (CIOs), requiring some 

technical expertise; chief financial officers (CFOs), certainly requiring technical expertise. And so it might be time to reconsider that 

initial vision and recognize the fact that with these leadership jobs 

are such that many of them are not simply high-level management 

jobs but also high-level technical jobs. 

Senator JOHNSON. So initially, the SES was set up to provide the 

incentives and a pay differential between just general service employees versus managers, and that originally worked, but now that 

pay scale has just been compressed? Is that the—— 

Ms. KICHAK. It has been compressed, yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, reading the briefing materials, it 

sounds like there is a real reluctance now for GS–14 and 15s to 

move into the SES. I mean other than the pay compression are 

there other problems? Are there other reasons why people do not 

want to move into the higher management levels? 

Ms. KICHAK. Well, I would say, first of all, right now we are getting good applicants for the jobs. So, the situation as to whether 

folks apply for government jobs does vary with the economy, and 

right now the Federal Government happens to be a good place to 

work because of what is going on outside of the Federal Government. However, it has not always been the case and certainly was 

less so 3 or 4 years ago when the economy was good and salaries 

were attractive in the private sector. 

But I think the other issue we are dealing with is that these are 

difficult jobs. I mean there is only one SESer for every 250 people 

in the Federal Government. So, they are high pressure, a lot of 

work, extra hours; and there is risk involved; and you are leading 

change. 

So, if you are looking for work-life balance, an SES job might not 

be the best place to go. You are asked to give more. 

But if you are looking for a challenge and an opportunity to really make a difference; and you have the time and stamina for the 

extra hours; it is a good place to be. 

Senator JOHNSON. Do you have any idea of what the average size 

of governmental entity is being managed by some in the SES? 

Ms. KICHAK. Well, again, if you look at the numbers of SES compared to the population, it is about 1 to 250. Now, that means because a lot of the policy offices and some of the very senior people 

are only managing a smaller number, there are many SESers managing 500 to 1,000 people. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. I was thinking more in terms of dollar 

size. I mean are they managing entities that are on average a bilH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

lion dollars in size, 10 billion dollars? I mean do you have any kind 

of estimate of that? 

Ms. KICHAK. I do not, but I can tell you, for example, at OPM we have 1 SES manager running the $40 billion Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB). So, they might not be managing a lot 

of people, maybe only 30 or 40 people, but they are responsible for 

enormous expenditures. 

Senator JOHNSON. The reason I ask the question is again I come 

from the private sector. 

Ms. KICHAK. Right. 

Senator JOHNSON. So I take a look at what is the incentive from 

somebody, a top-flight manager from the private sector, to come in 

the government and compare the incredible responsibilities you 

have if you are managing a $40 billion agency. And somebody in 

the private sector managing a $40 billion company is probably 

going to make more than what an SES employee is going to make, 

correct? 

Ms. KICHAK. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. How do we bridge that gap? Is that not sort 

of at the root cause of the problem here? 

Ms. KICHAK. I would say two things. No. 1, looking at pay is really critically important, but those of us in the SES never forget how 

important it is and what gratification we receive from serving our 

country and making a difference. 

Senator JOHNSON. And I would agree. People come to government for a different reason. 

Ms. KICHAK. Right. 

Senator JOHNSON. I will raise my hand and say that is why I do 

it as well. 

How often do we find let’s say retired top-flight executives that 

would actually want to come in government and serve their country? 

How easy or how difficult is it for us to actually track those folks 

and bring some of those top-flight managers from the private sector 

on to serve the country later in their careers? 

Ms. KICHAK. I do not have any data on that; I see people coming 

in to serve, but I do not see any heads of major corporations. In 

my limited experience, I have not seen those people coming into the 

Federal Government. I know it happens. I know we have had some 

of that in the financial industries, but I do not think it is the common solution. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. 

We will have another round of questions for you, Ms. Kichak. 

I was troubled, Ms. Kichak, when Government Executive reported yesterday that senior executives at the Department of Energy (DOE) may be forced to give back performance awards that 

were received at the end of 2010. Will you please explain this situation, including the number of affected senior executives and whether OPM officials directed agencies to revoke SES performance 

awards? 

Ms. KICHAK. OK. The situation reported was that the Department of Energy gave two pay raises to SES employees within calendar year 2010. The laws and regulations specifically prohibit two 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

pay raises within a calendar year except under very specific circumstances such as an employee changing positions, taking on 

more responsibility or changing agency. None of the exceptions applied. So the Department of Energy was in violation of the statute. 

We pointed that out to the Department of Energy. They chose to 

take corrective action and revoke the pay raises that were given incorrectly. It impacted about 220 senior executives. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Kichak, you testified about the President’s 

Management Council initiative—— 

Ms. KICHAK. Right. 

Senator AKAKA [continuing]. To provide interagency rotational 

experience for certain GS employees. Will you please elaborate on 

this initiative, including which agencies are participating, the 

length of rotations and any plans to expand the project. 

Ms. KICHAK. I do not know, specifically, which agencies are working on our working group, but in the PMC initiative covers—we 

had 19 agencies participate in all of the working groups. 

So, this working group is developing the system, and then every 

agency will have an opportunity to participate in it. We are developing a website to enable any Federal agency to see what rotational opportunities are available. So, once we get the requirements 

in place, what a rotation looks like and we get the website fully 

operational, we will be able to get all of the agencies to participate 

in that project. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Kichak, I was pleased that the Office of Personnel Management reestablished a Senior Executive Resource Office in the year 2009. Please elaborate on this office’s work, including what role it has in the career development and also the SES 

training initiatives you discuss in your testimony. 

Ms. KICHAK. OK. The SES office that we have established is responsible for oversight of all matters concerning the Senior Executive Service. This includes how to recruit and how to certify. The 

office runs the qualifications review boards. It is leading these 

working groups through the President’s Management Council. It 

has worked closely with the President’s Management Council and 

is bringing together the agencies I have talked about on the working group. 

It also was the office responsible for regulating how we implemented the previous legislation requiring training for supervisors, 

which I recognize are not the SES, but they are often the feeder 

pool for the SES. 

And it has been working very closely with agencies to start collecting data on who is trained, what kind of training they have, 

and what the cost of that training is. We have made a big effort 

to do that. The data is still not very reliable because we are relying 

on the agencies to input it into the system, but this office does that. 

The office issues policy on the SES. It also reviews the performance management systems for the SES and certifies those systems 

for all the agencies in the Federal Government. It makes sure that 

the performance management systems in place drive results and 

are aligned with the agencies’ missions, so that executives know 

what is expected of them. 

So it has brought together all of those functions. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

Senator AKAKA. As you know, Ms. Kichak, SES candidate development and continued training are inconsistent and vary between 

agencies. I appreciate OPM’s focus on candidate development, including encouraging agencies to work together and pool their resources. Does OPM have plans to help agencies implement governmentwide standards for these development programs? 

Ms. KICHAK. Yes. I should have added that one of the additional 

functions of this SES office is exactly that. The standards are already in place for what a good candidate development program 

would consist of. Our office works with agencies to help them establish those programs. When the agency applies to us for certification of their program, we work with them to make sure that certification happens. 

So, we look to see that they are recruiting widely for members; 

that they are paying attention to diversity; that they have good 

training programs in place; and that they have valid assignments 

that their candidates are going to engage in that will help them develop adequately. We look to see that selections are merit-based because people who graduate from a certified candidate development 

program are eligible for immediate conversion into the SES if there 

is an appropriate position available for them. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Kichak, I thank you so much for your responses. This will be my final question, and it has two parts. First, 

what are your top three priorities for strengthening the SES in the 

coming years, and the second is what actions should Congress consider to aide these efforts? 

Ms. KICHAK. I would say that our first priority is recruiting diverse candidates, a wide pool of folks, so that we can have a good 

group of people to select from. 

I would say our second priority is improving the hiring process. 

So, once we have recruited from that group we can get them to 

apply and then move them through the process, so they can become 

senior executives. 

And then once we get them in, I would say our third priority is 

caring for them once they are in, and that is why we are working 

on such things as onboarding and mentoring and ways to make 

sure that when they transition into the Senior Executive Service 

and when we ask them to rise to these challenges that we are supporting them in that effort. 

Those were our three. 

And what was your second question? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, the second question is what actions should 

Congress consider to aid these efforts? 

Ms. KICHAK. I would suggest that—— 

Senator AKAKA. Of course, this is legislative type of efforts. 

Ms. KICHAK. I think a lot of what I have laid out before you, we 

can already do, and we are engaged in those efforts. But we would 

be glad to work with you. I know that you had a bill in the past 

that has some things in it, and we would be glad to work with you 

to see if there are additional things such as more training and 

more developmental opportunities that we could work with you on 

for the future in legislation. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses. 

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

Senator AKAKA. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

You just mentioned onboarding. That was a new term. I had 

never heard that before going through the briefing. So can you just 

describe in a little greater what you mean by onboarding? 

Ms. KICHAK. Right. Onboarding is trying not just to bring the 

new person in and show them their desk and wave goodbye. It is 

introducing them, making sure they are introduced to the history 

of the agency, the mission of the agency, and getting to meet the 

folks in the agency that they are going to have to deal with to be 

effective, making sure they know who the players are and finding 

them a mentor and a coach. So, that if they are met with any particular challenge, somebody could tell them who the right people to 

go to are. 

It is also giving them training in such things as the ethics required to operate in the Government environment and what some 

of the procurement rules are like and what some of the hiring rules 

are like. So, that they make sure that in their hiring and developing of staff they comply with veterans’ preference and all the 

things that matter in managing a Federal workforce. 

So, onboarding is just making sure that when somebody enters 

into the agency and is new in the Senior Executive Service, they 

understand what is expected of them, so that they can deliver. 

Senator JOHNSON. How long a process do you think that normally takes? 

Ms. KICHAK. Well, we think the first 3 months are critical, but 

in our developing of onboarding, we are committing to making sure 

we stay with that senior executive for their first year of service. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

You mentioned one of your top goals, recruiting a diverse applicant pool. How do you recruit? I mean how does the Federal Government recruit folks? 

Ms. KICHAK. Well, we post our jobs on USAJOBS, and so sometimes we are expecting people to look there. But we are doing more 

with electronics because it is cost-effective. So, we are developing 

a recruiting tool for USAJOBS where we identify areas where we 

can send the announcement that might have the appropriate candidates. For example, if we are recruiting for a chief information— 

an information technology (IT)—person, we would be sending it to 

professional organizations that support folks with information technology. 

We are developing relationships with affinity groups that represent certain demographics of the Federal Government, so that we 

can let them know that those jobs are there. We participate in 

some of their functions, so that we appear, tell them what is going 

on in the Federal Government, tell them what opportunities we 

have and encourage them to apply. 

Senator JOHNSON. Is the recruitment process, is that across the 

government? 

I mean does every agency utilize the same recruitment process? 

Are they all separate? I mean do each agencies recruit in their own 

way? 

Ms. KICHAK. Each agency recruits in its own way. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

Now, one of the initiatives that we have started, coming out of 

this recent PMC initiative, is that we are teaming with other agencies to do that, so that we can get out there more. One agency 

would have trouble going to a lot of different places. So, if we share 

the kinds of jobs we are looking for, then we will be talking about 

other agencies’ jobs when we are out talking to people. 

Senator JOHNSON. How often are qualified applicants shared 

within agencies? In other words, if you are recruiting for one position, you end up with five or six really solid applicants, are those 

shared then throughout the Federal Government? 

Ms. KICHAK. Currently, that is not happening. Now, that is one 

of the things that we are working on. In our hiring reform project 

we have suggested some legislative language that would allow us 

to share applications among agencies because there are some concerns that, if you apply for X job, do you want other people to know 

that you are looking? And so we have to share those applications 

appropriately, and we are, we have been working on ways to try 

to make that happen without violating people’s rights. 

Senator JOHNSON. Right, right, right. You mentioned your second 

goal, improving the hiring process. I mean what are the current 

problems involved in the hiring process right now, the top two or 

three? 

Ms. KICHAK. I think the problem is that we did—until very recently the only way to apply for an SES job was to write essays 

on how you have met certain capabilities, and those are the capabilities like how you led change, how you drove results. In other 

words, we did not use a resume that said I worked here and I had 

this job and I had this job. 

You had to write and say not only did I have this job, but in this 

job this is the difference I made. This was my impact, not just 

being there. 

And so the application process got very long. People had to write 

what was called ECQs and they could not use a resume. So, that 

was a disincentive for some people to apply. 

We have now made using resumes allowable. We are doing that, 

but certain agencies are fearful of doing it because that is not how 

they have always done business. And that is why we are training 

and working through these committees. 

Senator JOHNSON. Would you consider that process pretty detrimental to trying to attract people from the private sector that are 

totally not used to that type of process? 

Ms. KICHAK. Well, I do know that it has been detrimental. 

I also know, though, that in executive recruitment sometimes in 

the private sector they use these grand assessment tools and put 

people through assessment programs to see what their leadership 

qualifications are. So, this paperwork exercise, although detrimental and we are trying to improve it, definitely helped us look 

for that extra edge. 

Again, the senior executives are in a very special place. They are 

very, very much the leaders. They are not just the supervisors and 

managers, who are critical to the Federal Government also, but 

they are the change agents. And so we are looking for extraordinary talent. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

Senator JOHNSON. How closely have we benchmarked the government’s hiring process to the hiring process of major corporations 

that also are hiring top-flight managers for large jobs? 

Ms. KICHAK. We continue to look at what the private sector does. 

I do not think we have a benchmark that would stand up to a rigorous analysis, however. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Again, thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. KICHAK. You are welcome. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson, for your 

questions. 

I want to say thank you very much, Ms. Kichak, for your responses. 

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you very much. 

Senator AKAKA. It certainly will be helpful to us. 

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for being here. 

I would like to welcome today’s second panel of witnesses: Ms. 

Carol Bonosaro who is President of the Senior Executives Association and Mr. Max Stier, President and Chief Executive Officer 

(CEO) of the Partnership for Public Service. 

As you both know, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear 

in all witnesses, and I ask you to please stand and raise your hand 

and take this oath. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

this Subcommittee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Ms. BONOSARO. I do. 

Mr. STIER. Absolutely. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. Let it be noted that the 

witnesses replied in the affirmative. 

And I want the witnesses to know that while your oral statements are limited to 5 minutes your entire statements will be included in the record. 

Ms. Bonosaro, will you please proceed with your statement? 

STATEMENT OF CAROL BONOSARO, PRESIDENT, SENIOR 

EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. BONOSARO. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and Ranking 

Member Johnson, for the opportunity to testify on the challenges 

facing the Senior Executive Service. 

SEA has represented the interests of the career executive corps 

for the past 30 years, almost since the inception of the SES. The 

almost 7,000 SES executives are critical to a high performing government. However, we are now seeing troubling signs that are likely to affect the future corps. Difficulties with recruitment and retention, a pay and performance management system that requires 

reforms and a lack of focus on strengthening career leadership may 

well lead to loss of quality within the SES. 

In 2009, SEA surveyed GS–14s and 15s regarding their views of 

the SES. Over 12,000 responses confirmed there is a recruitment 

problem brewing. Potential applicants are losing interest in aspiring to the SES, and the detractors of the system outweigh the atH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

tractors. Comprehensive reform is necessary to address the currently skewed risk to reward ratio for the SES. 

Following is a summary of the major problem areas we see in our 

proposals for reform: 

First, SEA has consistently supported legislation to increase diversity in the SES. We believe this is achievable only through adequate data, a strong pipeline and strong central leadership. Although we applaud OPM Director Berry’s reestablishing the SES 

Resource Office, it should be required in statute to ensure its continuity in future administrations. 

Second, over the years, we have observed a diminished role for 

career executives as layers of political appointees have multiplied, 

and many formerly career positions are filled by political appointees. The lack of career leadership at certain top positions has 

resulted in a loss of continuity and expertise as well as diminished 

opportunities for career advancement. Given the focus on streamlining operations, reducing redundant programs and identifying 

cost savings, agencies must have a strong leadership corps to oversee these initiatives on a long-term basis. Therefore, SEA recommends that agencies place high performing career executives in 

the Assistant Secretary for Administration and other key positions 

at each agency, specifically at the chief level. 

Third, given our experience with the SES pay and performance 

management system since 2004, SEA believes it must be modified 

to ensure both that quality applicants will aspire to the SES and 

that we will retain the experienced executives needed in these challenging times. 

The SES is not seen by many as a desirable career goal because 

senior executives take on more duties, work longer hours, yet receive no compensatory time, no locality pay and no guaranteed annual comparability pay raises, all of which are part of the General 

Schedule compensation. Further, SES annual pay increases are entirely discretionary, irrespective of performance. And although 

quotas are prohibited, it appears that agencies have applied de 

facto quotas and sometimes reduced executives’ ratings without explanation, perhaps in the belief that reducing the number of outstanding ratings would enable their systems to achieve certification. 

For the system to work, senior executives have to believe that it 

is fair and transparent. To strengthen the system, we recommend 

that performance awards be included in the high-three annuity calculation. This would make SES an attractive career goal for the 

best applicants, and it recognizes the reality that performance 

awards have become an integral part of the SES compensation system. 

We also recommend that new senior executives receive a 5 percent salary increase upon entry to mitigate some of the pay overlap 

between the SES and GS systems. 

In addition, we recommend that each senior executive be given 

a written explanation if his or her rating is lowered and that the 

use of quotas be statutorily prohibited. 

Fourth, building a pipeline of qualified candidates and creating 

a culture where continuing development is the norm is also important for a strong SES system. The commitment to both is uneven 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

across government. Onboarding should be provided to new executives as well as continuing professional development throughout an 

executive’s career. 

Fifth, many believe that the SES was created with the intent 

that it be a corps of mobile executives. However, the intent of the 

1978 act was that the SES corps be flexible and that agencies be 

able to assign senior executives where needed. Mobility was not 

seen as an end in itself. 

Over 40 percent of the GS–14s and 15s responding to SEA’s survey said the possibility of mandatory geographic reassignment was 

a top detractor to entering the SES. Many commented on the 

threat of being reassigned. Agencies should have the discretion to 

use mobility to meet strategic goals, but participation in rotation 

programs should not be a precondition to entry unless rotation opportunities are made available to the candidates to enable them to 

meet the requirement. 

OPM should also create a registry that includes information on 

all executives’ experience, education, training and professional development interests for agencies to use when seeking candidates for 

vacancies as well as in time of critical need. Agencies can also use 

such information to manage succession planning, identify needed 

development and provide mobility opportunities for their executive 

corps. 

Finally, the complexities of the SES hiring process can be a deterrent to some applicants, especially those from outside government. We are concerned that the move to a resume-only process 

not diminish the need for careful assessment to ensure that applicants to the SES actually possess the required executive capabilities. 

Perhaps of even more concern is the suggestion that agencies 

abolish their qualifications review boards. Careful QRB consideration of SES selections is designed to ensure that merit principles 

are followed. Furthermore, OMB has found—OPM, pardon me, has 

found that QRBs add, at most, 2 weeks to the hiring process, often 

the lengthiest part of which stems from the higher level signoffs required at the agency level for SES hires. 

In conclusion, the areas of reform for the SES are wide-ranging. 

Congress has the opportunity to consider comprehensive reform 

rather than a piecemeal approach. We look forward to working 

with the Subcommittee to ensure that the SES of tomorrow continues to be a high caliber leadership corps that accomplishes the 

goals of the Federal Government. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement, Ms. 

Bonosaro. 

Mr. Stier, will you please proceed with your statement? 

STATEMENT OF MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE 

Mr. STIER. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, Senator Johnson. It is 

a pleasure to be here with you, and it is really important that you 

are focusing on this issue. It is truly urgent. 

In your opening remarks, both of you have commented on some 

of the critical needs here. Not only do we have obviously a world 

that is becoming more and more challenging, and more and more 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

fast-paced, we have the resource constraints that are obviously 

very substantial. And it is really important to focus on a fact that 

no one has touched on yet, which is that just about half of the existing SES is eligible to retire right now. So the issue is truly urgent. 

Obviously, the work that the President’s Management Council, 

OPM, and OMB has done has been terrific, and it is really important that they are making the SES a priority. We believe you can 

go further and should be going further, and there are eight areas 

that I would focus on for improvement. 

No. 1, this has been touched on already, talent needs to be a 

leadership priority in government. Senator Johnson, you asked the 

question about root causes. Today, talent is not viewed as a leadership priority it is viewed as an HR issue. 

As an example of this, the President has yet to meet with his 

senior executive corps. President George H. Bush and President 

George W. Bush both met with the SES. This is your career executive team. The President has never met with them, and I think 

that is a mistake. 

We need to focus on the SES as a critical leadership corps in government, and frankly, that is not happening. That is something I 

think you can help press in your oversight role. 

No. 2, we need to rebalance the career and political appointees; 

Carol has mentioned this. I think it is absolutely critical. 

Again, you look at root causes. The U.S. Government is unique 

among developed nations in the number and depth of political appointees. There is no other place like this. And the biggest root 

cause of management dysfunction in government is that you have 

short-term political leaders that are not aligned with the long-term 

needs of the organizations they run. 

As a result, you get a political appointee that is in office for 18 

months to 2 years. They are incented to focus on crisis management and policy development, not on the long-term health of the 

organizations they are running. 

This to me, is a root cause, and we need to address it. One way 

we can address this is making sure that new political leaders are 

actually trained to deal with managing a government. 

Senator Johnson, you are faced with a million acronyms coming 

in here. You are getting trained on the spot right now. 

Most of the executive branch political appointees, they walk in 

and have no idea how to manage their SES. They are handed performance plans by the SES that they have done themselves, the 

SES. They have no idea how to manage and use them appropriately. We need to be investing in the political appointees, so that 

they can be better managers and leaders inside government. 

We also need to make sure that those senior management positions that Carol mentioned are career or term-appointed positions. 

That would make a huge difference. 

We also need to see that there is, Senator Johnson, a 10 percent 

cap on the SES positions that are non-career/political. That cap 

ought to apply not just governmentwide but also to every single 

agency. 

You have certain agencies like the Department of Education 

where the number of political appointees is 20 percent. You have 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

historical dumping grounds where there are a lot of political appointees put in place. That is a mistake. It creates a lot of dysfunction in those agencies. 

So at a minimum, we should have a cap at every agency as well 

as the governmentwide cap. And as I said before, the C-Suite positions need to be career positions with term appointments and performance contracts. 

No. 3, we need to do an audit of the SES positions. I hope we 

can come back to the purpose of the SES, but what ended up happening in 1978 is all the super grades—16s, 17s, 18s—were all 

wrapped up into one SES group. 

The fact of the matter is that some of those were true managers. 

Some of those were technical experts. There are positions called 

Senior Level (SL) or Senior Technical (ST) people for those spots, 

but that is not actually how it played out. There are a lot of SES 

positions today that, frankly, are not really doing management. 

They are technical positions, and we need to segregate them and 

separate them. 

No. 4, mobility. And just to clarify with Ms. Bonosaro, we are not 

talking about geographic mobility. We are talking about mobility of 

experience. Today, 92 percent of the SES comes from within government, 4 out of 5 from within the same agency. 

We need to make sure we have cross-agency and cross-sector collaboration to address problems, and we must have an executive 

corps that has experiences in multiple places. And we believe very 

strongly that requiring mobility, either as an entry into the SES 

like the military does for the senior ranks already, or for the SES 

themselves, would be very powerful. I think this is critical. 

An analog to that would be to create a private sector exchange 

program. While there is a statute now that allows exchanges between nonprofit and the government, we actually need to see government executives experiencing the private sector, and vice versa. 

That would be a wonderful program and a great starting place. 

No. 5, recruiting and hiring is absolutely vital. Today, we have 

a system that is unique to government. The rest of the talent market has no appreciation for how to get in, and it is way too difficult 

for them to do that. Again, I would love to have an opportunity to 

come back to this. 

Resumes are the starting point. There are all kinds of things you 

can do afterwards. For most people the application process is so 

complicated they get chased away and they do not engage. This is 

one of the reasons why you do not see that much talent from the 

outside coming in. 

No. 6, we definitely need to be seeing more development of the 

SES. Again, the military does a great job of investing in their senior executives. We do not see that same level of investment on the 

civilian side. We propose something on the order of 2 or 3 percent 

of salary to be placed in a development fund for the SES. This is 

the one place we are asking for real money, but honestly, the investment will pay off in the long term. 

If you look at companies like International Business Machines 

(IBM), they are putting $700 million in their leadership training. 

They know that the Return on Investment (ROI) is great. We are 

not doing that in the Federal Government, and we should be. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

No. 7, there is no communication among the SES corps today. We 

should be creating an online community. We should be creating a 

mechanism by which the SES can communicate among itself— 

again, Carol raised this issue which is terrific. 

We ought to be able to understand the talents and abilities of a 

SES. We have no central repository for that information. That 

needs to be created. In today’s era of communication technology, it 

is really easy to do and needs to be started here and now. 

And No. 8, we need better data. We have very little data in many 

different areas. This is the second major root cause challenging 

government. First, is the short-term political leader. The second is 

we do not have real-time information about performance of government. A good example of this in the SES context is we do not conduct general exit interviews. 

A great example of the problem here is in the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). It was set up in 2003. Between 2003 

and 2007, 72 percent of the SES left DHS, but no one knows why 

because we did not do any exit interviews. That is unacceptable. 

There are many other examples like that. I look forward to talking about them. This is a critical issue. The SES is less than 1 percent of the Federal workforce, but if you do not get this right, nothing else works. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Senator JOHNSON. First of all, I would like to thank both of you 

for your testimony. I am going to have to leave for another meeting, but I would love to meet with both of you later on because this 

is such an incredibly important issue. 

So Mr. Chairman, again I apologize for having to leave, but I am 

sure you can ask some pretty good questions, and we will take a 

look at the transcript. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STIER. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson, and 

wish him well on his next meeting. 

Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Stier. 

Ms. Bonosaro, as you and others have noted, these are challenging times for the Federal workforce, and it was mentioned by 

Mr. Stier we are facing a time when there will be a huge number 

of retirees. Also, some of the public frustration over the economy 

and the budget deficit is being directed at civil servants. Will you 

please discuss, Ms. Bonosaro, how recent so-called scapegoating of 

Federal employees has impacted SES recruitment and its morale? 

Ms. BONOSARO. Well, as demoralizing as scapegoating can be, 

frankly, I think that there have been other issues that have impacted the morale to a greater degree. I mean to some extent the 

scapegoating has sort of come with the territory for many years. It 

gets worse at some times and dissipates at others. 

But I think that the challenge first of indeed doing, being expected to do more and more with less and less, the tremendous 

challenges posed by being an executive in government today are 

tough enough. And when you add to that issues such as, for example, the fact that some executives are indeed supervising those who 

work for them who earn more than they do, that can be a bit demoralizing. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

Max cited the lack of the President going off to meet with the 

Senior Executive Service. To some people, that may seem like a relatively frivolous thing, but in the importance of what they are 

doing, why is the President meeting with them so critical? But yet, 

we have executives who remember from what, 30 years ago, very 

distinctly going over to Constitution Hall to meet with President 

Bush. And that really speaks to the issue of the recognition of the 

SES, the prestige, and that buys an awful lot. 

So people who are doing these very tough jobs, who may not be 

getting necessarily the financial rewards that they deserve, that is 

a real morale boost. And the executives who walked out of there, 

frankly, would have walked on water for the President at that 

point. 

But then you add some other issues. Right now, apart from the 

pay freeze, performance awards are being cut back in the SES, and 

these people are in a pay and performance management system, in 

which all pay adjustments and awards are totally dependent on 

performance. But yet, that is not happening. 

So I think there are a number of issues around this system itself 

that have, frankly, been a bit demoralizing. And so the bashing 

that has occurred in the media and by some politicians is sort of 

the cherry on the sundae, if you will. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Stier, a recurring theme of the Partnership’s 2009 report on 

the SES was that many senior executives are technical experts, not 

necessarily people who demonstrated management skills or an aptitude for leadership. Why do you think that this is, and what are 

the implications of this concern and this conclusion? 

Mr. STIER. Thank you, Senator Akaka. I think one of the reasons 

why this is, is that despite the many challenges that I think Carol 

appropriately identifies in getting to the SES, it is still the case 

that for many folks the SES is the next level up. It is the senior 

level in government and there is a prestige associated with it. 

And unfortunately, a lot of technical experts try to grasp that 

ring because they do not see the alternative, the SL or the ST position, as actually fulfilling that same level of prestige have not really permitted or created a kind of track that allows for recognition 

of a technical expert in a way that would permit them to follow a 

different road than that of the SES. 

I think part of the challenge ultimately is that we need to make 

sure that our very best technical experts, and those that are in fact 

engaged in true management, have an alternative career path that 

enables the recognition and rewards associated with their important contributions. 

Now the implications are that you have positions that in fact do 

require larger management and leadership responsibilities that are 

taken up by people who do not actually have the very best of those 

kinds of skills. I think the implication is that we do not get the 

best out of government. In our recommendations here we are suggesting a more thorough effort to create this alternative path and 

you can grant the process by conducting an audit. 

Right now, there are fewer than a thousand SL and ST positions, 

and there are 7,000 people in the SES. I do not know what the 

right balance is, but I do not think that is it I think we need to 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

really do some triage to make sure that people are appropriately 

being recognized for their skills and the work they are engaged in. 

And then we need to truly expect performance of a different sort 

from the SES, one that really does highlight their leadership and 

management capacities. 

Ms. BONOSARO. Senator Akaka, may I speak to that question as 

well? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, Ms. Bonosaro. 

Ms. BONOSARO. Thank you. I have heard this argument made for 

many years, and I do not doubt that there are some positions in 

the SES that should not be, but no one has yet demonstrated this 

with any factual material, with any data. 

And in fact a survey that we did in cooperation with OPM several years ago, and I will be happy to give that data to the Committee, really demonstrated that the vast majority of these executives have a substantial span of supervising either resources or 

people. 

And I just want to point out too that ST positions, scientific and 

professional, are in fact world-class scientists, and that is not a 

dumping ground for anyone who does not belong in the SES. In 

fact, those STs would be very unhappy to think about anyone less 

than their caliber moving there. 

So our concern really with developing a two-track system is that 

what you do in the end, it is not inappropriate to consider use of 

senior level positions, but you do not want to inhibit management’s 

ability to reassign where needed. 

So you may have, for example, an executive at the IRS who is 

running a very large operation, and the commissioner says gee, I 

want you in my office for a year to think about tax policy and supervise one person. You ought to be able to do that in the SES and 

be moved around where management needs you. But our main concern is, first, how many of these people are there in reality and second, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, if you will. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your comments. 

Ms. Bonosaro, you testified that certain key positions should be 

reserved for career employees rather than political appointees. 

Agencies may be concerned that this change would take away their 

flexibility to appoint particular people or to bring senior leaders in 

from the private sector. Would you please elaborate on your recommendation and address these concerns? 

Ms. BONOSARO. Well, first, when the SES was created by statute 

in 1978 and then actually implemented in 1979, every Assistant 

Secretary for Administration throughout the Executive Branch was 

in fact a career executive. And over the years, obviously, that has 

all changed. 

We have three departments right now where, by statute, their 

Assistant Secretaries for Administration should be career, and it is 

Department of Transportation is one. Justice is another. And which 

one? 

Mr. BRANSFORD: Health and Human Services (HHS). 

Ms. BONOSARO. So in fact, it has occurred in three departments. 

We think that for the reason of continuity, that Max was just 

talking about too, being able to accomplish management and policy 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

changes in the long term really requires people of experience to be 

there over that long term. 

Also, what we have found—I think there is no doubt about it— 

is not only with this proliferation of political appointees you minimize opportunities for career advancement of career senior executives, but you also create so many layers that you inhibit communication between top leadership and the career executives who are 

there trying to meet the Administration’s objectives. 

So for a number of reasons, we think that there are some positions that we recommend indeed should be reserved for career executives or at least where agencies should have to make the case 

as to why they should not be in a particular instance. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you for your response on that. 

I also ask you Mr. Stier whether you have any thoughts on that 

question. 

Mr. STIER. Absolutely. I think Carol covered the territory very 

well. 

I do think that one of the root causes of management challenges 

in government is that discontinuity between the short-term political leader and the long-term needs of the organizations that are 

being run. Having a set of career or term-appointed leaders with 

performance contracts in those management spots—I would include 

the Chief Financial Officers (CFOs), all the C-Suite management 

positions—would make a very big difference. So you could actually 

have longer-term focus on the set of issues that need to be addressed. 

I have not been around forever, but I have already seen numerous cycles where a political team comes in. It takes them a while 

to get their sea legs and figure out what they are supposed to do. 

By the time they actually get organized for action, they are on their 

way out, and nothing actually is accomplished. 

Then a new set comes in. They come up with the same set of 

plans, and then they are out. 

That is no way to run a government, and that is what we have 

today. It is getting worse, not better. So I think that it is really important to change these positions. 

The sole argument that I have heard on the other side is that 

if you make these positions career positions, then the new political 

teams will not trust those folks and those people actually will not 

be at the table. To the extent that there is any truth to that, I 

would rather have that problem than the problem we have today, 

which is a lot of management dysfunction. 

Senator AKAKA. I want to followup with you on that. You testified that each agency should be held to a 10 percent cap on political appointees—— 

Mr. STIER. Yes. 

Senator AKAKA [continuing]. In the SES. Will you please discuss 

why you think this would be useful and whether you believe a 10 

percent cap for each agency would create the right mixture of career and political SES members? 

Mr. STIER. If you let me go lower, I would. The truth of the matter is that we already have a 10 percent cap governmentwide. The 

governmentwide number is about 9 percent. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

The reason that cap was put in place was to ensure that we did 

not have a government and the senior executive corps that was 

overly politicized and provide continuity. 

So the idea originally was to keep politicals to a relatively small 

number, but what was not understood at the point at which that 

cap was put in place was that there was flexibility in individual 

agencies to raise that number quite a bit. As I mentioned earlier, 

the Department of Education is the best example of this. They have 

20 percent of their SES in political positions, and that creates a 

very different dynamic. I know that they are not actually filling all 

those spots with politicals. 

We need to make sure over the long term that we have good hygiene. It is not good hygiene to have that depth of political participation in the leadership group, and I would love to see it be a lot 

less. 

Some of the best agencies have few political appointees. The Social Security Administration (SSA), a very well run agency, has one 

political appointee. You look at Social Security Administration, the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)—there are a lot of places where we have understood 

that we need a political leader, but beyond that, that political leader needs to work with the career executives to make things happen. 

That is, by far, the better model. 

I am not advocating something so radical as to make every other 

agency do just that, but there are some real outliers; the permission of agencies to go above that 10 percent cap is something I 

would hope could be addressed. 

Ms. BONOSARO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask one more time 

for the opportunity to weigh in simply because this is a recommendation of ours as well. 

Right now, the statutory cap on agencies is 25 percent. So indeed 

by law they can have 25 percent non-career. But equally important 

is the definition in the statute because right now it is authorized 

positions, not actually filled positions, and that is a very important 

distinction. 

So we believe that not only should the law say 10 percent per 

agency but that the 10 percent both governmentwide and per agency should be based upon filled positions, not authorized positions. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Bonosaro, as you know, I have worked for 

a number of years to reform Federal hiring, and I introduced legislation last Congress to streamline the application process. The SES 

hiring process is even slower than the General Schedule. I want to 

hear from Mr. Stier on this as well. 

To you first, Ms. Bonosaro, in addition to encouraging agencies 

to make SES hiring a greater priority, what suggestions do you 

have on ways to streamline SES hiring? 

Ms. BONOSARO. Well, we have a number of suggestions—first, 

that Executive Resources Boards (ERBs) within agencies have to 

take a more active role in terms of managing the corps and the positions within the corps, and it varies a great deal across agencies, 

the degree to which they are involved. 

As I said, one of the real additions of time to the hiring process 

are the signoffs that are required going up the agency chain. I 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

think each agency is going to have to deal with that issue on their 

own. 

We are also concerned, however, that as we move toward this resume-based system, as I indicated, that we not lose sight of ensuring that these candidates actually possess the executive corps 

qualifications. So I think we have to see agencies doing more with 

regard to structured interviews and more sophisticated assessment 

methods of candidates that are more common in the private sector, 

but which will be relatively new I think to government, but are 

needed really to ensure that we are doing an adequate assessment. 

I think there is just an awfully long time that it is taking an 

agency, given that these are very high level positions, and so I 

think there is probably a lot more care to be certain they are selecting the right person. But especially moving up the line for all the 

signoffs, and as I said, that is something that individual agencies 

are going to have to address. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Stier, your thoughts on this issue as well. 

Mr. STIER. Great. Well, thank you, Chairman Akaka. I would 

offer at least five suggestions on this front, starting again with the 

leadership engagement. 

Carol mentioned the challenge of actually getting approval all 

along the line. Part of the issue is that there is no drive, there is 

no ownership from the top of the house, saying: Guess what? This 

is the most critical resource we have here. We need to hold our 

folks accountable to get the right talent and meet the needs that 

Carol is describing as quickly as we possibly can. 

And I think that agencies respond to their leadership’s priorities. 

If the priority among the leadership is to make sure they are 

staffed with the best talent possible, then more investment will 

occur there. So that would be No. 1. 

No. 2, there needs to be an effort to recruit more effectively. By 

and large—and Senator Johnson asked this question—it is a passive recruiting process. It is a post and pray that exists for the SES 

as well as most other jobs. 

In the private sector, there is an investment in executive search 

firms in order to be able to find the right talent. When you are 

talking about critical talent like the talent is going in the SES, we 

ought to be making sure we spend the money necessary on the 

front end to get the broadest and most effective pool possible. Investing in executive search would make a big difference. 

Third, the executive resource boards in the agencies are the ones 

that are owning this, and it is very uneven as to whether or not 

they have the resources staff and skills necessary to do this effectively, and that is going to be very critical. 

Fourth, the hiring process. Look, the resume is not the be-allend-all. But it is what most talent in the world at large uses as 

their calling card, their way of determining whether there is a first 

sign of interest. That is not what the first hurdle that most folks 

have to deal with in coming into the SES. They have massive essays that they have to fill out. 

The truth of the matter is that it is the very rare person that 

is going to subject themselves to that from the outside. There are 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

some folks from the inside who might because they know how it 

works and they are willing to put that investment in. 

But from the outside, and I have dealt with a lot of these people 

who are incredible leaders of the top executive programs in major 

corporations, who want to come into government, and they say: 

Forget it, not worth it. I do not understand this process and I am 

going someplace else. 

That is a real problem. 

We ought to have sharing of best qualified lists. Again, this was 

a question that was raised earlier. We ought to be able to make 

sure that if the due care has been taken by one agency and they 

found some incredible people, that information can be shared and 

those individuals can be hired by another agency that may need a 

similar type of talent. 

Finally data—we really need information that is usable for us to 

understand if the system is working in the way it ought to be, and 

that means surveying the managers to understand whether we are 

getting the right talent in. It also means surveying the applicants, 

so we understand what their experience is like. And to your point 

about the quickness, we need data on the time to hire. Those are 

three points that would be very easy to collect, and that information would be very helpful in driving the right kind of changes. 

I gave you more than five. I am sorry. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Ms. Bonosaro, I share some of your concerns about transparency 

in a pay-for-performance system. The recent dismantling of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) at the Department of Defense (DOD) shows how difficult it is to get pay for performance 

right. Please elaborate on your concerns with the current SES payfor-performance system and ways that we can improve it. 

Ms. BONOSARO. Well, to some degree, the system has become 

very complex. If you argue that the hiring system is complex, I 

would argue that how we are dealing with performance management and pay adjustments is even more complicated. 

I think in an effort to meet if not what is required, certainly 

what is perceived to be required, in order to gain certification, a 

number of agencies have developed extraordinarily elaborate systems. I have seen charts that require all sorts of computations, 

after executives’ performance ratings have been determined, to 

make a determination with regard to a pay adjustment or with regard to a performance award. So it has become a very complex system, and I think one that in many places becomes very paper-intensive, and that is a problem. 

Second problem is that I think while there certainly has been a 

push toward having results-oriented performance standards, again 

this has become a somewhat uneven enterprise because I have 

talked to executives who have said: Look, my boss said you and I 

both know what you need to do. Let’s just write these performance 

standards so they pass muster, then go do the job that we both 

know you need to do. 

So what is the disconnect there? It becomes a problem. 

The third issue is that many executives are totally unaware of 

what their agency’s compensation policies are, how the ratings happen to fall out until they see what OPM publishes. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

26 

And most importantly, as I indicated, some executives have had 

their ratings summarily reduced without explanation, and the only 

apparent explanation is a desire to meet some sort of normal curve. 

And that becomes an issue because then the system is not seen as 

something that is fairly, in fact, judging performance. 

So we think a number of things need to be done. 

Rating quotas are in fact prohibited by regulation right now. Perhaps prohibiting them by statute might convince agencies that we 

are more serious about that. 

I think we have really got to recognize that performance awards 

have become an important part of compensation, and I know that 

this is not the time we are supposed to talk about things like this, 

but we do think that it would be really important to include them 

in the computation of the high-three. And in fact, there is some 

precedent for doing that because Veterans Administration (VA) 

nurse executives have their special pay counted in to their highthree, and I think the pharmacists do as well. So that is one thing 

that can be done, and requiring transparency, outlawing quotas. 

I know that the PMC has been looking very hard at why there 

is so much variation among agencies in their ratings and performance awards. So that is something that is being looked at internally, but those are just a few of the things that we think need to 

be done. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Stier, you testified that some form of joint work experience 

should be phased in as a requirement for entry into SES. Will you 

please elaborate on how phase-in should be carried out? 

Mr. STIER. The reason why we are advocating for phasing it in 

is that there is the question about whether or not you have a pipeline available today of people who have already had those joint experiences that would then be available for the SES. My own perspective is, frankly, that there are actually probably a fair number 

of folks out there who have. 

But I think that the idea of giving a year or two. I think you do 

not need anything more than that in order to be able to give an 

opportunity to those who have perhaps participated in government 

for a long time, who want to join the SES, who see this then as 

a new requirement that they did not previously anticipate, to give 

them that opportunity to compete for those original SES positions. 

I think a year or two would be a reasonable time period to permit 

putting in such a requirement. 

But the truth is that in the world we live in today the kinds of 

challenges that the executives in government, the true managerial 

executives, need to address are going to be cross-organizational, or 

a large amount of them are going to be cross-organizational or 

cross-sector or cross-level of government. We need to have people 

in government in those positions who have had experience in multiple places, and I know that both from what I see anecdotally as 

well as I see from best business practice outside the government. 

It is really important. 

We see this even in government with the joint duty requirement 

that the military has and the impact that it has had in the ability 

of the services to actually integrate their work together. It is something that is high time and coming. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

27 

There is an argument that I have heard raised today, which is 

actually the first time I have heard raised today, raised ever, that 

the reform in 1978 was not in fact intended to do this. I do not 

think that is an argument we need to have. If it was not what was 

intended in 1978, it is what should be happening today. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Bonosaro, your testimony contains specific 

recommendations for implementing rotations within the SES. However, you cautioned that rotations should be required only, only if 

there is a business purpose, as part of a comprehensive plan. Do 

you believe if your recommendations are followed that a strategic 

mandatory rotation program would strengthen agencies and the 

SES workforce? 

Ms. BONOSARO. Well, as Max was speaking, I was just sitting 

here and thinking about the Department of Veterans Affairs and 

saying of what purpose would it serve to have all of these VA hospital directors serving in other agencies, and I am not sure I understand one. I do not think there is necessarily a business purpose. 

They may have come from the private sector, but it is doubtful because they would be taking a tremendous cut. 

I think that there clearly is very often a business purpose. 

Whether it is for purposes of developing executives so that agencies 

have a good succession plan in place to fill what they anticipate 

will be vacancies, whether it is the business purpose of continuing 

the development of executives so that they are of more value to 

them, that is fine. 

I think that what we ought to do is look to a place like the Department of the Navy which has done a very intelligent job of this. 

They have in fact collected information on all of their executives 

that not only looks at their experience and their education, and so 

on, but their interests as well as any personal issues they might 

have that would preclude them from reassignments. They put that 

all together with the needs of the Navy, and it is very interesting 

because it becomes a win-win for everyone. So they are able to 

make intelligent career moves there that benefit the Department 

and that benefit the executives, but it is a very thoughtful process. 

And I think that is what does concern us. 

Now as for entry, it is going to take, I think, more than a year 

to enable people to get a leg up and be able to get these rotations, 

and it is going to take some effort on the part of the government 

to make them available. And even then, I think it is a matter of 

does it make sense to require it for every position in every agency 

that is an SES position. 

Senator AKAKA. Yes, Mr. Stier. 

Mr. STIER. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. I just want to clarify 

for the record that the VA hospitals are under Title 38. So they are 

actually treated differently. 

Ms. BONOSARO. No, that is not true. There are senior executives 

running VA hospitals. 

Mr. STIER. My understanding is that at least for the doctors 

corps that it is Title 38. 

Ms. BONOSARO. For doctors. 

Mr. STIER. But my point would be that, again, even as you stated, there are a fair number of them that actually do come from the 

private sector, and that multiplicity of experience is quite powerful. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

28 

I agree with Carol that this has to be done carefully, but care 

does not mean that it should not be done. 

And I think that the urgency that we started with is something 

that we also have to keep our eye on. We have half of the SES eligible to retire now. I think if we want to see a new cohort of talent 

coming in, we need to put these requirements in soon. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Stier, talking about interagency rotation experience, I believe that this experience is valuable and can enhance 

an employee’s professional development. However, there are occasions where individuals’ interagency experience is not well matched 

to the skills they will need when they return to their home agency. 

Do you have suggestions for agencies on how to better incorporate 

rotational experience in their strategic and human capital planning? 

Mr. STIER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a real challenge. 

I think, unfortunately, the culture today in government is such 

that in many instances when somebody is asked to move or rotate 

it is a way of getting rid of problems rather than viewing it as a 

developmental opportunity. And so I am not minimizing the challenges associated with trying to, in essence, change the culture of 

the executive corps, so that rotation becomes more the norm. 

Ultimately, rather than reorganizing the big boxes, the way we 

are actually going to get agencies to work better together is to have 

some of that talent have experience moving back and forth. 

So very specifically, some ideas: I do think it is easier to require 

mobility as an entry into the SES. That would be a more manageable way to ensure that you are talking about a cohort in the executive level that has experiences from multiple places. 

I think that building it truly into the candidate development programs would be quite valuable, as well, and really associating it 

with some benefits, so that these people are also given mentors, so 

people that are looking out for them in both the new organization 

as well as potentially from the organization they are coming from, 

to make sure that they get support. 

We must ensure that we are selecting very carefully at the front 

end a set of people who will draw other talent after them. If you 

get the very best who are taking advantage of mobility as a professional development opportunity others will want to follow, and that 

will create the change that we want. 

Senator AKAKA. Ms. Bonosaro and Mr. Stier, this will be my final 

question. I would like both of you to answer it, beginning with Mr. 

Stier. 

Legislation that costs a lot of money to implement will be difficult to move through Congress. So my question to you is what are 

your top three recommendations for SES reforms that would cost 

the government little or no additional money? 

Mr. STIER. No. 1, the issue around mobility does not have to cost 

the government a penny. You are still talking about talent that is 

doing different jobs. They will do it better, and the payoff will be 

very attractive over the long term. 

No. 2, rebalancing the career and political appointments, again, 

does not cost a cent. In fact, I would be all for reducing the number 

of political appointees in general. You will save yourself some 

money that way. So that would be a way of ensuring that you have 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

29 

long-term continuity among the management group and that you 

do not have too many political appointees in any individual place. 

And No. 3, I would focus on recruiting and hiring. What we have 

seen certainly, even moving into the resume-based approach among 

the agencies, there is a challenge at the front end. But the agencies 

that have done this find it to be well worth doing, it does not have 

to require a lot of money. 

Practically all these things practically that I have recommended 

today can be done cost-free. In fact over time they will produce real 

value for the American people. And even the places where we suggest some additional money, like the developmental fund for the 

SES, that again will pay for itself over the long term. Organizations both inside government, like the military, and outside that 

have made these investments. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you so much for that response. Ms. 

Bonosaro. 

Ms. BONOSARO. Well, we are, Max and I are, both singing from 

the same hymn book about increasing career leadership and minimizing political appointments, and indeed there is probably a cost 

savings there. 

Unfortunately, our other big issue though with regard to fixing 

the pay system, while it may not cost very much at all in fact, 

given the very small numbers involved, I recognize the difficulty 

that you are speaking of. But I am afraid if we do not do something 

in that regard, whether it is dealing with these performance 

awards as the high-three or doing more to fix the pay system generally because right now there are 88 separate pay systems in the 

government that are equivalent to the SES. So this is not a terribly 

attractive place to be at the moment. So that is a second point. 

And then third, I guess I would probably characterize a number 

of actions under the rubric of restoring prestige. I think that OPM 

creating a governmentwide database of all of these executives that 

agencies would look to when they have vacancies, when they have 

critical needs, would demonstrate that this is a group that is extremely valuable to government and we do not always have to go 

outside government. I do not disagree with recruiting outside government. There is an awful lot of talent inside government as well. 

And a number of things that we can do as well to improve the 

candidate development programs, for example, and our consideration of those who graduate from them for SES positions can also 

help to increase diversity in the SES too. 

So there are a number of things that we can, I think, do that do 

not cost very much money. But some of them indeed will cost 

money, unfortunately. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, I thank you so much. Any further comments, either of you? 

Mr. STIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for focusing on this. This 

is a critical issue, and I know you have a lot on your plate, but it 

would make a real difference for you and for Congress to take this 

on. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I really appreciate your responses. It 

will be helpful to us. 

And I want to wish you well in your work as, Ms. Bonosaro, as 

President of the Senior Executives Association and Mr. Stier, as 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

30 

President and Chief Executive of the Partnership for Public Service, with those groups. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses today. In these challenging 

times, focus must be placed on strengthening our government executives and giving them the tools necessary to drive reforms and 

guide the Federal workforce. You have addressed many important 

issues facing our government’s leadership corps and given us constructive suggestions on how to strengthen the SES. 

The hearing record will be open for 1 week for any additional 

statements or questions other members may have. 

And again, I want to thank you once again for your suggestions 

here and your recommendations. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.001
32 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.002
33 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.003
34 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.004
35 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.005
36 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.006
37 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.007
38 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.008
39 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.009
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.010
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.011
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.012
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.013
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.014
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.015
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.016
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.017
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.018
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.019
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.020
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.021
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.022
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.023
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.024
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.025
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.026
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.027
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.028
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.029
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.030
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.031
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.032
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.033
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.034
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.035
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.036
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.037
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.038
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.039
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.040
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.041
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.042
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.043
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.044
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.045
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.046
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.047
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.048
79 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.049
80 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.050
81 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.051
82 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.052
83 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.053
84 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


67120.054