a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2004 HUMAN CAPITAL

Senior Executive 

Performance 

Management Can Be 

Significantly 

Strengthened to 

Achieve Results

GAO-04-614
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-614.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact J. Christopher 

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

Highlights of GAO-04-614, a report to 

congressional requesters 

May 2004

HUMAN CAPITAL

Senior Executive Performance 

Management Can Be Significantly 

Strengthened to Achieve Results 

Senior executives need to lead the way to transform their agencies’ cultures 

to be more results-oriented, customer focused, and collaborative in nature. 

Performance management systems can help manage and direct this process. 

While Education, HHS, and NASA have undertaken important and valuable 

efforts to link their career SES performance management systems to their 

organizations’ success, there are opportunities to use their systems more 

strategically. For example, as indicated below by the executives themselves, 

the agencies can better use their performance management systems as a tool 

to manage the organization or to achieve organizational goals. 

As Congress and the administration are reforming SES pay to better link pay 

to performance, valid, reliable, and transparent performance management 

systems with reasonable safeguards are critical. Information on the 

experiences and knowledge of these agencies should provide valuable 

insights to other agencies as they seek to drive internal change and achieve 

external results. 

Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent on Their 

Agencies’ Overall Use of Their SES Performance Management Systems 

Congress and the administration 

have established a new 

performance-based pay system for 

members of the Senior Executive 

Service (SES) that is designed to 

provide a clear and direct linkage 

between SES performance and pay. 

Also, GAO previously reported that 

significant opportunities exist for 

agencies to hold the SES 

accountable for improving 

organizational results. 

GAO assessed how well selected 

agencies are creating linkages 

between SES performance and 

organizational success by applying 

nine key practices GAO previously 

identified for effective performance 

management. GAO selected the 

Department of Education, the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), and the National 

Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

GAO makes specific 

recommendations to the agencies 

to reinforce the key practices 

through their SES performance 

management systems. NASA 

concurred with the 

recommendations, and HHS 

provided no comments. Education 

described specific actions it plans 

to take to revise its system, which 

are generally consistent with our 

recommendations. However, GAO 

disagrees that Education has 

already implemented or does not 

need to implement two of the 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

Performance Management Systems Can Be Used More Strategically 

by Selected Agencies 9

Selected Agencies Can Strengthen the Link between Senior 

Executive Performance and Organizational Success 12

Conclusions 48

Recommendations for Executive Action 49

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 51

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology 54

Analyzed Agency Documents and Bonus and Rating Data, and 

Interviewed Cognizant Agency Officials 54

Assessed a Sample of Career SES Individual Performance Plans 55

Surveyed All Career SES at Each Agency 57

Appendix II: GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from Education, HHS, 

and NASA 61

Appendix III: Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and NASA’s SES 

Performance Management Systems 73

Education 73

HHS 74

NASA 77

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education 82

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 

Services 85

Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration 86

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 89

GAO Contacts 89

Acknowledgments 89

Tables Table 1: Percentage of Senior Executives at HHS as Compared to 

Senior Executives Governmentwide Who Received 

Bonuses for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 34
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Table 2: Percentage of HHS Senior Executives Who Received 

Bonuses and the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base 

Pay for Fiscal Year 2003 34

Table 3: Percentage of NASA Senior Executives Who Received 

Bonuses and the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base 

Pay for the 2002 and 2003 Performance Appraisal Cycle 36

Table 4: Percentage of Education Senior Executives Who Received 

Bonuses and the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base 

Pay for the 2003 Performance Appraisal Cycle 37

Table 5: Disposition of SES Performance Plan Review, by 

Agency 56

Table 6: Disposition of SES Survey, by Agency 58

Table 7: Number of SES Out of Scope and Reason, by Agency 58

Figures Figure 1: Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a “Very 

Great” or “Great” Extent on Their Agencies’ Overall Use 

of Their SES Performance Management Systems 10

Figure 2: Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a “Very 

Great” or “Great” Extent on Their Agencies’ Use of Their 

SES Performance Management Systems to Meet Key 

Objectives 11

Figure 3: Of Those Senior Executives Who See a Connection 

between Daily Activities and Organizational Goals to a 

“Very Great” or “Great” Extent, Percentage Who Felt That 

Their System Holds Them Accountable to a “Very Great” 

or “Great” Extent 13

Figure 4: Of Those Senior Executives Who Collaborate with Others 

to Achieve Crosscutting Goals to a “Very Great” or 

“Great” Extent, Percentage Who Felt They Are 

Recognized to a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent 16

Figure 5: Percentage of SES Plans in HHS with Performance 

Expectations Related to Collaboration 17

Figure 6: Percentage of SES Plans in Education with Performance 

Expectations Related to Collaboration 19

Figure 7: Of the Senior Executives Who Felt Their Agency Formally 

Provides Performance Information That Allows Them to 

Track Their Work Unit’s Performance, Percentage Who 

Felt This Information Was Useful, Available, or Both to a 

“Very Great” or “Great” Extent 21
Contents

Page iii GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 8: Of Those Senior Executives Who Took Action on Areas of 

Improvement to a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent, 

Percentage Who Felt They Are Recognized to a “Very 

Great” or “Great” Extent 23

Figure 9: Of Those Senior Executives Who Felt the Competencies 

They Demonstrate Help Them Contribute to 

Organizational Goals to a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent, 

Percentage Who Felt They Are Recognized to a “Very 

Great” or “Great” Extent 26

Figure 10: Percentage of Senior Executives Reporting They 

“Strongly Agree” or “Agree” That They Are Rewarded for 

Accomplishments 29

Figure 11: Percentage of Senior Executives Reporting That They 

Understand the Criteria Used to Award Bonuses by 

Extent 31

Figure 12: Percentage of NASA Senior Executives by Rating Level in 

the 2003 Performance Appraisal Cycle 35

Figure 13: Of Those Senior Executives Who Said They Had the 

Opportunity to Be Involved, Percentage Who Said They 

Have Been Involved in Refining Their Agency’s SES 

Performance Management System 39

Figure 14: Of Those Senior Executives Who Said Formal Training Is 

Available, Percentage Who Said They Have Participated 

in Formal Training on Their Agency’s SES Performance 

Management System 40

Figure 15: Percentage of Senior Executives at HHS Reporting 

Involvement and Training Opportunities by Extent 41

Figure 16: Percentage of Senior Executives at NASA Reporting 

Involvement and Training Opportunities by Extent 43

Figure 17: Percentage of Senior Executives at Education Reporting 

Involvement and Training Opportunities by Extent 45

Figure 18: Percentage of Senior Executives Who Felt Their Agency’s 

SES Performance Management System Helped to 

Maintain a Consistent Focus on Organizational Goals 

during Transitions by Extent 47
Contents

Page iv GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Abbreviations

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

EO equal opportunity

FDA Food and Drug Administration

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PRB performance review board

SES Senior Executive Service

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 26, 2004 Letr

The Honorable George V. Voinovich

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal

Workforce, and the District of Columbia

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Jo Ann Davis

Chairwoman

Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

High-performing organizations have recognized that effective performance 

management systems can help them drive internal change and achieve 

external results.1

 Further, such organizations understand that they need 

senior leaders who are held accountable for results, drive continuous 

improvement, and stimulate and support efforts to integrate human capital 

approaches with organizational goals and related transformation issues. 

We previously reported that significant opportunities exist to strengthen 

agencies’ efforts to hold senior executives accountable for results through 

their performance management systems.2

 In particular, more progress is 

needed in explicitly linking senior executives’ performance expectations to 

contributing to the achievement of results-oriented organizational goals, 

fostering the necessary collaboration both within and across organizational 

boundaries to achieve results, and demonstrating a commitment to lead 

and facilitate change. 

Recently, Congress and the administration have sought to modernize senior 

executive performance management systems. Congress established a new 

performance-based pay system for members of the Senior Executive 

1

For additional information on the attributes of high-performing organizations, see U.S. 

General Accounting Office, Highlights of a GAO Forum on High-Performing 

Organizations: Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 

21st Century Public Management Environment, GAO-04-343SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 

2004).

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Using Balanced Expectations 

to Manage Senior Executive Performance, GAO-02-966 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2002). 
Page 2 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Service (SES) that is designed to provide a clear and direct linkage between 

SES performance and pay. An agency can raise the pay cap for its senior 

executives to $158,100 in 2004, with a senior executive’s total 

compensation not to exceed $203,000, if the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) certifies and the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) concurs that the agency’s performance management system, as 

designed and applied, makes meaningful distinctions based on relative 

performance. OPM and OMB are to issue regulations prescribing the 

requirements agencies must meet to obtain certification for these 

purposes. In a memo to the heads of departments and agencies requesting 

their comments on the draft proposed regulations outlining the 

certification criteria, the Director of OPM stated that OPM and OMB plan to 

fully implement the regulations in time for the fiscal year 2004 performance 

ratings and pay adjustments for the senior executives.3

 In addition, as part 

of the administration’s President’s Management Agenda, OPM set a goal for 

15 percent of the agencies to link performance appraisals for senior 

executives to the organization’s mission and goals, and use their senior 

executive performance management systems to make meaningful 

distinctions and provide consequences based on performance by July 2004. 

At your request, this report assesses how well selected agencies are 

creating linkages between senior executive performance and 

organizational success through their career senior executive performance 

management systems. We selected the Department of Education, the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) based on several factors, 

including mission, size, organizational structure, and use of their 

performance management systems for their career senior executives. 

Within HHS, we selected the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to determine how HHS’s 

senior executive performance management system cascades down to these 

operating divisions. 

To meet this objective, we assessed how these agencies’ career senior 

executive performance management systems apply nine key practices for 

effective performance management that we previously identified based on 

3

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Memorandum for Heads of Departments and 

Agencies, Regulations Implementing the Senior Executive Service (SES) PerformanceBased Pay System” (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2004). 
Page 3 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

public sector organizations’ experiences both here and abroad.4 These 

practices are as follows.

1. Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals.

2. Connect performance expectations to crosscutting goals.

3. Provide and routinely use performance information to track 

organizational priorities.

4. Require follow-up actions to address organizational priorities.

5. Use competencies to provide a fuller assessment of performance.

6. Link pay to individual and organizational performance.

7. Make meaningful distinctions in performance.

8. Involve employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of performance 

management systems.

9. Maintain continuity during transitions.

We found that collectively these key practices create a “line of sight” 

showing how unit and individual performance can contribute to overall 

organizational goals and helping individuals understand the connection 

between their daily activities and the organization’s success. 

We analyzed the agencies’ SES performance management systems’ policies 

and guidance and other related documents; interviewed cognizant agency 

officials; assessed a sample of career senior executives’ individual 

performance plans, which outline the performance expectations 

executives are to achieve during the year; analyzed aggregate senior 

executive performance rating and bonus data; and surveyed all career 

senior executives in each agency to gain information on their experiences 

and perceptions with regard to their senior executive performance

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage 

between Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).
Page 4 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

management systems.5 We assessed the reliability of the senior executive 

performance rating and bonus data provided by Education, HHS, NASA, 

and OPM and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of this report. Information on the experiences and progress of the 

selected agencies should prove helpful to these agencies as well as provide 

valuable insights to other agencies as they seek to use senior executive 

performance management systems as a tool to drive internal change and 

achieve external results. We are using these practices to inform our internal 

senior executive performance management system. 

We conducted our work from August 2003 through March 2004 in 

accordance with the generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix I provides additional information on our scope and methodology. 

Appendix II provides the complete survey results for each agency. 

Appendix III provides information on selected elements of Education’s, 

HHS’s, and NASA’s SES performance management systems. 

Results in Brief Education, HHS, and NASA have undertaken important and valuable 

efforts to link their career senior executive performance management 

systems to their organizations’ success; however, there are opportunities to 

use these systems more strategically to manage their organizations and 

achieve organizational goals. Our review of senior executives’ performance 

plans showed that Education, HHS, and NASA have begun to implement 

key practices to develop effective performance management systems for 

their career senior executives. Specifically, we found the following.

• All senior executives’ performance plans in these agencies identified 

individual performance expectations that aligned with organizational 

goals. As a next step, setting specific levels of performance that are 

linked to these organizational goals can help senior executives see how 

they directly contribute to organizational results. While about 80 percent 

of senior executives in HHS have set specific levels of performance 

linked to organizational goals in their individual performance plans, only 

about 5 percent of senior executives in Education and about 1 percent 

5

For our review of a sample of SES performance plans, unless otherwise noted, the margins 

of error are within ± 9 percentage points for HHS and ± 6 percentage points for NASA. For 

Education, there is no sampling error since we reviewed all the SES plans. For our SES 

survey, unless otherwise noted, the margins of error are within ± 9 percentage points for 

Education and ± 4 percentage points for HHS and NASA.
Page 5 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

of senior executives in NASA have set specific levels of performance 

linked to organizational goals.

• About two-thirds of senior executives’ performance plans in HHS and 

about one-third in Education identified a specific programmatic 

crosscutting goal for collaboration. All senior executives’ performance 

plans in NASA included a general goal to achieve the mission of the 

organization. As a next step, identifying the relevant internal or external 

organizations with which they would collaborate can reinforce a focus 

across organizational boundaries. About one-third or less of senior 

executives at each of these agencies clearly identified the specific 

internal or external organization(s) with which they would collaborate 

to achieve crosscutting goals. 

• All the performance plans of senior executives in NASA and almost all in 

Education included competencies that are to address the achievement 

of organizational results, employee perspectives, and customer 

satisfaction. In HHS, about 94 percent of executives’ plans identified 

competencies related to organizational results, about 89 percent related 

to employee perspectives, and about 61 percent related to customer 

satisfaction. 

• At Education, approximately 98 percent of senior executives’ plans 

identified a performance expectation related to leading and facilitating 

change, while approximately 25 percent of the executives’ plans at HHS 

and almost none at NASA identified such an expectation.

In addition, the agencies can use their senior executive performance 

management systems to strengthen the link between their senior 

executives’ performance and their organizations’ success by making 

meaningful distinctions in performance through ratings and performance 

awards (bonuses). 

• While about 86 percent of HHS’s senior executives received the highest 

rating in fiscal year 2003, HHS has restricted the percentage of senior 

executives who receive bonuses to generally no more than one-third at 

each operating division each year since fiscal year 2001. 

• About three-fourths of NASA’s senior executives received its highest 

rating, and about 52 percent of its senior executives received bonuses in 

its 2003 performance appraisal cycle. 
Page 6 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

• Nearly all of Education’s senior executives received its highest rating, 

and about 63 percent of senior executives received bonuses in its 2003 

performance appraisal cycle. 

As a point of comparison, across the executive branch, agencies rated 

about 75 percent of senior executives at the highest levels their systems 

permitted, and approximately 49 percent of senior executives received 

bonuses in fiscal year 2002, the most current year for which data are 

available. The Director of OPM stated that while a growing number of 

agencies have improved their distribution of ratings and bonuses, these 

governmentwide data also suggest that more work is needed. In addition, 

executive branch agencies can reward senior executives’ performance in 

other ways, such as nominations for Presidential Rank Awards or other 

informal or honorary awards. 

As reported through our survey, senior executives’ perceptions underscore 

that their agencies have opportunities to use their systems more 

strategically. 

• Generally, less than half of the senior executives at each agency feel that 

their agency uses its performance management system to the fullest 

extent possible, specifically by using the system as a tool to manage the 

organization or to achieve organizational goals to a very great or great 

extent. 

• Less than half of the senior executives at each agency feel that their 

performance management system is fully used to provide candid and 

constructive feedback to help them maximize their contributions to 

organizational goals to a very great or great extent. 

• Of the senior executives who reported that their agency provided 

performance information to track their work unit’s performance, about 

39 percent at NASA, about 33 percent at HHS, and about 31 percent at 

Education found the performance information to be available when they 

need it and useful for making improvements in their work unit’s 

performance to a very great or great extent. 

• Of the senior executives who indicated that they took action to a very 

great or great extent on areas of improvement based on the 

performance information provided by their agency, about 65 percent at 

NASA, about 60 percent at HHS, and about 55 percent at Education felt 
Page 7 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

they were recognized to a very great or great extent through their 

performance management systems for taking such actions. 

• Senior executives at these three agencies were involved in refining their 

performance management systems or participated in formal training 

when given the opportunity. However, at all three agencies, at least onethird of senior executives reported that they had no opportunity for 

such involvement, and about one-fourth reported that no formal training 

was available to them on their agency’s performance management 

system.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Education and HHS 

and the Administrator of NASA for their review and comment. In addition, 

we provided a draft of the report to the Directors of OPM and OMB for their 

information. We received written comments from Education, HHS, and 

NASA, which are presented in appendixes IV, V, and VI. NASA’s Deputy 

Administrator stated that NASA concurred with all the recommendations 

and plans to implement the recommendations in its next SES appraisal 

cycle beginning July 1, 2004. HHS’s Acting Principal Deputy Inspector 

General stated that HHS had no comments upon review of the draft report. 

In responding to our recommendations, Education’s Assistant Secretary for 

Management and Chief Information Officer stated that Education plans to 

revise its existing senior executive performance management system 

dramatically given OPM’s draft regulations for the new SES pay for 

performance system and described specific actions Education plans to 

take. These actions are generally consistent with our recommendations 

and their successful completion will be important to achieving the intent of 

our recommendations. While Education’s actions are important steps, we 

disagree that Education has fully implemented our recommendation to 

provide performance information to help senior executive decision making 

and does not need to implement our recommendation to require senior 

executives to identify crosscutting goals and relevant internal or external 

organizations to achieve them. 

Background In November 2003, Congress authorized a new performance-based pay 

system for members of the SES.6

 According to OPM’s interim regulations, 

6

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-136, November 24, 

2003.
Page 8 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

SES members are to no longer receive annual across-the-board or locality 

pay adjustments with the new pay system. Agencies are to base pay 

adjustments for SES members on individual performance and 

contributions to the agency’s performance by considering such things as 

the unique skills, qualifications, or competencies of the individual and their 

significance to the agency’s mission and performance, as well as the 

individual’s current responsibilities. 

Specifically, the revised pay system, which took effect in January 2004, 

replaces the six SES pay levels with a single, open-range pay band and 

raises the pay cap for all SES members to $145,600 in 2004 (Level III of the 

Executive Schedule) with a senior executive’s total compensation not to 

exceed $175,700 in 2004 (Level I of the Executive Schedule). If OPM 

certifies and OMB concurs that the agency’s performance management 

system, as designed and applied, makes meaningful distinctions based on 

relative performance, an agency can raise the SES pay cap to $158,100 in 

2004 (Level II of the Executive Schedule) with a senior executive’s total 

compensation not to exceed $203,000 in 2004 (the total annual 

compensation payable to the Vice President). 

In an earlier step, to help agencies hold senior executives accountable for 

organizational results, OPM amended regulations for senior executive 

performance management in October 2000. These amended regulations 

governing performance appraisals for senior executives require agencies to 

establish performance management systems that (1) hold senior executives 

accountable for their individual and organizational performance by linking 

performance management with the results-oriented goals of the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA); (2) evaluate 

senior executive performance using measures that balance organizational 

results with customer satisfaction, employee perspectives, and any other 

measures agencies decide are appropriate; and (3) use performance results 

as a basis for pay, awards, and other personnel decisions. Agencies were to 

establish these performance management systems by their 2001 senior 

executive performance appraisal cycles.
Page 9 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Performance 

Management Systems 

Can Be Used More 

Strategically by 

Selected Agencies 

High-performing organizations have recognized that their performance 

management systems are strategic tools to help them manage on a day-today basis and achieve organizational goals. While Education, HHS, and 

NASA have undertaken important and valuable efforts to link their career 

senior executive performance management systems to their organizations’ 

success, senior executives’ perceptions indicate that these three agencies 

have opportunities to use their career senior executive performance 

management systems more strategically to strengthen that link. Based on 

our survey of career senior executives, we estimate that generally less than 

half of the senior executives at Education, HHS, and NASA feel that their 

agencies’ are fully using their performance management systems as a tool 

to manage the organization or to achieve organizational goals, as shown in 

figure 1. 
Page 10 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 1: Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a “Very Great” or “Great” 

Extent on Their Agencies’ Overall Use of Their SES Performance Management 

Systems 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year were more likely to respond 

"no basis to judge/not applicable.” This was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives 

have served less than 1 year. 

Further, effective performance management systems are not merely used 

for once-or twice-yearly individual expectation setting and rating 

processes. These systems facilitate two-way communication throughout 

the year so that discussions about individual and organizational 

performance are integrated and ongoing. Effective performance 

management systems work to achieve three key objectives: (1) they strive 

to provide candid and constructive feedback to help individuals maximize 

their contribution and potential in understanding and realizing the goals 

Percentage of SES

Agency

Percentage of SES

Agency

Source: GAO.

Education

HHS

NASA

Your agency's SES performance 

management system is used as a 

tool to manage the organization.

Your agency’s SES performance 

management system is used in 

achieving organizational goals.

26

29

33

28

37

47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
Page 11 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

and objectives of the organization, (2) they seek to provide management 

with the objective and fact-based information it needs to reward top 

performers, and (3) they provide the necessary information and 

documentation to deal with poor performers. In this regard as well, 

generally less than half of the senior executives felt that their agencies are 

fully using their performance management systems to achieve these 

objectives, as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent on Their Agencies’ Use of Their SES 

Performance Management Systems to Meet Key Objectives 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year were more likely to respond 

“no basis to judge/not applicable.” This was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives 

have served less than 1 year. 

Agency Agency

Source: GAO.

Education

HHS

NASA

Percentage of SES Percentage of SES Percentage of SES

Your agency uses performance information and 

documentation to make distinctions in senior 

executive performance.

Your agency provides candid and constructive 

feedback that allows you to maximize your 

contribution to organizational goals.

Your agency's SES performance management 

system facilitates discussions about your 

performance as it relates to organizational 

goals during the year.

Agency

36 38

48

23

36

45

23

34

47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
Page 12 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Selected Agencies Can 

Strengthen the Link 

between Senior 

Executive 

Performance and 

Organizational Success 

High-performing organizations have recognized that a critical success 

factor in fostering a results-oriented culture is a performance management 

system that creates a “line of sight” showing how unit and individual 

performance can contribute to overall organizational goals and helping 

them understand the connection between their daily activities and the 

organization’s success. Further, our prior work has identified nine key 

practices public sector organizations both here and abroad have used that 

collectively create this line of sight to develop effective performance 

management systems.7

 To this end, while Education, HHS, and NASA have 

begun to apply the key practices to develop effective performance 

management systems for their career senior executives, they have 

opportunities to strengthen the link between their senior executives’ 

performance and organizations’ success.

Align Individual 

Performance Expectations 

with Organizational Goals 

An explicit alignment of daily activities with broader results is one of the 

defining features of effective performance management systems in highperforming organizations. These organizations use their performance 

management systems to improve performance by helping individuals see 

the connection between their daily activities and organizational goals and 

encouraging individuals to focus on their roles and responsibilities to help 

achieve these goals. Education, HHS, and NASA require their senior 

executives to align individual performance with organizational goals in 

order to hold them accountable for organizational results. Our review of 

the senior executives’ performance plans showed that all the plans at each 

agency identified individual performance expectations that aligned with 

organizational goals. In addition, nearly all of the senior executives at each 

agency have reported that they communicate their performance 

expectations to at least a small extent to those whom they supervise. 

Cascading performance expectations in this way helps individuals 

understand how they contribute to organizational goals. 

Still, while most senior executives at each agency indicated that they see a 

connection between their daily activities and organizational goals to a very 

great or great extent, fewer of these senior executives felt that their 

agency’s SES performance management system holds them accountable for 

their contributions to organizational results to a very great or great extent, 

as shown in figure 3.

7

GAO-03-488.
Page 13 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 3: Of Those Senior Executives Who See a Connection between Daily 

Activities and Organizational Goals to a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent, Percentage 

Who Felt That Their System Holds Them Accountable to a “Very Great” or “Great” 

Extent 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

The 95 percent confidence interval for the 50 percent of SES at Education ranges from 40 to 60 

percent, and for HHS, the 58 percent of SES ranges from 53 to 62 percent.

These responses are generally consistent with our governmentwide 

surveys on the implementation of GPRA. In particular, governmentwide, 

senior executives have consistently reported that they are held accountable 

for results. Most recently, we reported in March 2004 that 61 percent of 

senior executives governmentwide feel they are held accountable for 

achieving their agencies’ strategic goals to a very great or great extent.8

To reinforce the accountability for achieving results-oriented goals, we 

have reported that more progress is needed in explicitly linking senior 

executives' performance expectations to the achievement of these goals.9
Page 14 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Setting specific levels of performance that are linked to organizational 

goals can help senior executives see how they directly contribute to 

organizational results. While most senior executives at HHS have set 

specific levels of performance in their individual performance plans, few 

senior executives in Education and NASA have identified specific levels.

HHS requires its senior executives to set measurable performance 

expectations in their individual performance plans that align with 

organizational priorities, such as the department’s “One-HHS” objectives 

and strategic goals and their operating divisions’ annual performance goals 

or other priorities.10 We found that about 80 percent of senior executives’ 

performance plans identified specific levels of performance linked to 

organizational goals. For example, a senior executive in CDC set an 

expectation to “reduce the percentage of youth (grade 9-12) who smoke to 

26.5%,” which contributes to CDC’s annual performance goal to “reduce 

cigarette smoking among youth” and the One-HHS program objective to 

“emphasize preventive health measures (preventing disease and illness).” 

However, specifying levels of performance varies across operating 

divisions. We found that approximately 63 percent of senior executives at 

FDA versus 80 percent at CDC identified specific levels of performance 

linked to organizational goals in their individual performance plans. 

Education requires its senior executives to include critical elements, each 

with specific performance requirements, in their individual performance 

plans that align with the department’s goals and priorities, including the 

President’s Management Agenda, the Secretary’s strategic plan, the 

Blueprint for Management Excellence, and the Culture of Accountability. 

We found that approximately 5 percent of senior executives’ performance 

plans identified specific levels of performance linked to organizational 

goals. 

8

U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a 

Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 

2004).

9

GAO-02-966.

10The One-HHS management and program objectives reflect the goals and priorities of the 

Secretary.
Page 15 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

NASA requires its senior executives to include seven critical elements, 

each with specific performance requirements that focus on the 

achievement of organizational goals and priorities, in their individual 

performance plans. For example, senior executives’ performance plans 

include the critical element “meets and advances established agency 

program objectives and achieves high-quality results,” and specifically 

“meets appropriate GPRA/NASA Strategic Plan goals and objectives.” 

Senior executives may modify the performance requirements by making 

them more measurable or specific to their jobs; however, only about 23 

percent of senior executives added performance requirements that are 

specific to their positions in their individual performance plans.11 Also, 

about 1 percent of senior executives have performance expectations with 

specific levels of performance that are related to organizational goals in 

their individual plans. 

Connect Performance 

Expectations to 

Crosscutting Goals

As public sector organizations shift their focus of accountability from 

outputs to results, they have recognized that the activities needed to 

achieve those results often transcend specific organizational boundaries. 

Consequently, organizations that focus on collaboration, interaction, and 

teamwork across organizational boundaries are increasingly critical to 

achieve results. In a recent GAO forum, participants agreed that delivering 

high performance and achieving goals requires agencies to establish 

partnerships with a broad range of federal, state, and local government 

agencies as well other relevant organizations.12 High-performing 

organizations use their performance management systems to strengthen 

accountability for results, specifically by placing greater emphasis on 

collaboration to achieve results.

While most senior executives in each agency indicated that they 

collaborate with others to achieve crosscutting goals, fewer of these senior 

executives felt that their contributions to crosscutting goals are recognized 

through their agency’s system, as shown in figure 4.

11The 95 percent confidence interval for NASA ranges from 16 to 33 percent.

12GAO-04-343SP.
Page 16 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 4: Of Those Senior Executives Who Collaborate with Others to Achieve 

Crosscutting Goals to a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent, Percentage Who Felt They 

Are Recognized to a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent

Note: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

We reported that more progress is needed to foster the necessary 

collaboration both within and across organizational boundaries to achieve 

results.13 As a first step, agencies could have senior executives identify 

specific programmatic crosscutting goals that would require collaboration 

to achieve in their individual performance plans. As a next step, agencies 

could have senior executives name the relevant internal or external 

organizations with which they would collaborate to reinforce a focus 

across organizational boundaries. HHS, Education, and NASA are 

connecting performance expectations to crosscutting goals to varying 

degrees.

13GAO-02-966.

0

20

10

30

50

70

90

40

60

80

100

Percentage of SES

76

87

90

You collaborate with others to achieve crosscutting goals.

Of those who collaborate, you feel you are recognized through your performance 

management system for contributing to crosscutting goals.

Education

Source: GAO.

HHS NASA

68 65

73

Agency
Page 17 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

While HHS does not require executives to identify programmatic 

crosscutting goals specific to the individuals in their performance plans, 

according to an agency official, it holds all senior executives accountable 

for the crosscutting One-HHS program objectives, such as to increase 

access to health care. We found that about 67 percent of senior executives’ 

performance plans identified a programmatic crosscutting goal that would 

require collaboration to achieve, as shown in figure 5. The extent to which 

the senior executives’ performance plans identified crosscutting goals 

varied across operating divisions. For example, 60 percent of the senior 

executives’ plans in FDA identified crosscutting goals compared with 50 

percent of the plans in CDC. Few HHS senior executives clearly identified 

the specific organization(s) either internal or external with which they 

would collaborate. 

Figure 5: Percentage of SES Plans in HHS with Performance Expectations Related to 

Collaboration

Note: GAO analysis based on review of career senior executives’ performance plans.

Percentage of SES

Identified crosscutting goals

Identified internal organization

Identified external organization

Source: GAO.

67

34

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
Page 18 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Positive examples of senior executives’ plans at HHS that included 

crosscutting goals, as well as either the internal or external organizations 

with which they would collaborate to achieve these goals, include the 

following:

• A senior executive in the National Institutes of Health set an expectation 

to work with FDA and other agencies and organizations to accelerate 

drug development by specifically working on the National Cancer 

Institute/FDA task force to eliminate barriers and speed development. 

• A senior executive in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration set an expectation to work collaboratively with the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Energy, and 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to increase 

the use of the National Registry of Effective Programs in other federal 

agencies to identify and provide for early intervention for persons with 

or who are at risk for mental health or substance abuse problems.

As required by Education, all senior executives’ performance plans 

included the general performance expectation: “promotes collaboration 

and teamwork, including effective union-management relations, where 

appropriate.” However, only about 32 percent of senior executives’ 

performance plans identified programmatic crosscutting goals on which 

they would collaborate and few executives clearly identified the specific 

organizations with which they would collaborate, as shown in figure 6. 
Page 19 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 6: Percentage of SES Plans in Education with Performance Expectations 

Related to Collaboration

Note: GAO analysis based on review of career senior executives’ performance plans.

As required by NASA, all senior executives’ performance plans included a 

general expectation: “integrates One-NASA approach to problem-solving, 

program/project management, and decision making. Leads by example by 

reaching out to other organizations and NASA centers to collaborate on 

work products; seeks input and expertise from a broad spectrum ....” This 

expectation is designed to contribute to achieving NASA’s mission. Only 

about 1 percent of the executives clearly identified specific centers in 

NASA and none of the executives clearly identified specific organizations 

outside of NASA that they need to collaborate with to achieve crosscutting 

goals.

Percentage of SES

Identified crosscutting goals

Identified internal organization

Identified external organization

Source: GAO.

32

14

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
Page 20 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Provide and Routinely Use 

Performance Information to 

Track Organizational 

Priorities 

High-performing organizations provide objective performance information 

to executives to show progress in achieving organizational results and 

other priorities, such as customer satisfaction and employee perspectives, 

and help them manage during the year, identify performance gaps, and 

pinpoint improvement opportunities. We reported that disaggregating 

performance information in a useful format could help executives track 

their performance against organizational goals and compare their 

performance to that of the organization.14

HHS, NASA, and Education took different approaches to providing 

performance information to their senior executives in order to show 

progress toward organizational goals or priorities. While all three agencies 

give their components the flexibility to collect and provide performance 

information to their senior executives, Education also provides 

performance information agencywide. Of the senior executives in 

Education, HHS, and NASA who reported that their agency provided 

performance information to track their work unit’s performance, generally 

less than half found the performance information to be useful for making 

improvements, available when needed, or both to a very great or great 

extent, as shown in figure 7. 

14GAO-02-966.
Page 21 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 7: Of the Senior Executives Who Felt Their Agency Formally Provides 

Performance Information That Allows Them to Track Their Work Unit’s Performance, 

Percentage Who Felt This Information Was Useful, Available, or Both to a “Very 

Great” or “Great” Extent

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

These responses are based on the 88 percent of senior executives at Education, 84 percent at HHS, 

and 93 percent at NASA who reported that their agencies provided performance information that 

allows them to track their work unit’s performance. Senior executives in HHS who have served for less 

than 1 year were more likely to respond “no basis to judge/not applicable.” 

Education provides various types of performance information to senior 

executives intended to help them see how they are meeting the 

performance expectations in their individual performance plans. A tracking 

system monitors how Education is making progress toward its annual 

performance goals and supporting action steps. Each action step has 

milestones that are tracked and reported each month to the officials who 

developed and have “ownership” for them. Education also collects 

performance information on customer service and employee perspectives. 

For example, Education uses an automated performance feedback process, 

whereby customers, coworkers, and employees provide feedback at 

midcycle and the end of the performance appraisal cycle on how the senior 

executives are meeting their individual performance expectations and 

areas for improvement.15

15Agency officials indicated that they plan to reevaluate the use of this system in the future 

given the changes occurring with the new SES pay system. 

40

Your agency formally provides performance information that is useful for making improvements in 

your work unit's performance.

31 37 38 33 43

Education HHS NASA

Your agency formally provides performance information that is available to you when you need it.

Your agency formally provides performance information that is both available and useful.

Source: GAO.

46 39 49
Page 22 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

HHS conducts an annual departmentwide quality of work life survey and 

disaggregates the survey results for executives and other employees to use. 

HHS compares the overall high or low results of its survey for HHS as a 

whole to each operating division and to the component organizations 

within operating divisions. In the 2003 survey, HHS added questions about 

the President’s Management Agenda, and each operating division had the 

opportunity to add specific questions focusing on issues that it believed 

were important to its employees, such as flexible work schedules or 

knowledge management issues. In addition, HHS gives operating divisions 

the flexibility to use other means of collecting and providing performance 

information, and in turn, FDA and CDC give their centers and offices the 

flexibility to collect and provide performance information. For example, 

according to a CDC official, senior executives receive frequent reports, 

such as the weekly situation reports, to identify priorities and help 

communicate these priorities among senior executives.16 In addition, CDC 

conducts a “pulse check” survey to gather feedback on employees’ 

satisfaction with the agency and disaggregates the results to the center 

level. According to an agency official, CDC plans to conduct this survey 

quarterly. 

An official at NASA indicated that while NASA does not systematically 

provide performance information to its senior executives on a NASA-wide 

basis, the centers have the flexibility to collect and provide performance 

information to their senior executives on programs’ goals and measures 

and customer and employee satisfaction. This official indicated that NASA 

uses the results of the OPM Human Capital survey to help identify areas for 

improvement throughout NASA and its centers. NASA provides the OPM 

Human Capital survey data to its centers, showing NASA-wide and centerspecific results, to help centers conduct their own analyses and identify 

areas for improvement and best practices. 

Require Follow-up Actions 

to Address Organizational 

Priorities 

High-performing organizations require individuals to take follow-up actions 

based on the performance information available to them. By requiring and 

tracking such follow-up actions on performance gaps, these organizations 

underscore the importance of holding individuals accountable for making 

16For more information on CDC’s tracking of performance information, see U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Agency Leadership Taking 

Steps to Improve Management and Planning, but Challenges Remain, GAO-04-219

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).
Page 23 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

progress on their priorities. Within Education, only the senior executives 

who developed the action steps for the annual performance goals are to 

incorporate expectations to demonstrate progress toward the goal(s) in 

their individual plans. HHS and NASA do not require senior executives to 

take follow-up actions agencywide, but they encourage their components 

to have executives take follow-up actions to show progress toward the 

organizational priorities. Of the senior executives at each agency who 

indicated that they took follow-up actions on areas of improvement, 

generally less than two-thirds felt they were recognized through their 

performance management systems for such actions, as shown in figure 8. 

Figure 8: Of Those Senior Executives Who Took Action on Areas of Improvement to 

a “Very Great” or “Great” Extent, Percentage Who Felt They Are Recognized to a 

“Very Great” or “Great” Extent

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. For Education, the 55 percent of SES has a 

margin of error of ±12 percent. For HHS, the 60 percent of SES who said they feel recognized for 

taking follow-up actions has a margin of error of ±5 percent. Senior executives in NASA and HHS who 

have served for less than 1 year were more likely to respond “no basis to judge/not applicable.” This 

was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives have served less than 1 year. 
Page 24 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

At Education, senior executives who developed the action steps for 

Education’s annual goals are required to set milestones that are tracked 

each month using a red, yellow, or green scoring system; assess how they 

are progressing toward the action steps and annual goals; and revise future 

milestones, if necessary. According to agency officials, these senior 

executives are to incorporate these action steps when developing their 

individual performance plans. Senior executives are also to address the 

feedback that their supervisors provide about their progress in achieving 

their performance expectations.

HHS as a whole does not require senior executives to take follow-up 

actions, for example, on the quality of work life survey results, or 

incorporate the performance information results into their individual 

performance plans. In addition, FDA and CDC do not require their senior 

executives agencywide to take any type of follow-up actions. However, 

FDA centers have the flexibility to require their senior executives to 

identify areas for improvement based on the survey results or other types 

of performance information. Similarly, CDC encourages its executives to 

incorporate relevant performance measures in their individual 

performance plans. For example, those senior executives within each CDC 

center responsible for issues identified at emerging issues meetings are 

required to identify when the issues will be resolved, identify the steps they 

will take to resolve the issues in action plans, and give updates at future 

meetings with the CDC Director and other senior officials. 

NASA does not require its senior executives to take follow-up actions 

agencywide on the OPM Human Capital Survey data or other types of 

performance information, rather it encourages its centers to have their 

executives take follow-up action on any identified areas of improvement. 

However, an agency official stated that NASA uses the results of the survey 

to identify areas for improvement and that managers are ultimately 

accountable for ensuring the implementation of the improvement 

initiatives. 

Use Competencies to 

Provide a Fuller Assessment 

of Performance

High-performing organizations use competencies to examine individual 

contributions to organizational results. Competencies, which define the 

skills and supporting behaviors that individuals are expected to 

demonstrate to carry out their work effectively, can provide a fuller picture 

of individuals’ performance in the different areas in which they are 

appraised, such as organizational results, employee perspectives, and 

customer satisfaction. We have reported that core competencies applied 
Page 25 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

organizationwide can help reinforce behaviors and actions that support the 

organization’s mission, goals, and values and can provide a consistent 

message about how employees are expected to achieve results.17 Education 

and NASA identified competencies that all senior executives in the agency 

must include in their performance plans, while HHS gave its operating 

divisions the flexibility to have senior executives identify competencies in 

their performance plans. 

Most of the senior executives in each agency indicated that the 

competencies they demonstrate help them contribute to the organization’s 

goals to a very great or great extent. However, fewer of these executives 

felt that they were recognized through their performance management 

system for demonstrating these competencies, as shown in figure 9.

17U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Implementing Pay for Performance at 

Selected Personnel Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-83 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2004).
Page 26 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 9: Of Those Senior Executives Who Felt the Competencies They 

Demonstrate Help Them Contribute to Organizational Goals to a “Very Great” or 

“Great” Extent, Percentage Who Felt They Are Recognized to a “Very Great” or 

“Great” Extent

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year were more likely to respond 

“no basis to judge/not applicable.” This was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives 

have served less than 1 year. 

Education requires all senior executives to include a set of competencies in 

their individual performance plans. Based on our review of Education’s 

senior executives’ performance plans, we found that all of the plans, unless 

otherwise noted, included the following examples of competencies.18

18See app. III for more information on selected elements of Education’s, HHS’s and NASA’s 

SES performance management systems.

0

20

10

30

50

70

90

40

60

80

100

Percentage of SES

85

94 92

The competencies you demonstrate help you contribute to the organization's goals.

Of those who feel the competencies help contribute to organizational goals, you feel 

recognized through your performance management system for your demonstration 

of the competencies.

Education

Source: GAO.

HHS NASA

Agency

64

76

65
Page 27 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

• Organizational results—“sets and meets challenging objectives to 

achieve the Department’s strategic goals.” 

• Employee perspectives—“fosters improved workforce productivity and 

effective development and recognition of employees.”19

• Customer satisfaction—“anticipates and responds to customer needs in 

a professional, effective, and timely manner.”

NASA requires all senior executives to include a set of competency-based 

critical elements in their individual performance plans. Based on our 

review of NASA’s senior executives’ performance plans, we found all of the 

plans included the following examples of competencies.

• Organizational results—Understands the principles of the President’s 

Management Agenda and actively applies them; capitalizes on 

opportunities to integrate human capital issues in planning and 

performance and to expand e-government and competitive sourcing; 

and pursues other opportunities to reduce costs and improve service to 

customers.

• Employee perspectives—Demonstrates a commitment to equal 

opportunity and diversity by proactively implementing programs that 

positively impact the workplace and NASA’s external stakeholders and 

through voluntary compliance with equal opportunity laws, regulations, 

policies, and practices.

• Customer satisfaction—Provides the appropriate level of high-quality 

support to peers and other organizations to enable the achievement of 

the NASA mission; results demonstrate support of One-NASA and that 

stakeholder and customer issues were taken into account.

According to an HHS official, the HHS senior executive performance 

management system, while not competency based, is becoming more 

outcome oriented. However, operating divisions may require senior 

executives to include competencies. For example, senior executives in 

FDA and CDC include specific competencies related to organizational 

results, employee perspectives, and customer satisfaction in their 

19About 98 percent of the senior executives at Education included a competency related to 

employee perspectives. 
Page 28 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

individual performance plans. Based on our review of HHS’s senior 

executives’ performance plans, we found that all of the plans at FDA and 

CDC and nearly all across HHS identified competencies that executives are 

expected to demonstrate. 

• Organizational results—About 94 percent of HHS senior executives’ 

plans identified a competency related to organizational results. For 

example, all senior executives’ plans in FDA included a competency to 

“demonstrate prudence and the highest ethical standards when 

executing fiduciary responsibilities.”

• Employee perspectives—About 89 percent of HHS senior executives’ 

plans identified a competency related to employee perspectives. For 

example, senior executives in CDC are required to include a 

competency to exercise leadership and management actions that reflect 

the principles of workforce diversity in management and operations in 

such areas as recruitment and staffing, employee development, and 

communications. 

• Customer satisfaction—About 61 percent of HHS senior executives’ 

plans identified a competency related to customer satisfaction. For 

example, all senior executives’ plans in FDA included a competency to 

“lead in a proactive, customer-responsive manner consistent with 

agency vision and values, effectively communicating program issues to 

external audiences.” 

Link Pay to Individual and 

Organizational Performance 

High-performing organizations seek to create pay, incentive, and reward 

systems that clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to 

organizational results. These organizations recognize that valid, reliable, 

and transparent performance management systems with reasonable 

safeguards for employees are the precondition to such an approach. To this 

end, Education’s, HHS’s, and NASA’s performance management systems are 

designed to appraise and reward senior executive performance based on 

each executive’s achievement toward organizational goals as outlined in 

the executive’s performance plan. Overall, the majority of senior executives 

at each agency either strongly agreed or agreed that they are rewarded for 

accomplishing the performance expectations in their individual 

performance plan or helping their agency accomplish its goals, as shown in 

figure 10. These responses are similar to those from our governmentwide 

survey on the implementation of GPRA. We reported that about half of 

senior executives governmentwide perceive to a very great or great extent 
Page 29 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

that employees in their agencies received positive recognition for helping 

their agencies accomplish their strategic goals.20

Figure 10: Percentage of Senior Executives Reporting They “Strongly Agree” or 

“Agree” That They Are Rewarded for Accomplishments

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year were more likely to respond 

“no basis to judge/not applicable.” This was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives 

have served less than 1 year. 

We have observed that a performance management system should have 

adequate safeguards to ensure fairness and guard against abuse. Such 

20GAO-04-38.

Percentage of SES Percentage of SES

Accomplishing the performace expectations 

identified in my individual performance plan. Helping my agency accomplish its goals.

Agency Agency

Source: GAO.

Education

HHS

NASA

56

59

68

54

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
Page 30 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

safeguards will become especially important under the new performancebased pay system for the SES. Education, HHS, and NASA have built the 

following safeguards required by OPM into their senior executive 

performance management policies.

• Each agency must establish one or more performance review boards 

(PRB) to review senior executives’ initial summary performance ratings 

and other relevant documents and to make written recommendations to 

the agency head on the performance of the agency’s senior executives. 

The PRBs are to have members who are appointed by the agency head 

in a way that assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in senior 

executive performance appraisals. For example, HHS specifically states 

that each operating division will have one or more PRBs with members 

appointed by the operating division head. HHS’s PRB members may 

include all types of federal executives, including noncareer appointees, 

military officers, and career appointees from within and outside the 

department. In addition, NASA’s PRB is to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the senior executive performance management system and report its 

findings and any appropriate recommendations for process 

improvement or appropriate policy changes to NASA management. For 

example, the PRB completed a study on NASA’s senior executive bonus 

system in 2003.

• A senior executive may provide a written response to his or her initial 

summary rating that is provided to the PRB. The PRB is to consider this 

written response in recommending an annual summary rating to the 

agency head. 

• A senior executive may ask for a higher-level review of his or her initial 

summary rating before the rating is provided to the PRB. The higherlevel reviewer cannot change the initial summary rating, but may 

recommend a different rating to the PRB that is shared with the senior 

executive and the supervisor. Upon receiving the annual summary 

rating, senior executives may not appeal their performance appraisals 

and ratings. 

We have observed that a safeguard for performance management systems 

is to ensure reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability 

mechanisms in connection with the performance management process. 

Agencies can help create transparency in the performance management 

process by communicating the overall results of the performance appraisal 

cycle to their senior executives. Education, NASA, and HHS officials 
Page 31 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

indicated that they do not make the aggregate distribution of performance 

ratings or bonuses available to their senior executives. 

In addition, agencies can communicate the criteria for making 

performance-based pay decisions and bonus decisions to their senior 

executives to enhance the transparency of the system. Generally, less than 

half of the senior executives at each agency reported that they understand 

the criteria used to award bonuses to a very great or great extent, and some 

senior executives at each agency reported that they do not understand the 

criteria at all, as shown in figure 11.

Figure 11: Percentage of Senior Executives Reporting That They Understand the 

Criteria Used to Award Bonuses by Extent

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

For Education, the percentage of senior executives does not equal 100 percent due to rounding, and 

for HHS and NASA, due to the senior executives who responded “no basis to judge/not applicable.” 

Senior executives in HHS who have served for less than 1 year were more likely to respond “no basis 

to judge/not applicable.” 

Agency

Source: GAO.

Education HHS NASA

Percentage of SES

No

Moderate and small

Very great and great

0

20

40

60

80

100

44

36

21

47

38

13

43

43

12
Page 32 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Make Meaningful 

Distinctions in Performance 

High-performing organizations make meaningful distinctions between 

acceptable and outstanding performance of individuals and appropriately 

reward those who perform at the highest level. Executive agencies can 

reward senior executives’ performance in a number of ways: through 

performance awards or bonuses, nominations for Presidential Rank 

Awards, or other informal or honorary awards. With the new performancebased pay system for senior executives, agencies are required to have OPM 

certify and OMB concur that their performance management systems are 

making meaningful distinctions based on relative performance in order to 

raise the pay for their senior executives to the highest available level. 

Recently, the Director of OPM stated that agencies’ SES performance 

management systems should rely on credible and rigorous performance 

measurements to make meaningful distinctions based on relative 

performance in order for the new SES performance-based pay system to 

succeed.21 She also noted that while a growing number of agencies have 

improved in their distributions of SES ratings and awards based on 

agencies’ fiscal year 2002 rating and bonus data, these data also suggest 

that more work is needed. Specifically, see the following:

• Executive branch agencies rated about 75 percent of senior executives 

at the highest level their systems permit in their performance ratings in 

fiscal year 2002, the most current year for which data are available from 

OPM—a decrease from about 84 percent the previous fiscal year. 

• When disaggregating the data by rating system, approximately 69 

percent of senior executives received the highest rating under five-level 

systems in fiscal year 2002 compared to about 76 percent in fiscal year 

2001, and almost 100 percent of senior executives received the highest 

rating under three-level systems in both fiscal years 2001 and 2002. 

• Approximately 49 percent of senior executives received bonuses in 

fiscal year 2002 compared to about 52 percent the previous fiscal year.22

21U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Memorandum for Heads of Departments and 

Executive Agencies, Reporting SES Performance Ratings and Awards for FY 2003” 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2004). 

22By law, bonus amounts paid to individual career senior executives are limited to from 5 to 

20 percent of the executive’s basic pay. Agency bonus totals cannot exceed the greater of 10 

percent of the aggregate career senior executive basic pay or 20 percent of the average rates 

of career senior executive basic pay.
Page 33 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

At HHS, about 86 percent of senior executives received the highest possible 

rating in fiscal year 2003 compared with approximately 99 percent in fiscal 

year 2002. While HHS gives its operating divisions the flexibility to appraise 

their senior executives’ performance using a three-, four-, or five-level 

performance management system, most of HHS’s operating divisions, 

including FDA and CDC, rate their senior executives under a three-level 

system. Almost all of HHS’s senior executives rated under a three-level 

system received the highest rating of “fully successful” in fiscal years 2002 

and 2003.23 Approximately 23 percent of senior executives rated under a 

five-level system received the highest rating of “outstanding” in fiscal year 

2003 compared with approximately 94 percent in fiscal year 2002.24

According to its Chief Human Capital Officer, HHS recognizes that its 

rating systems do not always allow for distinctions in senior executives’ 

performance, and it has chosen to focus on the bonus process as the 

method for reflecting performance distinctions. Senior executive bonuses 

are to provide a mechanism for distinguishing and rewarding the 

contributions of top performers, specifically for circumstances in which 

the individual’s work has substantially improved public health and safety or 

citizen services. Since the fiscal year 2001 performance appraisal cycle, 

HHS has restricted the percentage of senior executives’ bonuses to 

generally no more than one-third of each operating division’s senior 

executives. HHS, including FDA and CDC, is making progress toward 

distinguishing senior executive performance through bonuses compared to 

the percentage of senior executives governmentwide who received 

bonuses, as shown in table 1. 

23Under HHS’s three-level system senior executives may be rated at “fully successful,” 

“minimally satisfactory,” or “unsatisfactory,” and under a five-level system, senior 

executives may be rated at these rating levels as well as at “excellent” and “outstanding.”

24In fiscal year 2002, only the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services used a five-level 

rating system. In fiscal year 2003, the Indian Health Service also used a five-level rating 

system.
Page 34 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Table 1: Percentage of Senior Executives at HHS as Compared to Senior Executives 

Governmentwide Who Received Bonuses for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003

Sources: HHS and OPM.

Note: The percentage of senior executives governmentwide who received bonuses in fiscal year 2003 

is not yet available.

Additionally, HHS generally limited individual bonus amounts to no more 

than 12 percent of base pay for top performers in fiscal year 2003. Most of 

the senior executives who received a bonus were awarded less than a 10 

percent bonus in fiscal year 2003, as shown in table 2.

Table 2: Percentage of HHS Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses and the 

Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for Fiscal Year 2003

Source: HHS.

Lastly, senior executive responses to our survey indicated that they did not 

feel HHS was making meaningful distinctions in ratings or bonuses to a 

very great or great extent. Approximately 31 percent of senior executives 

felt that their agency makes meaningful distinctions in performance using 

ratings; approximately 38 percent felt that their agency makes meaningful 

distinctions in performance using bonuses. 

Agency FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003

HHS (including CDC and FDA) 58 34 37 29

CDC 86 52 39 35

FDA 72 36 37 34

Governmentwide 51 52 49 Not available

Bonus amount Senior executives who received bonuses

12 3

11 0

10 6

9 5

8 4

7 5

6 2

5 4

Total 29
Page 35 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

NASA uses a five-level system to appraise senior executive performance. 

More than three-fourths of the senior executives received the highest rating 

of “outstanding” for the 2003 performance appraisal cycle (July 2002–June 

2003), as shown in figure 12. The distribution of senior executives across 

the rating levels was similar to the previous performance appraisal cycle. 

Figure 12: Percentage of NASA Senior Executives by Rating Level in the 2003 

Performance Appraisal Cycle

Note: Percentage of senior executives exceeds 100 percent due to rounding.

NASA’s senior executive bonus recommendations are to be based solely on 

exceptional performance as specified and documented in senior 

executives’ performance plans. While NASA established a fixed allocation 

of bonuses for its organizations based on the total number of senior 

executives, an organization can request an increase to its allocation. Sixty 

percent of eligible senior executives within the organization’s bonus 

allocation may be recommended for bonuses larger than 5 percent of base 

pay.

0%

Unsatisfactory

1%

Minimally satisfactory

4%

20%

76%

Highly successful

Outstanding

Fully successful

Source: NASA.
Page 36 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

For the 2003 appraisal cycle, the percentage of senior executives who 

received bonuses increased from the previous year, as shown in table 3. An 

agency official indicated that this increase resulted from a study NASA’s 

PRB conducted on the senior executive bonus system. The PRB reviewed 

NASA’s bonus system in the context of OPM’s data on senior executive 

bonuses across federal agencies and recommended that NASA revise its 

bonus system to move NASA into the upper half of the number and average 

amount of bonuses given across federal agencies. According to the PRB 

study, NASA made this change to meet its management’s need to reward 

more senior executives while recognizing that bonus decisions must be 

based on performance.

Table 3: Percentage of NASA Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses and the 

Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for the 2002 and 2003 Performance 

Appraisal Cycle

Source: NASA.

During NASA’s 2003 appraisal cycle, the Space Shuttle Columbia accident 

happened. We reviewed the aggregate senior executive performance rating 

and bonus data for that cycle; however, we did not analyze individual 

senior executives’ performance appraisals or bonus recommendations or 

determine if those who received ratings of outstanding, bonuses, or both 

were involved with the Columbia mission.

Lastly, senior executive responses to our survey indicated that about half of 

the executives felt NASA was making meaningful distinctions in ratings or 

bonuses to a very great or great extent. Approximately 46 percent of senior 

executives felt that their agency makes meaningful distinctions in 

performance using ratings; approximately 48 percent felt that their agency 

makes meaningful distinctions in performance using bonuses. 

Senior executives who received bonuses

Bonus amount 2002 cycle 2003 cycle

20 6 8

15 6 11

10 6 7

5 22 26

Total 40 52
Page 37 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Education uses a three-level rating system.25 About 98 percent of senior 

executives received the highest rating of “successful” in the 2003 

performance appraisal cycle (July 2002–June 2003), a slight decrease from 

the previous performance appraisal cycle when all senior executives 

received this rating. Education’s senior executive bonus recommendations 

are to be based on senior executives’ demonstrated results and 

accomplishments toward the department’s strategic goals and 

organizational priorities. About 63 percent of senior executives received 

bonuses in the 2003 appraisal cycle, compared to approximately 60 percent 

in the previous appraisal cycle. The majority of the senior executives who 

received bonuses were awarded 5 percent bonuses in the 2003 appraisal 

cycle, as shown in table 4.

Table 4: Percentage of Education Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses and the 

Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for the 2003 Performance Appraisal 

Cycle

Source: Department of Education.

Lastly, senior executive responses to our survey indicated that they did not 

feel Education was making meaningful distinctions in ratings or bonuses to 

a very great or great extent. Specifically, about 10 percent of senior 

executives felt that their agency makes meaningful distinctions in 

performance using ratings; about 33 percent felt that their agency makes 

meaningful distinctions in performance using bonuses. 

25Under Education’s three-level system, senior executives may be rated at “successful,” 

“minimally satisfactory,” and “unsatisfactory.”

Bonus amount Senior executives who received bonuses

20 7

15-19 0

10-14 4

6-9 15

5 37

Total 63
Page 38 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Involve Employees and 

Stakeholders to Gain 

Ownership of Performance 

Management Systems 

High-performing organizations have found that actively involving 

employees and stakeholders when developing or refining results-oriented 

performance management systems helps improve employees’ confidence 

and belief in the fairness of the system and increase their understanding 

and ownership of organizational goals and objectives. Further, to maximize 

the effectiveness of their performance management systems these 

organizations recognize that they must conduct frequent training for staff 

members at all levels of the organization.26

Generally, at Education, HHS, and NASA senior executives became 

involved in refining the performance management system or participated in 

formal training on those systems when provided the opportunities. Of the 

senior executives at each agency who reported that they have been given 

the opportunity to be involved in refining their agency’s performance 

management system to at least a small extent, most of these senior 

executives said they took advantage of this opportunity, as shown in figure 

13. 

26For more information on how to assess agencies’ training and development efforts, see 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training 

and Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: 

March 2004).
Page 39 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 13: Of Those Senior Executives Who Said They Had the Opportunity to Be 

Involved, Percentage Who Said They Have Been Involved in Refining Their Agency’s 

SES Performance Management System 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

The 95 percent confidence interval for the 76 percent of SES at Education ranges from 63 to 87 

percent.

Similarly, while less than three-fourths of the senior executives at each 

agency said formal training on their agency’s performance management 

system is available to them, most of these senior executives said they 

participated in the training, as shown in figure 14.

0

20

10

30

50

70

90

40

60

80

100

Percentage of SES

You have been given the opportunity to be involved in refining your agency's system.

Of those who had the opportunity, you have been involved in refining your agency's 

system.

Education

Source: GAO.

HHS NASA

Agency

43

56

46

76 85

92
Page 40 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 14: Of Those Senior Executives Who Said Formal Training Is Available, 

Percentage Who Said They Have Participated in Formal Training on Their Agency’s 

SES Performance Management System

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

The 95 percent confidence interval for the 83 percent of SES at Education ranges from 73 to 91 

percent. For the question on the availability of training, senior executives in HHS who have served for 

less than 1 year were more likely to respond “no basis to judge/not applicable.” 

At all three agencies, a proportion of senior executives reported that they 

had no opportunity to become involved with or trained on their 

performance management systems. At HHS, about 38 percent of senior 

executives said they did not have the opportunity to be involved in refining 

their agency’s system, while about 24 percent of senior executives said 

formal training on their agency’s system was not available to them, as 

shown in figure 15. 

0

20

10

30

50

70

90

40

60

80

100

Percentage of SES

Formal training on your agency's system is available to you.

Of those who said formal training is available, you have participated in formal 

training on your agency's system.

Education

Source: GAO.

HHS NASA

Agency

63

59

65

83 86 82
Page 41 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 15: Percentage of Senior Executives at HHS Reporting Involvement and 

Training Opportunities by Extent

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to senior executives who responded “no basis to 

judge/not applicable.” For the question on training, senior executives who have served for less than 1 

year were more likely to respond “no basis to judge/not applicable.” 

According to an HHS official, the Office of the Secretary developed the 

One-HHS objectives, the basis of its senior executive performance 

management system, with input from the leadership of all HHS staff offices 

and operating divisions. This official indicated that HHS conducted 

extensive interviews to develop and validate the goals. All career senior 

executives were briefed on the goals and offered training on development 

of outcome-oriented individual performance objectives derived from those 

goals. The agency official said that the operating divisions had the 

0

20

40

60

80

100

38

33

23

24

39

21

Source: GAO.

Percentage of SES

You have been given the opportunity 

to be involved in refining your agency's 

system.

No

Moderate and small

Very great and great

Percentage of SES

Formal training on your agency's system 

is available to you.
Page 42 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

flexibility to involve their senior executives in customizing the new 

individual performance plans for their operating divisions. 

According to HHS’s guidance, the operating divisions are to develop and 

provide training on the performance management system to their senior 

executives on areas such as developing performance plans, conducting 

progress reviews, writing appraisals, and using appraisals as a key factor in 

making other management decisions. For example, according to an FDA 

official, the Human Resources Director briefed all of the senior executive 

directors on how to cascade the FDA Commissioner’s performance plan 

into their fiscal year 2002 individual plans and incorporate the One-HHS 

objectives. FDA does not provide regular training to the senior executives 

on the performance management system; rather the training is provided as 

needed and usually on a one-on-one basis when a new senior executive 

joins FDA. The agency official also stated that because few senior 

executives are joining the agency, regular training on the system is not as 

necessary. 

About half of NASA’s senior executives reported that they did not have the 

opportunity to be involved in refining their agency’s system, while about 21 

percent of senior executives said formal training on their agency’s system 

was not available to them, as shown in figure 16. 
Page 43 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 16: Percentage of Senior Executives at NASA Reporting Involvement and 

Training Opportunities by Extent

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to senior executives who responded “no basis to 

judge/not applicable.” 

According to an agency official, the NASA Administrator worked with the 

top senior executives to develop a common set of senior executive critical 

elements and performance requirements that reflect his priorities and are 

central to ensuring a healthy and effective organization. The Administrator 

then instructed the senior executives to review the common critical 

elements and incorporate them into their individual performance plans. 

When incorporating the elements into their individual plans, the senior 

executives have the opportunity to modify the performance requirements 

for each element to more clearly reflect their roles and responsibilities. 

Source: GAO.

Percentage of SES

You have been given the opportunity 

to be involved in refining your agency's 

system.

No

Moderate and small

Very great and great

Percentage of SES

Formal training on your agency's system 

is available to you.

0

20

40

60

80

100

51

31

13

21

37

28
Page 44 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

According to NASA’s guidance, the centers and offices are to provide 

training and information on the performance management system to their 

senior executives. In addition, an official at NASA said that most centers 

and offices provide training to new senior executives on aspects of the 

performance management system, such as developing individual 

performance plans. Also, NASA provides training courses for all employees 

on specific aspects of performance management, such as writing 

performance appraisals and self-assessments.

Approximately half of Education’s senior executives reported that they did 

not have the opportunity to be involved in refining their agency’s system, 

while about one-fourth of the senior executives reported that formal 

training on their agency’s system was not available to them, as shown in 

figure 17. 
Page 45 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 17: Percentage of Senior Executives at Education Reporting Involvement and 

Training Opportunities by Extent

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to senior executives who responded “no basis to 

judge/not applicable.” 

An official at Education indicated that senior executives have the 

opportunity to comment on changes proposed to the performance 

management system by the Executive Resources Board. In addition, 

according to Education’s guidance, training for all senior executives on the 

performance management system is to be provided periodically. An agency 

official said that Education provided training for all managers, including 

senior executives, on how to conduct performance appraisals and write 

performance expectations near the end of the performance appraisal cycle 

last year. 

Source: GAO.

Percentage of SES

You have been given the opportunity 

to be involved in refining your agency's 

system.

No

Moderate and small

Very great and great

Percentage of SES

Formal training on your agency's system 

is available to you.

0

20

40

60

80

100

49

26

21

26

47

16
Page 46 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Maintain Continuity during 

Transitions 

The experience of successful cultural transformations in large public and 

private organizations suggests that it can often take 5 to 7 years until such 

initiatives are fully implemented and cultures are transformed in a 

substantial manner. We reported that among the key practices consistently 

found at the center of successful transformations is to use the performance 

management system to define responsibility and assure accountability for 

change.27 The average tenure of political leadership can have critical 

implications for the success of those initiatives. Specifically, in the federal 

government the frequent turnover of the political leadership has often 

made it difficult to obtain the sustained and inspired attention required to 

make needed changes. We reported that the average tenure of political 

appointees governmentwide for the period 1990–2001 was just under 3 

years.28

Performance management systems help provide continuity during these 

times of transition by maintaining a consistent focus on a set of broad 

programmatic priorities. Individual performance plans can be used to 

clearly and concisely outline top leadership priorities during a given year 

and thereby serve as a convenient vehicle for new leadership to identify 

and maintain focus on the most pressing issues confronting the 

organization as it transforms. We have observed that a specific 

performance expectation in senior executives’ performance plans to lead 

and facilitate change during transitions could be critical as organizations 

transform themselves to succeed in an environment that is more results 

oriented, less hierarchical, and more integrated.29

While many senior executives at each agency reported that their agency’s 

senior executive performance management system helped to maintain a 

consistent focus on organizational goals during transitions, the majority of 

senior executives felt this occurred to a moderate extent or less, as shown 

in figure 18.

27U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to 

Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: 

July 2, 2003).

28U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital 

Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

29GAO-03-488.
Page 47 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Figure 18: Percentage of Senior Executives Who Felt Their Agency’s SES 

Performance Management System Helped to Maintain a Consistent Focus on 

Organizational Goals during Transitions by Extent

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. 

Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to senior executives who responded “no basis to 

judge/not applicable.” Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year were 

more likely to respond “no basis to judge/not applicable.” This was not an issue for Education since 

fewer senior executives have served less than 1 year. 

According to an agency official, HHS as a whole struggles with transitions 

between secretaries as with each change in leadership comes a change in 

initiatives. Approximately 25 percent of HHS senior executives’ plans 

identified performance expectations related to leading and facilitating 

change in the organization. For example, several senior executives’ plans 

identified actions the executives were going to take in terms of succession 

planning and leadership development for their organizations. Specifically, a 

senior executive in the National Institutes of Health set the expectation to 

develop a workforce plan that supports the future needs of the office, 

Agency

Source: GAO.

Education HHS NASA

Percentage of SES

No

Moderate and small

Very great and great

0

20

40

60

80

100

26

44

21

37

41

10

36

43

11
Page 48 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

including addressing such things as succession and transition planning. 

About 33 percent of senior executives’ plans in FDA and 15 percent in CDC 

identified performance expectations related to leading and facilitating 

change. To help address this issue of continuity in leadership and 

transitions, HHS identified as part of its One-HHS objectives a goal to 

“implement strategic workforce plans that improve recruitment, retention, 

hiring and leadership succession results for mission critical positions.” 

Education requires all senior executives to include a general performance 

expectation in their performance plans related to change: “initiates new 

and better ways of doing things; creates real and positive change.” 

Approximately 98 percent of the senior executives’ plans included this 

expectation. 

Almost none of the NASA senior executives’ performance plans identified 

an expectation related to leading and facilitating change during transitions. 

An agency official indicated that while NASA did not set a specific 

expectation for senior executives to include in their individual 

performance plans, leading and facilitating change is addressed through 

several of the critical elements. For example, for the “Health of NASA” 

critical element, senior executives are to demonstrate actions that 

contribute to safe and successful mission accomplishment and facilitate 

knowledge sharing within and between programs and projects. We have 

reported that NASA recognizes the importance of change management 

through its response to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s 

findings.30 NASA indicated that it would increase its focus on the human 

element of change management and organizational development, among 

other things, to improve the agency’s culture.

Conclusions Senior executives need to lead the way for federal agencies to transform 

their cultures to be more results oriented, customer focused, and 

collaborative in nature to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 

Performance management systems can help manage and direct this 

transformation process. Education, HHS, and NASA have undertaken 

important and valuable efforts, but these agencies need to continue to 

make substantial progress in using their senior executive performance 

management systems to strengthen the linkage between senior executive 

30U.S. General Accounting Office, NASA: Shuttle Fleet’s Safe Return to Flight Is Key to 

Space Station Progress, GAO-04-201T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2003).
Page 49 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

performance and organizational success through the key practices for 

effective performance management. 

Consistent with our findings and OPM’s reviews across the executive 

branch, these agencies must use their career senior executive performance 

management systems as strategic tools. In addition, as the administration is 

about to implement a performance-based pay system for the SES, valid, 

reliable, and transparent performance management systems with 

reasonable safeguards are critical. The experiences and progress of 

Education, HHS, and NASA should prove helpful to those agencies as well 

as provide valuable information to other agencies as they seek to use senior 

executive performance management as a tool to drive internal change and 

achieve external results. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Overall, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education and HHS and the 

Administrator of NASA continue to build their career senior executive 

performance management systems along the nine key practices for 

effective performance management. Specifically, we recommend the 

following.

The Secretary of Education should reinforce these key practices by taking 

the following seven actions: 

• Require senior executives to set specific levels of performance that are 

linked to organizational goals to help them see how they directly 

contribute to organizational goals. 

• Require senior executives to identify in their individual performance 

plans programmatic crosscutting goals that would require collaboration 

to achieve and clearly identify the relevant internal or external 

organizations with which they would collaborate to achieve these goals.

• Provide disaggregated performance information from various sources to 

help facilitate senior executive decision making and progress in 

achieving organizational results, customer satisfaction, and employee 

perspectives.

• Require senior executives to take follow-up actions based on the 

performance information available to them in order to make 

programmatic improvements, and formally recognize executives for 

these actions.
Page 50 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

• Build in additional safeguards when linking pay to performance by 

communicating the overall results of the performance management 

decisions. 

• Make meaningful distinctions in senior executive performance through 

both ratings and bonuses.

• Involve senior executives in future refinements to the performance 

management system and offer training on the system, as appropriate.

The Secretary of HHS should reinforce these key practices by taking the 

following seven actions: 

• Require senior executives to clearly identify in their individual 

performance plans the relevant internal or external organizations with 

which they would collaborate to achieve programmatic crosscutting 

goals. 

• Provide disaggregated performance information from various sources to 

help facilitate senior executive decision making and progress in 

achieving organizational results, customer satisfaction, and employee 

perspectives.

• Require senior executives to take follow-up actions based on the 

performance information available to them in order to make 

programmatic improvements, and formally recognize executives for 

these actions.

• Build in additional safeguards when linking pay to performance by 

communicating the overall results of the performance management 

decisions.

• Make meaningful distinctions in senior executive performance through 

ratings.

• Involve senior executives in future refinements to the performance 

management system and offer training on the system, as appropriate.

• Set specific performance expectations for senior executives related to 

leading and facilitating change management initiatives during ongoing 

transitions throughout the organization that executives should include 

in their individual performance plans. 
Page 51 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

The Administrator of NASA should reinforce these key practices by taking 

the following eight actions: 

• Require senior executives to set specific levels of performance that are 

linked to organizational goals to help them see how they directly 

contribute to organizational goals. 

• Require senior executives to identify in their individual performance 

plans programmatic crosscutting goals that would require collaboration 

to achieve and clearly identify the relevant internal or external 

organizations with which they would collaborate to achieve these goals.

• Provide disaggregated performance information from various sources to 

help facilitate senior executive decision making and progress in 

achieving organizational results, customer satisfaction, and employee 

perspectives.

• Require senior executives to take follow-up actions based on the 

performance information available to them in order to make 

programmatic improvements, and formally recognize executives for 

these actions.

• Build in additional safeguards when linking pay to performance by 

communicating the overall results of the performance management 

decisions.

• Make meaningful distinctions in senior executive performance through 

both ratings and bonuses.

• Involve senior executives in future refinements to the performance 

management system and offer training on the system, as appropriate.

• Set specific performance expectations for senior executives related to 

leading and facilitating change management initiatives during ongoing 

transitions throughout the organization that executives should include 

in their individual performance plans. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Education and HHS 

and the Administrator of NASA for their review and comment. We also 

provided a draft of the report to the Directors of OPM and OMB for their 

information. We received written comments from Education, HHS, and 
Page 52 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

NASA, which are presented in appendixes IV, V, and VI. NASA’s Deputy 

Administrator stated that the draft report is generally positive and that 

NASA concurred with all the recommendations and plans to implement 

them in its next SES appraisal cycle beginning July 1, 2004. HHS’s Acting 

Principal Deputy Inspector General stated that HHS had no comments 

upon review of the draft report. 

In responding to our recommendations, Education’s Assistant Secretary for 

Management and Chief Information Officer stated that Education plans to 

revise its existing senior executive performance management system 

dramatically given OPM’s draft regulations for the new SES pay for 

performance system and described specific actions Education plans to 

take. These actions are generally consistent with our recommendations 

and their successful completion will be important to achieving the intent of 

our recommendations. 

However, Education stated that it does not plan to require the specific 

identification of the internal/external organizations with which the 

executives collaborate, as we recommended. We disagree that Education 

does not need to implement this recommendation. Education is taking 

important steps by requiring senior executives to include a general 

performance expectation related to collaboration and teamwork in their 

individual performance plans, but placing greater emphasis on this 

expectation is especially important for Education. We reported that 

Education will have to help states and school districts meet the goals of 

congressional actions such as the No Child Left Behind Act.31

Consequently, Education should require senior executives to identify the 

crosscutting goals and relevant organizations with which they would 

collaborate to achieve them in order to help reinforce the necessary focus 

on results. 

Lastly, Education stated that it has fully implemented our recommendation 

for providing senior executives disaggregated performance information 

from various sources to help facilitate decision making and progress in 

achieving organizational priorities. We disagree that Education has fully 

implemented this recommendation. While we recognize Education’s two 

sources of agencywide performance information for its senior executives, 

we also reported that only about one-third of the senior executives who 

31U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: 

Department of Education, GAO-03-99 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
Page 53 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

reported that the agency provided performance information felt that the 

performance information was useful for making improvements and 

available when needed to a very great or great extent. Consequently, 

Education should provide all of its senior executives performance 

information from various sources that is disaggregated in a useful format to 

help them track their progress toward achieving organizational results and 

other priorities, such as customer satisfaction and employee perspectives. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

date. At that time, we will provide copies of this report to other interested 

congressional parties, the Secretaries of Education and HHS, the 

Administrator of NASA, and the Directors of OPM and OMB. We will also 

make this report available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or Lisa 

Shames on (202) 512-6806 or at mihmj@gao.gov or shamesl@gao.gov. Other 

contributors are acknowledged in appendix VII.

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues
Page 54 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To meet our objective to assess how well selected agencies are creating 

linkages between senior executive performance and organizational success 

through their performance management systems, we applied the key 

practices we previously identified for effective performance management.1

We focused on agencies’ career Senior Executive Service (SES) members, 

rather than all senior-level officials, because the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) collects data on senior executives across the 

government. In addition, career senior executives are common to all three 

of the selected agencies and typically manage programs and supervise 

staff. 

We selected the Department of Education, the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), and the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) for our review to reflect variations in mission, size, 

organizational structure, and use of their performance management 

systems for career senior executives. Within HHS, we selected two of the 

operating divisions—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—to determine how 

HHS’s SES performance management system cascades down to the 

operating division level. We selected these two operating divisions after 

reviewing HHS’s strategic plan and its operating divisions’ annual 

performance plans to identify two agencies that contributed to the same 

HHS strategic goal(s) through their annual performance goals. We then 

reviewed the SES population data from OPM’s Central Personal Data File 

to verify that the two operating divisions each had a relatively large number 

of senior executives. 

To assess the agencies’ senior executive performance management 

systems, we did the following:

Analyzed Agency 

Documents and Bonus 

and Rating Data, and 

Interviewed Cognizant 

Agency Officials

We collected and analyzed each agency’s senior executive performance 

management system policy manual; personnel policies and memorandums; 

strategic plan and annual performance plan; employee and customer 

satisfaction survey instruments and analyses, as appropriate; and aggregate 

trend data for senior executive performance ratings and bonus 

distributions. In addition, we reviewed OPM’s draft proposed regulations 

prescribing the criteria agencies must meet to obtain certification of their 

1

GAO-03-488.
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 55 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

systems, which OPM provided for review and comment to the heads of 

departments and agencies, including GAO, on April 28, 2004.

We also assessed the reliability of the senior executive performance rating 

and bonus data provided by Education, HHS, NASA, and OPM to ensure 

that the data we used for this report were complete and accurate by 

(1) performing manual and electronic testing of required data elements; 

(2) comparing the data to published OPM data, when applicable; and 

(3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 

determined that the data provided by the agencies and OPM were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We also interviewed the chief human capital officers at Education and HHS 

as well as officials at all three agencies responsible for managing human 

capital; implementing the strategic and annual performance plans; and 

administering agencywide employee and customer satisfaction surveys, as 

appropriate, and other agency officials identified as having a particular 

knowledge about issues related to senior executive performance 

management. In addition, we met with the President of the Senior 

Executives Association to obtain her thoughts on the new SES 

performance-based pay structure and performance management in general.

Assessed a Sample of 

Career SES Individual 

Performance Plans

We assessed a probability sample of SES individual performance plans at 

HHS and NASA and all the SES plans at Education using a data collection 

instrument we prepared in order to identify how senior executives were 

addressing certain practices—aligning individual performance 

expectations with organizational goals, connecting performance 

expectations to crosscutting goals, using competencies, and maintaining 

continuity during transitions—through their individual performance plans. 

To randomly select the plans, we collected a list of all current career senior 

executives as of August/September 2003 from each agency. Since HHS’s 

operating divisions develop their own SES performance plans and 

implement their performance management systems, we drew the sample 

such that it would include each operating division and be representative of 

all of HHS. In addition to the stratified sample for HHS overall, we reviewed 

all senior executives plans at FDA and CDC to ensure that estimates could 

be produced for these operating divisions. For all three agencies, we 

reviewed the individual performance plans most recently collected by the 

human resources offices. We reviewed plans from the performance 
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 56 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

appraisal cycle for HHS covering fiscal year 2003, for Education covering 

July 2002–June 2003, and for NASA covering July 2003–June 2004.

Sample Design We selected and reviewed all senior executives’ individual performance 

plans from Education, a simple random sample from NASA, and a stratified 

sample from HHS. The sample of SES performance plans allowed us to 

estimate characteristics of these plans for each of these three agencies. For 

each agency, the SES population size, number of SES plans in sample, and 

number of plans reviewed are shown in table 5. 

Table 5: Disposition of SES Performance Plan Review, by Agency

Source: GAO.

a

For NASA, 5 of the 86 SES performance plans were not provided by the agency; hence NASA’s 

response rate is 94 percent.

We excluded out of scope cases from our population and sample, which 

included senior executives who had retired or resigned, were not career 

senior executives, or did not have individual performance plans because 

they were either new executives or on detail to another agency. For HHS, 

excluding CDC and FDA, we do not know the number of out of scope SES 

plans in the entire senior executive population; however, there were seven 

out of scope SES plans in our sample of performance plans. For this review, 

we only estimate to the population of in scope SES plans. 

Estimation and Sampling 

Error

All population estimates based on this plan review are for the target 

population defined as SES performance plans for the most recent year 

available from each of the three agencies. For Education, we report actual 

numbers for our review of individual performance plans since we reviewed 

all the plans. For HHS and NASA, we produced estimates to the population 

Agency SES population

Number of plans in 

sample

Number of out of 

scope plans

Number of plans 

reviewed

HHS 334 125 7 118

 - CDC (stratum 1) 20 20 0 20

 - FDA (stratum 2) 40 40 0 40

 - Rest of HHS (stratum 3) 274 65 7 58

Education 59 59 0 59

NASAa 397 86 0 81
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 57 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

of all SES performance plans in those agencies for the relevant year. 

Estimates are produced using appropriate methods for simple random 

sampling for NASA and for stratified random sampling for HHS. For NASA 

and for each stratum for HHS, we formed estimates by weighting the data 

by the ratio of the population size to the number of plans reviewed. For 

NASA, we considered the 81 plans obtained and reviewed to be a 

probability sample. 

The HHS and NASA performance plan samples are subject to sampling 

error. There was no sampling error for the census review of senior 

executives’ performance plans for FDA, CDC, and Education. The effects 

of sampling errors, due to the selection of a sample from a larger 

population, can be expressed as confidence intervals based on statistical 

theory. Sampling errors occur because we use a sample to draw 

conclusions about a larger population. As a result, the sample was only one 

of a large number of samples of performance plans that might have been 

drawn. If different samples had been taken, the results might have been 

different. To recognize the possibility that other samples might have 

yielded other results, we express our confidence in the precision of our 

particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. 

The 95 percent confidence intervals are expected to include the actual 

results for 95 percent of samples of this type. We calculated confidence 

intervals for this sample using methods that are appropriate for the sample 

design used. For HHS estimates in this report, we are 95 percent confident 

that when sampling error is considered, the results we obtained are within 

+9 percentage points of what we would have obtained if we had reviewed 

the plans of the entire study population, unless otherwise noted. For NASA, 

the 95 percent confidence intervals for percentage estimates are no wider 

than +6 percentage points, unless otherwise noted.

Surveyed All Career 

SES at Each Agency 

We administered a Web-based questionnaire to the study population of all 

career senior executives at Education, HHS, and NASA to obtain 

information on their experiences with and perceptions of their 

performance management systems. We collected a list of all career senior 

executives and e-mail addresses from each agency as of August/September 

2003 to identify the respondents for our survey. We structured the 

questionnaire around the key practices we identified for effective 

performance management and included some questions about senior 

executives’ overall perceptions of their performance management systems. 

The questions were nearly identical across the agencies, though some 
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 58 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

introductory language and terminology varied. The complete questionnaire 

and results are shown in appendix II.

Although all senior executives were sampled, in the implementation of the 

survey, we found that some executives were out of scope because they 

retired or resigned, were not career senior executives, or otherwise did not 

respond. Table 6 contains a summary of the survey disposition for the 

surveyed cases at the three agencies.

Table 6: Disposition of SES Survey, by Agency

Source: GAO.

Table 7 summarizes why individuals originally included in the target 

population by each agency were removed from the sample.

Table 7: Number of SES Out of Scope and Reason, by Agency

Source: GAO.

Number of SES Education HHS NASA

SES population 59 329 397

SES out of scope 2 12 4

SES in scope 57 317 393

Survey respondents 41 214 260

In scope respondents 41 213 260

Out of scope respondents 0 1 0

Response rate 72% 67% 66%

Reason out of scope Education HHS NASA

Noncareer SES (e.g., political 

appointee or limited term) 0 1 0

No longer SES 0 2 0

Retired or resigned 2 8 3

Not an SES member (e.g., 

General Schedule position) 0 1 0

On sick leave 0 0 1

Total out of scope 2 12 4
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 59 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

For Education, we surveyed a total of 57 career senior executives and 

received completed questionnaires from 41 senior executives for a 

response rate of 72 percent. For HHS, we surveyed a total of 317 career 

senior executives and received completed questionnaires from 213 senior 

executives for a response rate of 67 percent. For NASA, we surveyed a total 

of 393 career senior executives and received completed questionnaires 

from 260 senior executives for a response rate of 66 percent. 

Estimation and Sampling 

Error

We obtained responses from across Education and from all subentities 

within HHS and NASA and had no reason to expect that the views of 

nonrespondents might be different from the respondents. Consequently, 

our analysis of the survey data treats the respondents as a simple random 

sample of the populations of senior executives at each of the three 

agencies. 

We also reviewed whether senior executives who have served less than 1 

year at an agency tended to respond differently than those with more than 1 

year of experience. We did find some differences on certain questions for 

which individuals who served as senior executives for less than 1 year were 

more likely to answer “no basis to judge/not applicable” and noted these 

differences in the report. The estimated percentage of the senior 

executives responding “no basis to judge/not applicable” to questions 

ranged from 0 to 24 percent. Since this range is relatively wide, we have 

reported “no basis to judge/not applicable” as a separate response category 

for each question in appendix II. 

The particular sample of senior executives (those who responded to the 

survey) we obtained from each agency was only one of a large number of 

such samples of senior executives that we might have obtained. Each of 

these different samples might have produced slightly different results. To 

recognize the possibility that other samples might have yielded other 

results, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular 

sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval. For Education, unless 

otherwise noted, the survey responses have a margin of error within ± 9 

percent with a 95 percent level of confidence. For HHS and NASA, unless 

otherwise noted, the survey responses have a margin of error within ± 4 

percent with a 95 percent level of confidence. 

Nonsampling Error In addition to sampling error, other potential sources of errors associated 

with surveys, such as question misinterpretation, may be present. 
Appendix I

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Page 60 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Nonresponse may also be a source of nonsampling error. We took several 

steps to reduce these other sources of error.

We conducted pretests of the questionnaire both with appropriate senior 

executives in GAO and senior executives in the three agencies surveyed to 

ensure that the questionnaire (1) was clear and unambiguous, (2) did not 

place undue burden on individuals completing it, and (3) was independent 

and unbiased. We pretested a paper copy of the survey with three senior 

executives in GAO who did not work in the human capital area. We then 

had a human resources professional with each agency review the survey 

for agency-specific content and language. We conducted six pretests 

overall with senior executives in the audited agencies—one at Education, 

three at HHS, and two at NASA. The first four were conducted using a 

paper version of the questionnaire and the final two were conducted using 

the Web version.

To increase the response rate for each agency, we sent a reminder e-mail 

about the survey to those senior executives who did not complete the 

survey in the initial time frame and conducted follow-up telephone calls to 

persons who had not completed the survey following the reminder e-mail. 

The HHS and NASA surveys were available from October 22, 2003, through 

January 16, 2004, and the Education survey was available from 

November 3, 2003, through January 16, 2004. 

We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from August 2003 through 

March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 
Page 61 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA ApendxiI

We administered a Web-based questionnaire to the study population of all 

career senior executives at Education, HHS, and NASA to obtain 

information on their experiences with and perceptions of their 

performance management systems.1

 We structured the questionnaire 

around key practices we identified for effective performance management.2

The response rates and margins of error for each agency are as follows.

• For Education, we surveyed a total of 57 career senior executives and 

received completed questionnaires from 41 senior executives for a 

response rate of 72 percent. Unless otherwise noted, the survey 

responses have a margin of error within ± 9 percent with a 95 percent 

level of confidence. 

• For HHS, we surveyed a total of 317 career senior executives and 

received completed questionnaires from 213 senior executives for a 

response rate of 67 percent. Unless otherwise noted, the survey 

responses have a margin of error within ± 4 percent with a 95 percent 

level of confidence. 

• For NASA, we surveyed a total of 393 career senior executives and 

received completed questionnaires from 260 senior executives for a 

response rate of 66 percent. Unless otherwise noted, the survey 

responses have a margin of error within ± 4 percent with a 95 percent 

level of confidence. 

The information below shows the senior executives’ responses for each 

question by agency.3

1

For HHS, when the question refers to “my agency” or “my organization,” we asked senior 

executives to respond regarding their operating divisions within HHS. For the questions on 

performance information, we asked NASA senior executives to respond on the extent that 

NASA or their center formally provides performance information.

2

GAO-03-488.

3

Percentages for each question may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 62 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

1. Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals.

You see a connection between your daily activities and the achievement of organizational goals.

You communicate your performance expectations to the individuals who report to you to help them understand how they can contribute to 

organizational goals.

You see a connection between your daily activities and HHS's priorities.

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 45 43 8 5 0 0

HHS 52 28 15 4 0 1

NASA 64 27 8 2 0 0

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 30 50 10 0 0 10

HHS 36 32 20 10 1 1

NASA 48 42 8 1 0 2

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

HHS 48 35 11 2 0 4
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 63 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

2. Connect performance expectations to crosscutting goals.

You collaborate with others to achieve crosscutting goals.

You identify strategies for collaborating with others to achieve crosscutting goals.

You are recognized through your performance management system for contributing to crosscutting goals.

Education's survey questions:

Do you collaborate with other offices within Education to achieve crosscutting goals?

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 37 39 22 0 0 2

HHS 52 35 9 3 0 1

NASA 53 38 9 1 0 0

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 24 49 24 0 0 2

HHS 42 43 10 3 1 1

NASA 42 44 12 1 0 0

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 32 20 17 20 7 5

HHS 30 27 19 11 6 7

NASA 35 32 20 7 5 1

Yes (percent) No (percent) 

Does not apply 

given my current 

position. (percent)

93 2 5
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 64 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Do you collaborate with other agencies or organizations outside of Education to achieve crosscutting goals?

HHS's survey questions:

Do you collaborate with other operating divisions within HHS to achieve crosscutting goals?

Do you collaborate with other agencies or organizations outside of HHS to achieve crosscutting goals?

NASA's survey questions:

Do you collaborate with other centers within NASA to achieve crosscutting goals?

Do you collaborate with other agencies or organizations outside of NASA to achieve crosscutting goals?

Yes (percent) No (percent) 

Does not apply given 

my current position. 

(percent)

83 12 5

Yes (percent) No (percent) 

Does not apply 

given my current 

position. (percent)

87 5 8

Yes (percent) No (percent) 

Does not apply 

given my current 

position. (percent)

83 7 10

Yes (percent) No (percent) 

Does not apply 

given my current 

position. (percent)

97 2 1

Yes (percent) No (percent) 

Does not apply 

given my current 

position. (percent)

87 8 5
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 65 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

3. Provide and routinely use performance information to track 

organizational priorities.

Your agency formally provides performance information that allows you to track your work unit's performance.

Your agency formally provides performance information that allows you to compare the performance of your work unit to that of other work 

units.

Your agency formally provides performance information that allows you to compare the performance of your work unit to that of your 

agency.

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 15 25 30 18 5 8

HHS 18 24 28 14 11 5

NASA 25 31 27 11 4 3

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 5 13 18 35 18 13

HHS 9 13 16 29 23 10

NASA 6 23 31 20 13 7

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 8 13 20 23 25 13

HHS 9 16 21 22 20 12

NASA 6 20 29 22 16 8
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 66 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Your agency formally provides performance information that is available to you when you need it.

Your agency formally provides performance information that is useful for making improvements in your work unit's performance.

4. Require follow-up actions to address organizational priorities.

You identified areas for improvement based on performance information formally provided by your agency.

You took action on any identified areas of improvement.

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 10 23 15 30 13 10

HHS 13 23 23 17 16 8

NASA 16 30 26 17 8 3

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 10 25 20 20 18 8

HHS 13 20 28 15 18 7

NASA 15 28 27 17 9 5

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 15 21 33 18 5 8

HHS 17 26 22 12 11 13

NASA 19 35 23 9 8 6

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 23 33 23 8 5 8

HHS 25 35 14 6 7 12

NASA 29 45 11 4 4 7
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 67 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

You documented areas for improvement in your individual performance plan.

You are recognized through your performance management system for taking follow-up actions.

5. Use competencies to provide a fuller assessment of performance.

The competencies you demonstrate help you contribute to the organization's goals.

You are recognized through your performance management system for your demonstration of the competencies.

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 21 18 26 8 15 13

HHS 18 25 23 9 13 13

NASA 15 32 24 11 9 9

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 15 18 26 13 18 10

HHS 16 23 23 10 11 18

NASA 15 36 23 10 7 10

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 49 36 10 3 0 3

HHS 68 26 4 1 0 1

NASA 62 30 6 1 0 0

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 28 26 18 18 3 8

HHS 31 31 20 9 3 6

NASA 36 36 16 7 3 2
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 68 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

6. Link pay to individual and organizational performance.

I am rewarded for accomplishing the performance expectations identified in my individual performance plan.

I am rewarded for helping my agency accomplish its goals.

You understand the criteria used to award bonuses (e.g., cash awards).

You understand the criteria used to award pay level adjustments (e.g., an increase from SES level 1 to level 2).

Strongly agree 

(percent) 

Agree 

(percent) 

Neither agree 

or disagree 

(percent) 

Disagree 

(percent) 

Strongly 

disagree 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 28 28 15 13 8 8

HHS 27 32 14 12 10 6

NASA 38 30 12 8 7 5

Strongly agree 

(percent) 

Agree 

(percent) 

Neither agree 

or disagree 

(percent) 

Disagree 

(percent) 

Strongly 

disagree 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 23 31 21 13 8 5

HHS 28 32 13 13 8 7

NASA 40 31 11 7 6 5

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 18 26 21 15 21 0

HHS 19 28 21 17 13 2

NASA 15 29 20 23 12 2

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 18 24 11 16 29 3

HHS 17 22 23 16 19 3

NASA 14 23 27 19 15 2
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 69 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Pay level adjustments are dependent on an individual's contribution to the organization's goals.

Bonuses are dependent on an individual's contribution to the organization's goals.

7. Make meaningful distinctions in performance.

Your agency's SES performance management system uses performance ratings to make meaningful distinctions between acceptable and

outstanding performers.

Your agency's SES performance management system uses bonuses to make meaningful distinctions between acceptable and 

outstanding performers.

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 8 18 21 13 15 26

HHS 15 25 26 13 8 14

NASA 16 34 18 15 6 11

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 5 26 15 21 13 21

HHS 18 31 18 13 6 14

NASA 26 28 20 13 4 9

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 0 10 26 31 18 15

HHS 6 25 25 10 15 19

NASA 14 32 30 11 3 10

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 10 23 10 21 15 21

HHS 11 27 22 11 7 23

NASA 19 29 20 14 4 15
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 70 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Your agency uses performance information and documentation to make distinctions in senior executive performance.

Your agency provides candid and constructive feedback that allows you to maximize your contribution to organizational goals.

8. Involve employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of performance 

management systems.

You have been given the opportunity to be involved in refining your agency's SES performance management system.

You have been involved in refining your agency's SES performance management system.

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 3 21 13 23 15 26

HHS 8 26 24 12 5 25

NASA 14 33 21 13 3 15

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 5 18 18 28 23 8

HHS 10 26 28 13 17 6

NASA 18 27 27 15 10 3

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 8 13 10 15 49 5

HHS 10 13 20 13 38 5

NASA 6 7 15 15 51 6

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 8 11 5 11 61 5

HHS 9 13 17 14 43 5

NASA 5 5 13 14 58 5
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 71 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Formal training on your agency's SES performance management system is available to you.

You have participated in formal training on your agency's SES performance management system.

Your overall involvement in the SES performance management system has increased your understanding of it.

9. Overall perceptions of the SES performance management system.

Your agency's SES performance management system is used as a tool to manage the organization.

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 5 11 26 21 26 11

HHS 8 12 25 14 24 17

NASA 7 21 24 13 21 14

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 8 8 16 22 41 5

HHS 8 7 23 16 42 4

NASA 4 11 22 17 43 2

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 10 13 13 26 28 10

HHS 11 16 21 16 21 15

NASA 8 19 27 16 17 13

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 3 23 13 31 18 13

HHS 6 23 35 15 8 12

NASA 9 24 33 19 8 7
Appendix II

GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from 

Education, HHS, and NASA

Page 72 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Your agency's SES performance management system is used in achieving organizational goals.

Your agency's SES performance management system holds you accountable for your contributions to organizational results.

Your agency's SES performance management system facilitates discussions about your performance as it relates to organizational goals 

during the year.

Your agency's SES performance management system helps to maintain a consistent focus on organizational goals during transitions, such 

as changes in leadership (at any level) and change management initiatives.

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 8 21 21 31 10 10

HHS 9 27 32 11 7 12

NASA 13 33 28 13 7 5

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 16 26 21 24 8 5

HHS 22 27 27 12 3 8

NASA 20 39 22 10 6 4

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 10 26 18 18 21 8

HHS 12 27 26 20 8 8

NASA 18 31 22 15 10 5

To a very 

great extent 

(percent) 

To a great 

extent 

(percent) 

To a moderate 

extent 

(percent) 

To a small 

extent 

(percent) 

To no extent 

(percent) 

No basis to 

judge / Not 

applicable 

(percent)

EDUCATION 10 15 26 18 21 10

HHS 10 28 24 17 10 12

NASA 13 24 24 20 11 9
Page 73 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems ApendxiI

Education

Defining SES Performance 

Expectations

Education required all of its senior executives to include three critical 

elements in their individual performance plans for the 2003 performance 

appraisal cycle (July 2002–June 2003). The critical elements and examples 

of the related individual and organizational performance requirements 

include the following. 

• Leadership, management, and coaching: Takes leadership in 

promoting and implementing the department’s mission, values, and 

goals; develops and communicates a clear, simple, customer-focused 

vision/direction for the organization and customers that is consistent 

with the department’s mission and strategic goals; fosters improved 

workforce productivity and effective development and recognition of 

employees; and promotes collaboration and teamwork, including 

effective union-management relations, where appropriate. 

• Work quality, productivity, and customer service: Produces or 

assures quality products that are useful and succinct, that identify and 

address problems or issues, and that reflect appropriate analysis, 

research, preparation, and sensitivity to department priorities and 

customer needs; anticipates and responds to customer needs in a 

professional, effective, and timely manner; initiates new and better ways 

of doing things; and creates real and positive change. 

• Job specifics: Senior executives are to include performance 

expectations that are applicable to their individual positions and 

support their principal offices’ goals as well as the department’s 

strategic goals and priorities, including the President’s Management 

Agenda, the Blueprint for Management Excellence, and the Culture of 

Accountability. 

Appraising Performance Education sets guidelines for its offices to follow in appraising 

performance and recommending senior executives for bonuses. The senior 

executive performance appraisals are to be based on demonstrated results 

related to Education’s goals and priorities, including the President’s 

Management Agenda, the Blueprint for Management Excellence, the 

Culture of Accountability, and the Secretary’s strategic plan. In addition, 
Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems

Page 74 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

the senior executive’s appraisal is to be based on both individual and 

organizational performance, taking into account

• results achieved in accordance with the department’s strategic plan and 

goals, which are developed in accordance with the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA); 

• customer satisfaction; 

• employee perspectives; 

• the effectiveness, productivity, and performance quality of the 

employees for whom the senior executive is responsible; and

• equal employment opportunity and diversity and complying with merit 

systems principles. 

In addition, the responses of the customers, coworkers, and employees 

through the automated performance feedback process are to be considered 

in determining the senior executive’s performance rating.

Senior executives must receive a performance rating of “successful” to be 

eligible for a bonus. Bonus recommendations are to be based on the senior 

executive’s demonstrated results and accomplishments toward the 

department’s strategic goals and organizational priorities. 

Accomplishments should demonstrate how Education’s achievements 

could not have been possible without the senior executive’s leadership and 

contribution. 

HHS 

Defining SES Performance 

Expectations

HHS required its senior executives to set measurable, specific performance 

expectations in their fiscal year 2003 individual performance plans (or 

performance contracts) that align with HHS’s strategic goals, the “OneHHS” management and program objectives, and their operating divisions’ 

annual performance goals. According to agency officials, senior executives 

are to choose the One-HHS objectives and strategic and annual 

performance goals that relate to their job responsibilities, and tailor their 
Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems

Page 75 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

individual performance expectations to reflect these responsibilities in 

their performance plans. 

The One-HHS objectives, which reflect the program and management 

priorities of the Secretary, include the following.

Management objectives: The purpose of the objectives is to better 

integrate HHS management functions to ensure coordinated, seamless, and 

results-oriented management across all operating and staff divisions of the 

department.

1. Implement results-oriented management.

2. Implement strategic human capital management.

3. Improve grants management operation and oversight.

4. Complete the fiscal year 2003 competitive sourcing program.

5. Improve information technology management.

6. Administrative efficiencies.

7. Continue implementation of unified financial management system. 

8. Consolidate management functions.

9. Achieve efficiencies through HHS-wide procurements.

10. Conduct program evaluations and implement corrective strategies for 

any deficiencies identified.

Program objectives: The purpose of the objectives is to enhance the 

health and well-being of Americans by providing for effective health and 

human services and by fostering strong, sustained advances in the sciences 

underlying medicine, public health, and social services.

1. Increase access to health care (Closing the Gaps in Health Care).

2. Expand consumer choices in health care and human services.
Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems

Page 76 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

3. Emphasize preventive health measures (Preventing Disease and 

Illness).

4. Prepare for and effectively respond to bioterrorism and other public 

health emergencies (Protecting Our Homeland).

5. Improve health outcomes (Preventing Disease and Illness).

6. Improve the quality of health care (21st Century Health Care).

7. Advance science and medical research (Improving Health Science).

8. Improve the well-being and safety of families and individuals, especially 

vulnerable populations (Leaving No Child Behind).

9. Strengthen American families (Working Toward Independence).

10. Reduce regulatory burden on providers, patients, and consumers of 

HHS’s services.

In addition to the annual performance goals, operating divisions may have 

their senior executives include specific individual performance 

expectations in their performance plans. According to an agency official, 

the senior executives in FDA have set expectations in their plans that are 

relevant to the work in their centers. For example, the senior executives 

who work on issues related to mad cow disease in the Center for Veterinary 

Medicine have included goals related to this type of work in their individual 

performance plans. 

Appraising Performance HHS sets general guidance for operating divisions to follow when 

appraising senior executive performance and recommending senior 

executives for bonuses and other performance awards, such as the 

Presidential Rank Awards. Overall, a senior executive’s performance is to 

be appraised at least annually based on a comparison of actual 

performance with expectations in the individual performance plan. The 

operating divisions are to appraise senior executive performance taking 

into account such factors as 

• measurable results achieved in accordance with the goals of GPRA;

• customer satisfaction; 
Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems

Page 77 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

• employee perspectives; 

• the effectiveness, productivity, and performance quality of the 

employees for whom the executive is responsible; and 

• meeting affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, and diversity 

goals and complying with the merit systems principles. 

In recommending senior executives for bonuses, operating divisions are to 

consider each senior executive’s performance, including the rating and the 

extent of the executive’s contributions to meeting organizational goals. 

Senior executives who receive ratings of “fully successful” are eligible to be 

considered for bonuses. For fiscal year 2003, bonuses generally were to be 

recommended for no more than one-third of the operating division’s senior 

executives and awarded to only the exceptional performers. Operating 

divisions were to consider nominating only one or two of their very highest 

contributors for the governmentwide Presidential Rank Awards. The 

greatest consideration for bonuses and Presidential Rank Awards was to be 

given to executives in frontline management positions, with direct 

responsibility for HHS’s programs. 

NASA 

Defining SES Performance 

Expectations

NASA requires its senior executives to include seven critical elements, 

which reflect the Administrator’s priorities and NASA’s core values of 

safety, people, excellence, and integrity, in their individual performance 

plans for the 2004 performance appraisal cycle (July 2003–June 2004). 

Senior executives may modify the related performance requirements by 

making them more specific to their jobs. These seven critical elements and 

the related performance requirements are as follows. 

• The President’s Management Agenda: Understands the principles of 

the President’s Management Agenda and actively applies them; assures 

maximum organizational efficiency, is customer focused, and 

incorporates presidential priorities in budget and performance plans; 

capitalizes on opportunities to integrate human capital issues in 

planning and performance and expand electronic government and 

competitive sourcing; and pursues other opportunities to reduce costs 

and improve service to customers. 
Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems

Page 78 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

• Performance requirement: Applicable provisions of the agency 

human capital plan are implemented; financial reports are timely and 

accurate; clear measurable programmatic goals and outcomes are 

linked to the agency strategic plan and the GPRA performance plan; 

and human capital, e-government, and competitive sourcing goals are 

achieved. 

• Health of NASA: Actions contribute to safe and successful mission 

accomplishment and/or strengthen infrastructure of support functions; 

increases efficient and effective management of the agency; facilitates 

knowledge sharing within and between programs and projects; and 

displays unquestioned personal integrity and commitment to safety.

• Performance requirement: Demonstrates that safety is the 

organization’s number one value; actively participates in safety and 

health activities, supports the zero lost-time injury goals, and takes 

action to improve workforce health and safety; meets or exceeds 

cost and schedule milestones and develops creative mechanisms 

and/or capitalizes on opportunities to facilitate knowledge sharing; 

and achieves maximum organizational efficiency through effective 

resource utilization and management.

• Equal opportunity (EO) and diversity: Demonstrates a commitment 

to EO and diversity by proactively implementing programs that 

positively impact the workplace and NASA’s external stakeholders and 

through voluntary compliance with EO laws, regulations, policies, and 

practices; this includes such actions as ensuring EO in hiring by 

providing, if needed, reasonable accommodation(s) to an otherwise 

qualified individual with a disability or ensuring EO without regard to 

race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or religion in all 

personnel decisions and in the award of grants or other federal funds to 

stakeholder recipients.

• Performance requirement: Actively supports EO/diversity efforts; 

consistently follows applicable EO laws, regulations, Executive 

Orders, and administration and NASA policies, and the principles 

thereof, in decision making with regard to employment actions and 

the award of federal grants and funds; cooperates with and provides 

a timely and complete response to NASA’s Discrimination Complaints 

Division, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and 

the courts during the investigation, resolution, and/or litigation of 
Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems

Page 79 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

allegations of illegal discrimination under applicable EO laws and 

regulations.

• Collaboration: Integrates One-NASA approach to problem solving, 

program/project management, and decision making; leads by example 

by reaching out to other organizations and NASA centers to collaborate 

on work products; seeks input and expertise from a broad spectrum; 

and demonstrates possession of organizational and interpersonal skills.

• Performance requirement: Provides the appropriate level of highquality support to peers and other organizations to enable the 

achievement of the NASA mission; results demonstrate support of 

One-NASA and that stakeholder and customer issues were taken into 

account.

• Professional development: Has a breadth of experience in different 

organizations, agencies, functional areas, and/or geographic locations; 

demonstrates continual learning in functional and leadership areas, for 

example, through advanced education/training or participating in 

seminars; encourages and supports development and training of 

assigned staff; and where feasible, seeks, accepts, and encourages 

opportunities for developmental assignments in other functional areas 

and elsewhere in NASA, with a focus on broadening agencywide 

perspective.

• Performance requirement: Participates in training/learning 

experiences appropriate to position responsibilities and to broaden 

agencywide perspective and actively plans for and supports the 

participation of subordinate staff in training and development 

activities.

• Meets program objectives: Meets and advances established agency 

program objectives and achieves high-quality results; demonstrates the 

ability to follow through on commitments; and individual fits into longterm human capital strategy and could be expected to make future 

contributions at a higher level or in a different capacity at the same 

level.

• Performance requirement: Meets appropriate GPRA/NASA strategic 

plan goals and objectives; customers recognize results for their highquality and responsiveness to requirements/agreements.
Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems

Page 80 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

• Implements a fair and equitable performance-based system 

within organizational component (applicable only for 

supervisory positions): Implements/utilizes a fair, equitable, and 

merit/performance-based process/system for the evaluation of 

individuals for bonuses, promotions, career advancements, and general 

recognition.

• Performance requirement: System reflects the key leadership, 

teamwork, and professional excellence on which decisions are 

based; results have credibility with supervisors, subordinates, and 

peers.

Appraising Performance NASA provides guidance for the centers and offices to follow in appraising 

senior executive performance and recommending executives for bonuses 

or other performance awards, such as Presidential Rank Awards or 

incentive awards. The senior executive’s performance appraisal is to focus 

on results toward the performance requirements specified in the individual 

performance plan, specifically the achievements that address the agency’s 

goals rather than the quality of effort expended. In addition, senior 

executive appraisals are to be based on individual and organizational 

performance, taking into account such factors as 

• results achieved in accordance with the goals of GPRA; 

• the effectiveness, productivity, and performance of assigned employees;

• meeting safety and diversity goals;

• complying with merit system principles;

• customer perspective focusing on customer needs, expectations, and 

satisfaction;

• employee perspective focusing on employee needs, such as training, 

internal processes, and tools to successfully and efficiently accomplish 

their tasks; and 

• business perspective focusing on outcomes and the social/political 

impacts that define the role of the agency and the business processes 

needed for organizational efficiency and effectiveness. 
Appendix III

Selected Elements of Education’s, HHS’s, and 

NASA’s SES Performance Management 

Systems

Page 81 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

In considering customer, employee, and other stakeholder perspectives for 

senior executive appraisals, rating officials may use formal mechanisms, 

such as surveys, or less formal mechanisms, such as unsolicited customer 

and employee feedback, and analysis of personnel data, such as turnover 

rates, diversity reports, grievances, and workforce awards and recognition. 

All senior executives with annual summary ratings of “fully successful” or 

higher are eligible to be considered for bonuses. Bonus recommendations 

are to be based solely on exceptional performance as specified and 

documented in the senior executive’s performance plan. 
Page 82 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Education ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of 

Education

Page 83 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of 

Education

Page 84 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management
Page 85 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services ApendxiV
Page 86 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Appendix VI

Comments from the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration ApendxiVI
Appendix VI

Comments from the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration

Page 87 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management
Appendix VI

Comments from the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration

Page 88 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management
Page 89 GAO-04-614 SES Performance Management

Appendix VII

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contacts J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov

Lisa Shames, (202) 512-6806 or shamesl@gao.gov

Acknowledgments In addition to the individuals named above, Janice Lichty Latimer, Erik 

Hallgren, Ronald La Due Lake, Mark Ramage, Nyree M. Ryder, and Jerry 

Sandau made key contributions to this report.

(450230)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

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

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00