GAO-12-990R Human Capital

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 19, 2012

Congressional Committees

Subject: Human Capital: Complete Information and More Analyses Needed to Enhance DOD’s 

Civilian Senior Leader Strategic Workforce Plan

The ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to achieve its mission and carry out its 

responsibilities depends in large part on whether it can sustain a civilian senior leader workforce 

that possesses necessary skills and competencies. Managing civilian senior leaders effectively is 

imperative, especially in light of DOD’s plans to reduce at least 150 civilian senior leader positions, 

the department’s current cap on civilian personnel numbers, and the existing pay freeze.1

 Further, 

as DOD faces fiscal constraints, implements its efficiency initiatives, and prepares for an 

anticipated drawdown in Afghanistan, the department is faced with the complex task of re-shaping 

its workforce to meet future needs. This includes assessing the requirements for approximately 

2,900 civilian senior leaders who help manage DOD’s overall civilian workforce of more than 

780,000 personnel. In managing these senior leaders, the department must ensure that they are 

sufficient in number and properly prepared to achieve DOD’s mission. One particular challenge, 

noted in DOD’s 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan, is that more than 60 percent of DOD’s civilian 

senior leader workforce will be eligible to retire by 2015.2

 

Accordingly, section 115b Title 10 of the United States Code, enacted in October 2009, requires 

DOD to submit to congressional defense committees, on a recurring basis,3

• the critical skills and competencies

a strategic workforce 

plan to shape and improve its civilian senior leader workforces. While this law does not specify a 

date for DOD to submit the plan, it does stipulate several requirements for the plan. These include

an assessment of

4

 

1 DOD froze the number of full time equivalent civilian employees for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 at fiscal year 2010 

budgeted levels, subject to certain exceptions. Additionally, in December 2010 Congress enacted legislation to prohibit 

statutory pay adjustments for most federal civilian employees that would otherwise take effect in calendar years 2011 

and 2012.

of the existing workforce of the department and 

projected trends in that workforce based on expected losses due to retirement and other 

attrition, and 

2 Department of Defense, Strategic Workforce Plan 2010-2018 (Mar. 27, 2012). In its 2009 strategic workforce plan, DOD 

reported that over 80 percent of its civilian senior leaders would be eligible to retire by 2018.

3 Previously, section 115b required DOD to report annually. In December of 2011, section 115b was amended to require 

this report on a biennial basis rather than an annual basis, among other changes. See National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 935 (2011).

4 While Title 10 does not define competencies in this context, DOD Instruction 1430.16, Growing Civilian Senior Leaders

(Nov. 19, 2009), states that a competency is an observable, measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, 

and other characteristics that an individual needs to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully.
Page 2 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

• gaps in the existing or projected workforce of the department that should be addressed to 

ensure that the department has continued access to the critical skills and competencies it 

needs. 

DOD’s mandate previously required that the department’s assessments cover a 7-year period 

following the year in which the plan is submitted to Congress.5

 Therefore, DOD’s latest civilian 

senior leader workforce plan covered the period 2010-2018.

Following the enactment of this legislation, the Secretary of Defense, in August 2010, announced 

an efficiency initiative to eliminate unnecessary overhead costs by, among other things, reviewing 

DOD’s entire senior leader workforce and reducing the total number of civilian senior leader 

positions by at least 150.6

 The Secretary’s guidance called for these reductions to take place in 

fiscal years 2011 and 2012. After the Secretary’s announcement, DOD’s Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness created the Civilian Senior Executive Study 

Group, and directed the group to conduct a DOD-wide survey of the number, placement, skills, and 

competencies of civilian senior leader positions and to provide recommendations for restructuring 

civilian senior leader positions to best align with missions and responsibilities. The Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness also directed the group to consider how 

to inform follow-on efforts to further analyze civilian senior leader appointment, management, and 

renewal policies. The Civilian Senior Executive Study Group, which consisted of Senior Executive 

Service and General Schedule-15 representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

each of the military departments, the Joint Staff, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Intelligence, issued its final report to the Secretary on November 23, 2010.7

 The Secretary of 

Defense announced his decisions based on recommendations developed as part of the efficiency 

initiative, including recommendations made in this report on March 14, 2011.8

Subsequently, on March 27, 2012, DOD issued its 2010-2018 Strategic Workforce Plan, and GAO, 

as mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, 9 is required to report 

on that plan within 180 days of its submission to Congress.10 For this report on DOD’s 2010-2018

plan we (1) reviewed DOD’s approach for determining its civilian senior leader projections to meet 

future requirements and (2) evaluated the extent to which DOD’s assessment of the critical skills, 

competencies, and gaps in the existing and future civilian senior leader workforces identified areas 

that will require increased focus to help the department meet its vital missions.

 

5 Section 935 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 amended this requirement to a 5-year 

period, which corresponds to the current Future-Years Defense Program. Prior to 2009, section 1122 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163 (2006), which contained the original legislative 

requirement for DOD to develop a strategic workforce plan, required DOD’s assessments to cover a 10-year period.

 

6 DOD Memorandum, Department of Defense Efficiency Initiatives (Aug. 16, 2010). 

7 DOD, CSE Study Group Findings and Recommendations (Nov. 23, 2010). 

8 DOD, Track Four Efficiency Initiatives Decisions (Mar. 14, 2011). 

9 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 1108 (2009) also requires GAO to 

report on DOD’s overall civilian strategic workforce plan. This GAO report is scheduled to be issued in late September, 

2012. DOD’s 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan for its civilian senior leaders is actually an appendix to DOD’s overall 

Strategic Workforce Plan for Fiscal Years 2010-2018. As such, its late submission was due to the late submission of 

DOD’s entire Strategic Workforce Plan for Fiscal Years 2010-2018.

10 For GAO’s prior work on DOD’s strategic human capital planning efforts see Human Capital: Further Actions Needed 

to Enhance DOD’s Civilian Strategic Workforce Plan, GAO-10-814R (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2010); Human Capital: 

Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to Strengthen DOD’s Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan, GAO-09-

235 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2009); and Human Capital: The Department of Defense’s Civilian Human Capital 

Strategic Plan Does Not Meet Most Statutory Requirements, GAO-08-439R (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6, 2008).
Page 3 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

For both objectives, we reviewed and analyzed documents related to DOD’s efforts to assess 

civilian senior leader workforce requirements, including the 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan, 

and our previous work on DOD’s workforce planning. For our first objective, to review DOD’s 

approach for determining its civilian senior leader projections to meet future requirements, we 

analyzed DOD’s report on its civilian senior leader efficiency initiative and internal briefings on the 

methodology, findings, and recommendations resulting from this initiative. We also reviewed the 

response from the Secretary of Defense. In addition, we interviewed DOD officials responsible for 

developing the civilian senior leader plan and the report on the efficiency initiative. These included 

officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the military departments. For our second 

objective, to evaluate the extent to which DOD’s assessment of the critical skills, competencies, 

and gaps in the existing and future civilian senior leader workforces identified areas that will require 

increased focus to help the department meet its vital missions, we interviewed officials responsible 

for managing DOD’s civilian senior leader workforces and for identifying critical skills, 

competencies, and gaps in these workforces. These included officials from the Defense Civilian 

Personnel Advisory Service within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness and the Office of the Director of Administration and Management.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to September 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more 

information about our scope and methodology, see enclosure I.11

Results in Brief

DOD’s approach for determining its civilian senior leader workforce projections to meet future 

requirements incorporated the results of two separate assessments. In its 2010-2018 strategic 

workforce plan, DOD presented data that projected reductions of 178 civilian senior leader 

positions within its five career civilian senior leader workforces during fiscal years 2011 and 2012.12

 

11 We began this engagement in July 2011, when DOD provided us with a draft of its 2010 Strategic Workforce Plan and 

indicated that the final version would be issued soon thereafter. We suspended this work when we did not receive the 

final plan and resumed our review when DOD submitted its final Strategic Workforce Plan to Congress on March 27, 

2012. 

 

To conduct its assessment for the strategic workforce plan, DOD used a computer modeling 

system that is managed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and used by several 

agencies across the federal government. The system models significant career events, such as 

promotions, reassignments, and retirements, to produce projections. During this same time period, 

DOD also completed an efficiency initiative at the direction of the Secretary of Defense to, among 

other things, ensure that DOD’s senior leader workforce is properly sized and aligned with DOD’s 

mission and priorities. For its efficiency initiative, the department devised an internal DOD 

methodology in which it rank ordered positions in terms of higher and lower priority in order to 

identify reductions. This assessment identified a reduction of 178 civilian senior leader positions 

within DOD’s civilian senior leader workforce for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. From the plan, it is 

not clear how these two efforts fit together, or how DOD drew from the strengths of each analysis. 

DOD officials explained to us, however, that they incorporated the results of the efficiency initiative 

into the strategic workforce plan when they issued that plan, so that the projections of the 

workforce plan and the results of the efficiency initiative would be consistent.

12 DOD’s strategic workforce plan projected a net reduction of 117 positions over the longer term from fiscal year 2010 to 

fiscal year 2018.
Page 4 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

DOD assessments of the critical skills, competencies, and gaps of its career civilian senior leader 

workforces did not identify areas that will require increased focus to help the department meet its 

vital missions. Most of DOD’s civilian senior leader workforce can be categorized into five separate 

workforces, and our review found that DOD conducted assessments of skills, competencies, and 

gaps for two of them—the Senior Executive Service and Defense Intelligence Senior Executive 

Service workforces. However, the department did not include the results of either assessment in 

its 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan and only discussed the processes it used for conducting the

assessment of its Senior Executive Service workforce. Further, DOD did not conduct assessments 

of skills, competencies, and gaps for the remaining three career civilian senior leader workforces—

its Senior Level, Senior Technical, and Defense Intelligence Senior Level workforces. Officials told 

us that they did not assess these three workforces because the skills and competencies of these 

workforces are position-specific. However, section 115b of Title 10 of the United States Code 

requires that DOD conduct assessments of the skills, competencies, and gaps within all its senior 

leader workforces. Without conducting such assessments and reporting on them, it is difficult to 

identify those areas that will require increased focus on recruiting, retention, and training. 

Therefore, we are recommending that DOD conduct assessments of the skills, competencies, and 

gaps within all five of its career senior leader workforces and report the results in its future strategic 

workforce plans. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD’s 

comments are reprinted in enclosure II.

Background 

To operate and oversee nearly every activity in its department, DOD relies primarily on five career 

civilian senior leader workforces.13

• Senior Executive Service workforce.

 These include the: 

• Senior Level workforce. These officials fill positions that require less than 25 percent of their 

time to be spent on supervisory or related managerial responsibilities; 

Most of the department relies on these officials to fill 

positions with managerial, supervisory, or policy advisory responsibilities;

• Senior Technical workforce.14

• Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service workforce. These officials fill positions with 

managerial, supervisory, or policy advisory responsibilities in the intelligence community that 

falls within DOD; and the

These officials perform high-level research and development in 

the physical, biological, medical, and engineering science fields; 

• Defense Intelligence Senior Level workforce. These officials fill senior positions within DOD’s 

intelligence community that require less than 25 percent of the time to be spent on managerial 

or supervisory responsibilities. 

The total number of Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, and Senior Technical positions is 

allocated to the department by OPM, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Every 2 years, in accordance with statutory guidelines, OPM, in consultation with OMB,

allocates Senior Executive Service positions to federal departments and agencies across the 

 

13 This report does not cover limited term or temporary appointment DOD civilian senior leaders to include: (1) limited 

term or temporary appointments within the Senior Executive Service; (2) certain temporary appointment of highly 

qualified experts; and (3) certain temporary appointments of scientists and engineers. Due to the limited term 

appointment of these civilian senior leader categories we did not include them in the scope of our work.

14 For the purposes of this report, Senior Technical workforce is used when referring to DOD’s senior 

scientific/professional workforces.
Page 5 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

executive branch. This biennial allocation process provides OPM and OMB the opportunity to 

review organizational missions, plans, and structures and assess whether executive resources are 

being used in the most efficient manner. To facilitate strategic management of the federal 

government’s total executive resources pool, OPM uses this same process to allocate positions in 

the Senior Level and Senior Technical workforces.

In contrast, since the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service in fiscal 

year 1997, Congress has set the total number of positions in the Defense Intelligence Senior 

Executive Service by statute.15 The number of Defense Intelligence Senior Level positions is set as 

a percentage of the intelligence community’s total civilian personnel workforce.16 The defense 

intelligence community does not have a “Defense Intelligence Senior Technical” or equivalent 

workforce.

Prior reports by GAO17

21

have shown that successful public and private organizations use strategic 

management approaches to prepare their workforces to meet present and future mission 

requirements. Strategic human capital management—which includes workforce planning—helps 

ensure that agencies have the talent and skill mix they need to address their current and emerging 

human capital challenges. Since 2001, we have listed federal human capital management as a 

governmentwide high-risk area because of the federal government’s long-standing lack of a 

consistent approach to human capital management, and, in 2009, we stated that ample 

opportunities remained for improving strategic human capital management to respond to 

st century challenges.18 Today, while agencies and Congress have taken steps to address the 

federal government’s human capital shortfalls, strategic human capital management remains a 

high-risk area because of the continuing need for a governmentwide framework to advance human 

capital reform. Specifically, in our 2011 High-Risk Series report,

19 we identified the need to conduct 

gap analysis of critical skills as a significant challenge within the federal government.

DOD’s Approach for Determining its Civilian Senior Leader Projections to Meet Future 

Requirements Incorporated the Results of Two Different Assessments 

Section 115b of Title 10 of the United States Code requires DOD to include in its strategic 

workforce plan a plan of action to address, among other things, an assessment of any changes in 

the number of personnel authorized in certain categories of personnel that may be needed to 

address gaps and effectively meet the needs of the department. DOD’s 2010-2018 strategic 

workforce plan included the results of two separate assessments—for both the 2010-2018 strategic 

workforce plan and DOD’s efficiency initiative—of projected changes in the number of personnel 

for each category of DOD’s civilian senior leader workforces. 

 

15 The maximum number of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service positions is established by 10 U.S.C. § 

1606(a). 

16 According to a January 7, 2009, memorandum signed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the defense 

intelligence components are authorized to establish up to 1.35 percent of their authorized civilian end strength as 

Defense Intelligence Senior Level positions. Office of the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Defense Intelligence 

Senior Level Staffing as a Percentage of Authorized Civilian End Strength (Jan. 7, 2009).

17 See GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: 

Dec. 11, 2003) and High Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 

2003).

18 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-09-271 (Washington, D.C.: January, 2009).

19 GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February, 2011).
Page 6 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

DOD included in its 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan projected requirements for its civilian 

senior leader workforces for fiscal years 2010-2018. According to DOD’s plan, the department

conducted its assessment of projected requirements for its civilian senior leader workforces in early 

2011 using 2010 data. DOD used OPM’s Workforce Analysis Support System and Civilian 

Forecasting System to develop its workforce projections. The Workforce Analysis Support System 

is a computer modeling system that evaluates workforce trends and can perform simple to complex 

analyses from counts and averages to trend analyses, using such characteristics as employee 

age, retirement plan participation, and historical retirement data. The Civilian Forecasting System 

is a life cycle modeling and projection tool developed by OPM in conjunction with 19 federal 

agencies, including DOD. The system models significant career events, including personnel 

actions such as promotions, reassignments, and retirements. The Civilian Forecasting System was 

adapted for civilian use in 1987 from an Army military forecasting model, and uses data from 

DOD’s Defense Civilian Personnel Data System.20 Officials can use a default projection model or 

create their own, which can be tailored to examine issues such as projected vacancies of hard-tofill occupations or turnover in specific regions by occupation. We have previously reported on 

DOD’s use of OPM’s workforce forecasting system and found the systems to be sufficiently reliable

for DOD to use in its workforce planning.

21 DOD’s workforce projections showed no change 

between fiscal year 2010 and 2011, a reduction of 178 positions from fiscal years 2011 to 2013,

and, overall, a slight increase from fiscal years 2013 to 2018—with a net total decline from fiscal 

year 2010 to fiscal year 2018 of 117 civilian senior leader positions. Table 1 shows the results of 

DOD’s civilian senior leader workforce projections for fiscal years 2010-2018 for each category of 

its civilian senior leader workforce. The table further shows the net near-term change for fiscal 

years 2010-2013 and also the total long-term change for fiscal years 2010-2018. 

 

20 The Defense Civilian Personnel Data System is a human resource system that supports civilian personnel operations 

in DOD. It allows DOD to use a single information management system for DOD civilian employees.

21 GAO-09-235.
Page 7 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

Table 1: DOD’s Projected Civilian Senior Leader Workforce Requirements for Fiscal Years 2010-

2018. 

Fiscal Year

Total 

Change 

from 

2010 to 

2018

Percent 

Change 

from 

2010 to 

2018

2010 2011 2012 2013

Total 

Change 

from 

2010 to 

2013

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Senior 

Executive 

Service 

1423 1423 1368 1323

-100

1333 1342 1352 1364 1373 -50 -4%

Senior 

Technical 149 149 135 132 -17 133 133 135 135 136 -13 - 9% 

Senior Level 57 57 55 53 -4 58 60 61 62 63 +6 +11%

Defense 

Intelligence 

Senior 

Executive 

Service 

594 594 594 591

-3 

588 588 588 588 588 -6 -1%

Defense 

Intelligence 

Senior Level

759 759 759 705

-54

705 705 705 705 705 -54 -7%

Total 2982 2982 2911 2804 -178 2817 2828 2841 2854 2865 -117 -4%

Source: GAO analysis of DOD’s 2010 Strategic Workforce Plan

During the same time period that DOD was preparing its 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan, the 

department was also undertaking its efficiency initiative reviews. According to August 16, 2010 

guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense, the efficiency initiative review was to include a 

comprehensive assessment of the numbers and locations of all of the department’s senior leaders. 

At a minimum, this assessment was to result in a reduction of at least 150 senior civilian executive 

positions across DOD.22 Accordingly, the department evaluated which civilian senior leader 

positions could be eliminated, starting with this pre-set objective. 

During its efficiency initiative review, DOD’s Civilian Senior Executive Efficiency Study Group

evaluated all of the department’s civilian senior leader positions to identify eliminations to reduce 

duplication, overhead, and excess. 23 In conducting its review, the study group first looked at 

vacant civilian senior leader positions, positions already scheduled for elimination, and positions 

already identified for downgrade to General Schedule-15 level positions. The group then used a 

three-step process to evaluate the remaining civilian senior leader positions for possible 

reductions. First, DOD’s components24

 

22 DOD Memo, Department of Defense Efficiency Initiatives (Aug. 16, 2010).

rank ordered all of their civilian senior leader positions

23 DOD, CSE Study Group on Civilian Senior Executives (Nov. 23, 2010). 

24 The components consisted of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Washington Headquarters Service, 

and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.
Page 8 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

based on factors such as the amount of budgetary authority the position has, chain of command, 

and influence on the mission, and provided the study group with a list of positions that fell within 

the bottom third. Next, the study group applied an algorithm that used criteria such as the positions’ 

priority in relation to the mission and budget to create a master rank-ordered list of all the positions

provided by the components. Finally, the working group conducted a bottom-up review of the 

lowest third of the master rank-ordered list of positions. At the conclusion of the three-step process 

the co-chairs of the study group conducted a follow-up review that resulted in the addition and 

removal of some positions.25 This assessment identified the reduction of 178 senior leader 

positions within DOD’s civilian senior leader workforces for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. 

From DOD’s 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan, it is unclear how the two efforts fit together, or 

how DOD drew from the strengths of each analysis. DOD officials responsible for the plan 

explained to us, however, that in the course of conducting their assessments, they incorporated the 

work of the efficiency initiatives into the strategic workforce plan by subtracting the results of the 

efficiency initiative from the original projections in the strategic workforce plan. Officials added that 

they did this so that the projections of the workforce plan and the results of the efficiency initiative 

would be aligned and consistent.

DOD’s Assessments of the Skills, Competencies, and Gaps of Its Civilian Senior Leader 

Workforces Did Not Identify Areas That Will Require Increased Focus to Help the 

Department Meet Its Vital Missions

DOD conducted assessments of the critical skills, competencies, and gaps of two of its civilian 

senior leader workforces in its 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan, but DOD only discussed the 

processes it used to conduct these assessments for one of its five career civilian senior leader 

workforces, and did not report the results of this assessment. As a result, the 2010-2018 strategic 

workforce plan does not identify areas that will require increased focus to help the department 

meet its vital missions. Specifically, the plan described the assessment that the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness undertook of the skills, competencies, and 

gaps in its Senior Executive Service workforce. Further, while DOD’s intelligence agencies 

conducted similar assessments of the skills, competencies, and gaps within the Defense 

Intelligence Senior Executive Service workforce, DOD did not include discussion of their processes 

in the plan. In addition, officials responsible for developing the plan told us that DOD did not assess 

the skills and competencies of and gaps in the Senior Level, Senior Technical, or Defense 

Intelligence Senior Level workforces. Section 115b of Title 10 of the United States Code, however, 

requires DOD to assess the critical skills, competencies, and gaps of all of its civilian senior leader 

workforces. Without assessing and reporting on the critical skills and competencies of and gaps in 

all of these workforces it may be difficult for DOD to conduct effective workforce planning for these 

positions. Further, the plan’s function as an oversight tool for those with such authority is greatly 

reduced.

The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness identified and 

assessed the skills and competencies of and gaps in DOD’s Senior Executive Service, and 

described the process it used to conduct this assessment in its 2010-2018 strategic workforce 

plan. In a directive issued in 2007,

Senior Executive Service Workforce

26

 

DOD states that career Senior Executive Service leadership 

25 DOD, CSE Study Group Findings and Recommendations (Nov. 23, 2010). 

26 DOD Directive 1403.03, The Career Lifecycle Management of the Senior Executive Service Leaders within the 

Department of Defense (Oct. 25, 2007). 
Page 9 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

capability will be sustained to meet mission requirements, and that these positions will be managed 

using a comprehensive strategic planning process. The directive also states that both 

organizational and individual Senior Executive Service capability will be assessed at least annually 

to understand the competencies available in the career Senior Executive Service workforce to 

meet mission requirements. 

DOD used the Defense Talent Management System— a data system developed by DOD to align 

senior leader resources and talent to the department’s best advantage— to assess the critical skills 

and competencies of its Senior Executive Service workforce. According to draft DOD 

documentation, this system supports the department’s objective to optimally develop, apply and 

align resources and talent.27 As part of the Defense Talent Management System, Senior Executive 

Service members use the system to assess themselves to identify areas of strength and 

weakness. Once executives have completed their self-assessments, their supervisors use the 

system to assess and identify developmental opportunities for these executives. The supervisors 

are responsible for providing a readiness rating and competency assessment for the executives 

within their chain of command. Once the supervisors have completed their assessments of the 

executives, an endorser—another senior executive or a panel of senior executives—uses the 

system to validate the executives’ assessments and identify any additional developmental 

opportunities.28 

To facilitate these assessments within the Defense Talent Management System, DOD used the 

five Executive Core Qualifications (core competencies) that OPM uses as criteria for admission into 

the Senior Executive Service, plus one additional DOD-unique core competency—enterprise-wide

perspective—that has been validated and approved by OPM. The department defines enterprisewide perspective as a broad point of view of the department’s mission and an understanding of 

individual or organizational responsibilities in relation to the department’s larger strategic priorities. 

Further, the perspective is shaped by experience and education and characterized by a strategic, 

top-level focus on broad requirements, joint experiences, fusion of information, collaboration, and 

vertical and horizontal integration of information. Table 2 provides a description of the five OPM

core competencies for all federal Senior Executive Service, as well as DOD’s unique core 

competency. 

 

27 DOD, Defense Talent Management System Business Rules and Logic: Guide for Administrators, Developers and 

Interested Observers (n.d. draft). 

28 DOD, Defense Talent Management System Demo (June 7, 2011).
Page 10 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

Table 2: Competencies for DOD’s Senior Executive Service and Defense Intelligence Senior 

Executive Service Workforces

Core Competency Description of Core Competency

Leading Change The ability to bring about strategic change, both within and 

outside the organization, to meet organizational goals. Inherent 

to this competency is the ability to establish an organizational 

vision and to implement it in a continuously changing 

environment.

Leading People The ability to lead people toward meeting the organization’s 

vision, mission, and goals. Inherent to this competency is the 

ability to provide an inclusive workplace that fosters the 

development of others, facilitates cooperation and teamwork, 

and supports constructive resolution of conflicts.

Results Driven The ability to meet organizational goals and customer 

expectations. Inherent to this competency is the ability to make 

decisions that produce high-quality results by applying technical 

knowledge, analyzing problems, and calculating risks.

Business Acumen The ability to manage human, financial, and information 

resources strategically.

Building Coalitions The ability to build coalitions internally and with other federal 

agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit and private 

sector organizations, foreign governments, or international 

organizations to achieve common goals.

Enterprise-wide Perspective 

(DOD-unique core 

competency)

A broad point of view of the DOD mission and an understanding 

of individual or organizational responsibilities in relation to the 

larger DOD strategic priorities. The perspective is shaped by 

experience and education and characterized by a strategic, toplevel focus on broad requirements, joint experiences, fusion of 

information, collaboration, and vertical and horizontal integration 

of information.

Source: OPM and DOD
Page 11 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

DOD’s Defense Talent Management System further breaks down the 6 core competencies into 

18 sub-competencies to provide more detail in its skills and competencies assessments.29 Table 3 

shows the 18 sub-competencies according to their corresponding core competency. 

Table 3: Competencies and Sub-Competencies for DOD’s Senior Executive Service and Defense 

Intelligence Senior Executive Service Workforces

Core Competency Sub-competency

Leading Change • Creativity and Innovation

• External Awareness

• Strategic Thinking

• Vision

Leading People • Leveraging Diversity

• Developing Others

• Team Building

Results Driven • Accountability

• Decisiveness

• Customer Service

• Problem Solving

Business Acumen • Financial Management

• Human Capital Management

• Technology Management

Building Coalitions • Political Savvy

• Influencing and Negotiating

Enterprise Perspective 

(DOD-unique core competency)

• Joint Perspective 

• National Security

Source: DOD

According to the 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan, DOD also used its civilian senior leader talent 

management process to identify gaps in the critical skills and competencies of its existing and 

projected Senior Executive Service workforce. Specifically, DOD used the Defense Talent 

Management System to assess its current workforce and conduct Senior Executive Service 

readiness assessments to identify candidates for future civilian senior leader vacancies. Officials in 

the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service told us that they used a slating process, which 

provides DOD’s Senior Executive Service members the opportunity to identify future positions for 

which they might be interested when those positions become vacant. During the slating process, a 

talent management panel consisting of top-level members of the Senior Executive Service and 

General of Flag Officers assesses each member against the Senior Executive Service core 

competencies. According to DOD officials, the use of talent management panels allows the 

department to measure the level of proficiency of its current Senior Executive Service workforce

and identify and understand the skills and competencies available in the workforce to ensure 

visibility of talent and promote career opportunities across the department. This process, in turn, 

also enables DOD to identify gaps within its Senior Executive Service workforce across the 

department. According to DOD’s 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan, this process allowed DOD to 

assess competency and skill gaps in its Senior Executive Service workforce up to 7 years into the 

future. Our analysis found, however, that DOD did not report the results of this assessment in its 

plan. In discussion with agency officials, they did not specify reasons for not doing so, and stated 

that information on gaps could be included in future strategic workforce plans. 

 

29 DOD Instruction 1430.16, Growing Civilian Leaders (Nov. 19, 2009).
Page 12 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

Although the plan is silent on whether DOD assessed the skills, competencies, and gaps 

assessments for the other workforces, we reviewed assessments conducted by the defense 

intelligence components. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence used a 

decentralized approach to initiate its strategic workforce planning and consolidate its submission 

for the 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan. In so doing, it requested data from the nine separate 

defense intelligence components and the Defense Security Service

Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service Workforce

30 which, at the time, retained

the responsibility for conducting the baseline reviews of the skills, competencies, and gaps in the 

defense intelligence civilian senior leader workforce within the intelligence components. Officials 

within this office explained that this has been the practice over time, given the sensitive nature of 

the missions of the components. These components used the same core competencies and subcompetencies that the department used to assess its Senior Executive Service workforce. 

However, they did not use the Defense Talent Management System and, instead, used their own 

human capital database systems. During the course of our review, the Office of the Under

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence completed work to integrate the nine defense intelligence 

components’ processes for evaluating their Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service 

workforces. Regardless of any changes to the process, our analysis of DOD’s 2010-2018 strategic 

workforce plan shows that DOD did not report the results of any assessments of the skills, 

competencies, and gaps within the defense intelligence community, either at the individual or 

organizational level. In discussions with officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence, they stated that they planned to report these numbers separately in conjunction with 

other intelligence community reporting requirements. However, they did acknowledge the 

requirement to report these numbers in DOD’s strategic workforce plan.

DOD did not identify skills, competencies, and gaps for its Senior Level and Senior Technical 

workforces and did not report on the skills and competencies of and gaps in these workforces in its 

2010-2018 strategic workforce plan. Officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness’s Office of Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service told us that the 

skills and competencies required for these workforces are unique to the individual positions that 

members of these workforces fill. For the same reason, the department did not assess gaps in its 

Senior Level and Senior Technical workforces. 

Senior Level and Senior Technical Workforces

OPM defines Senior Level and Senior Technical positions as positions that are classifiable above 

the General Schedule-15 level but do not meet the Senior Executive Service criteria.31 Senior 

Technical positions involve performance of high-level research and development32

 

30 The nine defense intelligence components are: the Defense Intelligence Agency; the National-Geospatial Intelligence 

Agency; the National Reconnaissance Office; the National Security Agency; the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Intelligence; and the intelligence elements of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. The Defense Security 

Service also employs Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service personnel and for the purpose of this report is 

included as an intelligence component. 

in the physical, 

31 Office of Personnel Management, Senior Executive Service Desk Guide (January 2010). 

32 OPM defines research and development positions as those positions consisting of systematic investigation of theory, 

experimentation, or simulation of experiments; application of the scientific method, including problem exploration and 

definition, planning of the approach and sequence of steps, execution of experiments or studies, interpretations of 

findings, and documentation or reporting of findings; and exercise of creativity and critical judgment, variation in which 

may materially affect the nature of the end product.
Page 13 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

biological, medical, or engineering sciences or a closely related field. Senior Level positions are 

classified as above the General Schedule-15 level but meet neither the executive criteria 

characteristics of the Senior Executive Service nor the fundamental research and development 

responsibilities that are characteristics of the Senior Technical workforce. Neither Senior Level nor 

Senior Technical positions may include supervisory and managerial related duties that occupy 

more than 25 percent of the position’s time. 

While DOD has not identified a common set of skills and competencies that would apply to all of its 

Senior Level and Senior Technical positions, the department has identified a number of positionspecific skills, such as auditing, research, acquisitions, and legal skills. Despite identifying these 

position-specific skills, DOD does not centrally track or assess these positions as it does the Senior 

Executive Service workforces. DOD officials told us that they have not done so because tracking 

and monitoring of individual Senior Level and Senior Technical positions would be resource 

intensive and result in a limited return on investment. At the time of our review, however, DOD had 

206 Senior Level and Senior Technical positions. These represent many of the most important 

positions of technical expertise in DOD in a number of critical areas. As noted previously, Section 

115b of Title 10 of the United States Code requires DOD to assess the critical skills and 

competencies of and gaps in all of its civilian senior leader workforces. Without assessing the 

critical skills and competencies of and gaps in these workforces it may be difficult for DOD to 

conduct effective workforce planning for these positions.

Interim guidance provided by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Defense Intelligence Senior Level Workforce

33 states 

that Defense Intelligence Senior Level positions are similar to DOD’s Senior Level and Senior 

Technical positions, and, similarly, the 2010-2018 plan did not include an assessment of critical 

skills, competencies, or gaps for this workforce. An individual serving in a Defense Intelligence 

Senior Level position is a functional or technical expert who is recognized as a leader and authority

figure in a specialized field or functional area, but exercises no more than minimal supervisory 

responsibilities that are performed less than 25 percent of the time. The difficulty and complexity of 

this work requires creativity, mastery of subject-matter, and recognition by the professional 

community. Officials in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence told us that 

the defense intelligence community did not assess the individual skills and competencies of their 

Defense Intelligence Senior Level workforce for the same reason that DOD did not assess the 

skills, competencies, or gaps of their Senior Level and Senior Technical workforces— because the 

skills and competencies of those workforces are unique to the individual positions to which they are 

assigned. As mentioned previously, however, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 requires DOD to assess the critical skills, competencies and gaps of all of its civilian 

senior leader workforces. Without assessing the critical skills, competencies, and gaps of all of its 

civilian senior leader workforces it may be difficult for DOD to conduct effective workforce planning 

for these positions.

 

33 Interim DOD 1400.25-M, Defense Intelligence Senior Level Program (May 2005); and Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Senior Level Staffing as a Percentage of Authorized Civilian End Strength

(Jan. 7, 2009).
Page 14 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

Conclusions

A strategic workforce plan that contains relevant and timely information and analyses is critical for 

DOD to manage its civilian senior leader workforces and position itself to meet the demands of the 

future. However, DOD did not conduct competency, skill, and gap assessments for all of its civilian 

senior leader workforces and did not include the results of specific assessments that it had 

conducted for its plan. As a result, the plan’s usefulness for guiding workforce planning is limited. 

In the absence of complete reporting, users of DOD’s 2010-2018 senior leader workforce plan will 

have limited information concerning the size, composition, and needs of the department’s civilian 

senior leader workforce. Strategic workforce information will likely grow in importance as DOD 

implements initiatives to reduce overhead and makes difficult budget decisions. As such, it is 

essential that DOD strategically manage and plan for its civilian senior leader workforces to ensure 

it understands its future workforce needs and uses resources effectively. 

Recommendation for Executive Action

To help ensure that Congress has the necessary information to provide effective oversight over all 

of DOD’s civilian senior leader workforces, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence to conduct assessments of the skills, competencies, and gaps within all five career 

civilian senior leader workforces and report them in DOD’s future strategic workforce plans.

Agency Comments

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD 

stated that the department fell short of conducting assessments of skills, competencies, and gaps 

within three of the five civilian senior leader workforces as a result of their technical roles in the 

DOD leadership hierarchy, and that, as roles are refined, this work will be reflected in future plans 

as appropriate. DOD’s comments are reprinted in enclosure II.

– – – – – 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and appropriate 

congressional committees. In addition, this report will also be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3604

or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 

may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report 

are listed in enclosure III.

Brenda S. Farrell

Director,

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 15 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

List of Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Chairman 

The Honorable Norman D. Dicks

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives
Page 16 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology

For this engagement, we obtained and reviewed the Department of Defense (DOD) strategic 

workforce plan for the department’s civilian senior leader workforce for fiscal years 2010-2018.

34

We interviewed officials in DOD’s Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service within the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the military departments, 

Washington Headquarters Service, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Intelligence. Further, we reviewed prior GAO reports that address human capital challenges within 

DOD as well as our previous work on strategic workforce planning.

For our first objective, to review DOD’s approach for determining its civilian senior leader 

projections to meet future requirements, we evaluated the contents of DOD’s 2010-2018 strategic 

workforce plan and related documents. In addition, we reviewed documents and interviewed 

officials with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) who are responsible for OPM’s 

Workforce Analysis Support System and Civilian Forecasting System that DOD used to develop 

the department’s overall civilian workforce forecasts and projections. We also interviewed DOD 

officials responsible for developing the department’s report on the efficiency initiatives as they 

related to DOD’s civilian senior leader workforces. These included officials from the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Defense Civilian Personnel 

Advisory Service within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the military departments, and 

Washington Headquarters Service. Additionally, we reviewed and analyzed DOD’s final report on 

its senior leader efficiency initiative and internal briefings on the methodology, findings, and 

recommendations resulting from this initiative. We also reviewed the response from the Secretary 

of Defense. 

For our second objective, to determine the extent to which DOD’s assessment of the critical skills, 

competencies, and gaps in the existing and future civilian senior leader workforces identified areas 

that will require increased focus to help the department meet its vital missions, we evaluated the 

contents of DOD’s 2010-2018 strategic workforce plan and supporting documentation. We 

interviewed officials responsible for managing DOD’s civilian senior leader workforces, to include 

those who identify critical skills and competencies and assessed gaps in the department’s civilian 

senior leader workforces. These included officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Service within the 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, and Office of the Director of Administration and 

Management. In addition, we met with knowledgeable officials to ascertain how DOD used the 

Defense Talent Management System to conduct specific skills, competencies, and gap analyses. 

Finally, we met with officials from OPM to gain an understanding of the Senior Executive Service 

core qualifications that are used across the federal government.

We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to September 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

 

34 We began this engagement in July 2011, when DOD provided us with a draft of its 2010-2018 Strategic Workforce 

Plan and indicated that the final version would be issued soon thereafter. We suspended this work when we did not 

receive the final plan and resumed our review when DOD submitted its final Strategic Workforce Plan to Congress on 

March 27, 2012. 
Page 17 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Page 18 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

Enclosure II

Comments from the Department of Defense
Page 19 GAO-12-990R Human Capital
Page 20 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

Enclosure III 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Contact

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Marion Gatling, Assistant Director; David Moser, 

Assistant Director; Chris Miller; Brian Pegram; Terry L. Richardson; Erik Wilkins-McKee; and 

Michael Willems made key contributions to this report.
Page 21 GAO-12-990R Human Capital

Related GAO Products

DOD Civilian Workforce: Observations on DOD’s Efforts to Plan for Civilian Workforce 

Requirements. GAO-12-962T. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2012. 

Defense Workforce: DOD Needs to Better Oversee In-sourcing Data and Align In-sourcing Efforts 

with Strategic Workforce Plans. GAO-12-319. Washington, D.C.: February 9, 2012.

Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency Initiatives Should Be Shared 

Governmentwide. GAO-11-908. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2011.

DOD Civilian Personnel: Competency Gap Analyses and Other Actions Needed to Enhance DOD’s 

Strategic Workforce Plans. GAO-11-827T. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2011.

Government Operations: Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 

Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011. 

High Risk Series: An Update. GAO-11-278. Washington, D.C.: February, 2011.

Human Capital: Opportunities Exist for DOD to Enhance Its Approach for Determining Civilian 

Senior Leader Workforce Needs. GAO-11-136. Washington, D.C.: November 4, 2010. 

Human Capital: Further Actions Needed to Enhance DOD’s Civilian Strategic Workforce Plan. 

GAO-10-814R. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2010.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.: January, 2009.

Human Capital: Opportunities Exist to Build on Recent Progress to Strengthen DOD’s Civilian 

Human Capital Strategic Plan. GAO-09-235. Washington, D.C.: February 10, 2009.

The Department of Defense’s Civilian Human Capital Strategic Plan Does Not Meet Most Statutory 

Requirements. GAO-08-439R. Washington, D.C.: February 6, 2008. 

High Risk Series: An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, D.C.: January, 2007.

DOD Civilian Personnel: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Plans Needed. GAO-04-753. 

Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.

Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning. GAO-04-39. 

Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003. 

High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management. GAO-03-120. Washington, D.C.: 

January, 2003.

Human Capital: Strategic Approach Should Guide DOD Civilian Workforce Management. GAO/TGGD/NSIAD-00-120. Washington, D.C.: March 9, 2000.

(351633)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.