U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

46–168 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–706 

LEADING BY EXAMPLE: MAKING GOVERNMENT 

A MODEL FOR HIRING AND RETAINING OLDER 

WORKERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

APRIL 30, 2008 

Serial No. 110–27 

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

DEBRA WHITMAN, Majority Staff Director 

CATHERINE FINLEY, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Herb Kohl ............................................................. 1 

Opening Statement of Senator Gordon H. Smith ................................................. 2 

PANEL I 

Robert Goldenkoff, director, Strategic Issues, U.S. Government Accountability 

Office, Washington, DC ....................................................................................... 4 

Barbara Bovbjerg, director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security 

Issues, U.S. Accountability Office, Washington, DC ......................................... 5 

Nancy Kichak, associate director, Strategic Human Resources Policy, Office 

of Personnel Management, Washington, DC ..................................................... 35 

PANEL II 

Thomas Dowd, administrator, Office of Policy Development and Research, 

Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 41 

Max Stier, president and CEO, Partnership for Public Service, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 55

Chai Feldblum, co-director, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Washington, DC ......... 66 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statement of Senator Susan Collins ...................................................... 99 

(III) 

(1) 

LEADING BY EXAMPLE: MAKING GOVERNMENT A MODEL FOR HIRING AND RETAINING OLDER WORKERS 

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 

U.S. SENATE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m. in room SH– 

430, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman of the 

committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Kohl and Smith. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KOHL 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon to one and all. We would like to 

welcome our witnesses, and we thank them for their participation. 

We are here today to discuss how we can make the Federal Government a model for hiring and retaining older workers. Instituting 

policies that allow older Americans to continue working if they so 

choose has been a priority of mine, and Senator Smith’s as well, 

for a number of years. It is not the flashiest topic that these hearing rooms have seen, and it doesn’t always garner the most attention, but the issue of older workers is no less important to each of 

us and, indeed, to the entire country. 

Last year, this Committee held a hearing to consider what effect 

the retirement of the baby boom generation will have on our Nation’s economy. We had the Federal Reserve testify that with tens 

of millions of baby boomers retiring, the impending labor shortage 

would largely slow the growth of our economy. Such a slowdown 

will lead to a lower standard of living for everyone. 

I said a year ago, and I will say it again today, with the retirement wave upon us, we must encourage employers to adopt policies 

now to attract and to retain older workers. It is possible to craft 

common-sense policy to create a win-win situation for both older 

workers as well as the companies that employ them. 

Today, we will turn the spotlight on our own backyard, focusing 

on what the Federal Government is doing to hire and retain older 

workers, what policy changes would help them to do it better, and 

what the private sector can learn from the improvements that we 

want to make. 

Well, why the Federal Government? Because nowhere is the foreseen labor shortage more pronounced than within the workforce of 

our Nation’s largest employer. Over the next 5 years, more than 

half a million permanent full-time Federal employees, which is 

2 

about one-third of the full-time Federal workforce, will be eligible 

to retire. Over the next 10 years, more than 60 percent of the Federal workforce will reach retirement age. 

Perhaps working longer seems like a no-brainer. If you want to 

continue working past retirement age, then simply do not retire 

and keep going to work every day. But what may be surprising to 

many is that there are often financial, bureaucratic, as well as personal barriers to doing so. For instance, a percentage of hardearned Social Security benefits may be forfeited for some who continue to work, and the opportunity to take advantage of delayedretirement Social Security credits is limited. 

Additionally, many older Americans desire increased flexibility in 

the workplace after they have hit retirement age. Some would like 

more time to travel and pursue hobbies, while others find themselves with care-giving responsibilities for a loved one later in life. 

Unfortunately, the barriers to continuing to work part-time are 

even more burdensome. They include loss of healthcare coverage, 

a decrease in pension earnings, and for some Government employees, a hefty penalty under the Civil Service Retirement System. 

I have found that there is not one simple change that would address all of these problems. Yesterday, our Ranking Member Gordon Smith, Senator Conrad, and myself introduced the Incentives 

for Older Workers Act, which would address many of the barriers 

that I have talked about. This is in addition to two bills that I introduced last year, which would offer expanded healthcare coverage 

and training to older workers as well as incentives to employers. 

We have an outstanding panel of witnesses today. We would like 

to thank them again for their participation. 

We now turn to the Ranking Member Gordon Smith for comments he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SMITH, RANKING MEMBER 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

To all of you, welcome. It is good to have you here, and this is 

a very important topic if we are to keep the Federal Government 

on a steady keel and use all the talent that we have in our older 

Americans who are Federal employees. 

The United States is about to experience an unprecedented demographic shift with the aging of the baby boom generation. According to the Census Bureau, in 1980, individuals age 50 and 

older represented 26 percent of the population. By 2050, this is expected to rise to 37 percent. 

In my home State of Oregon, residents 65 and older are expected 

to comprise 25 percent of the State population by 2025. This will 

make Oregon the fourth-oldest State in the country. 

The aging of our population will have significant impact on many 

aspects of our society, including our labor market. A 2007 Conference Board study reports that current retirement trends could 

create a U.S. labor shortage of 4.8 million workers in 10 years. 

According to Dr. Preston Pulliams of Portland Community College, speaking at last year’s older workers hearing, 53 percent of 

Oregon businesses report that it is extremely or very likely that 

their organization will face a shortage of qualified workers during 

the next 5 years as a result of the retirement of the baby boomers. 

3 

We also must be concerned with a possible ‘‘brain drain.’’ Our 

workforce will be losing some of our most experienced workers, 

many of whom have skills and knowledge that will be difficult to 

replace. However, the effect of these trends can be mitigated if 

older workers decide to stay in the workforce longer. 

Therefore, I commend Chairman Kohl for holding this important 

hearing, focusing on our Nation’s largest employer, the Federal 

Government, and how it can become a model for hiring and retaining older workers. 

To this end, I am pleased to be working with the Chairman on 

a number of initiatives. He mentioned one of them. We introduced 

a bill yesterday, along with Senator Conrad, that addresses the 

older worker issue. Specifically, the bill will provide incentives to 

older Americans to stay in the workforce longer, encourage employers to recruit and retain older workers, and eliminate barriers to 

working longer. These proposals are particularly important since, 

according to AARP, 79 percent of baby boomers plan to work in 

some capacity during their retirement years. 

In addition, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl and Senator Voinovich to request a Government Accountability Office report focused on workplace flexibility in the Federal Government. 

Flexible work arrangements are a priority for older workers. Therefore, we have asked the GAO to review the Office of Personnel 

Management’s implementation of workplace flexibility programs 

and examine barriers and opportunities to expanding work/life programs. 

Again, I thank all of our witnesses for being with us today, and 

I look forward to having a productive discussion with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Smith. 

Our first witnesses will share joint time today. Barbara Bovbjerg 

as well as Robert Goldenkoff are both with the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office. Ms. Bovbjerg is the director of Education, 

Workforce, and Income Security Issues while she oversees evaluative studies on aging and retirement income policy. Robert 

Goldenkoff is the director of Strategic Issues and is responsible for 

studies aimed at transforming the Federal workforce. 

Our next witness will be Nancy Kichak with the U.S. Office of 

Personnel Management. Ms. Kichak is currently the associate director of Strategic Human Resource Policy, where she leads the design, development, and implementation of human resource policies. 

Over the last decade, she has held several positions within OPM 

and has been recognized for her exemplary service. 

Our last witness on the first panel is Thomas Dowd. Mr. Dowd 

is administrator for the Office of Policy Development and Research 

at the Department of Labor. He has over 20 years of experience 

with employment and training programs at the national, regional, 

State, and local levels. He is here to explain the department’s role 

as the leading agency for the interagency Task Force on Aging 

Workforce. 

So we welcome you all here today, and Ms. Bovbjerg, we will 

start with your testimony. 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Well, in fact, Mr. Goldenkoff will start us off. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

4 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOLDENKOFF, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. Thank you. 

We have submitted our written statement for the record, and I 

do want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Smith, for the 

opportunity to be here today to discuss the Federal Government’s 

employment of older workers. 

As you know, the Federal Government, like the Nation’s workforce as a whole, is aging. As these experienced employees retire, 

they may leave behind critical skill gaps that could hamper the 

ability of agencies to provide responsive government to the American people in the years ahead. 

We and others have pointed out that older workers are a largely 

untapped national resource that could help the Government address this potential brain drain, as older workers often bring to the 

job knowledge, experience, and productive work habits. 

In our testimony today, we will first discuss demographic trends 

in the current Federal workforce. Second, we will focus on the 

strategies Federal agencies are using to attract and retain older 

workers. Third, we will provide our observations on the possible effectiveness of these strategies. Our testimony is drawn from a 

broad range of prior reports as well as our recently completed 

work. 

With respect to demographics, Government wide, about one-third 

of Federal career employees onboard at the end of Fiscal Year 2007 

will become eligible to retire by 2012. However, some agencies are 

at greater risk of higher retirement rates than others. For example, 

at four agencies, nearly half of the employees onboard at the end 

of Fiscal Year 2007 will be eligible to retire over the next 5 years. 

The agencies include HUD, DOT, the Agency for International Development, and the Small Business Administration. 

Certain occupations, including those considered mission critical, 

might also have relatively large numbers of employees become eligible for retirement in the next few years. For example, more than 

half of the air traffic controllers and customs agents onboard at the 

end of fiscal year 2007 will be eligible to retire by 2012. Likewise, 

over 60 percent of career executives are projected to become eligible 

to retire during the same timeframe. 

This looming retirement wave highlights the need for agencies to 

examine how these trends will affect them and develop appropriate 

succession plans. Too often, however, agencies do not conduct the 

strategic human capital planning needed to address their current 

and emerging workforce challenges. 

I will now turn it over to Ms. Bovbjerg, who will discuss the remaining topics. 

5 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA BOVBJERG, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Thank you. 

Let me turn now to what Federal agencies are doing to tap the 

older workforce. We looked at the Social Security Administration, 

where they face looming shortages in critical positions at precisely 

the same time that the aging population overall will file for benefits. Significantly, 62 percent of SSA executives are eligible to retire 

today, and 80 percent of current SES members will be eligible in 

5 years. 

In response, SSA is using a range of OPM-sponsored flexibilities 

to attract and retain older workers. For example, the agency offers 

recruitment and retention bonuses when needed and considers new 

employees’ private sector service in annual leave compilation. SSA 

also offers various workplace flexibilities, like Flexiplace, and actively recruits retired members of the military. 

However, not all flexibilities are utilized. A phased retirement 

program is rarely used because of financial penalties that apply, 

and what was once an active program to re-employ annuitants has 

been largely discontinued. 

Other agencies have taken alternative approaches. EPA and 

USDA use nonprofit organizations to recruit, hire, and pay older 

workers to come to work for these agencies after retiring. This is 

a means of avoiding the re-employed annuitant problem. Treasury 

is developing a project with the Partnership for Public Service and 

IBM to match retired IBM employees with Treasury’s skill needs. 

While these do not require special authorization from OPM, they 

are being carried out only in pockets of the Federal Government 

and, thus, are not widely used. 

So, how effective are the Federal Government’s strategies? We 

believe the Government is making progress. OPM provides guidance to agencies on how to use available flexibilities and authorities, including an online resource center. Many of the flexibilities 

Federal agencies offer fall within the AARP criteria for best employers. 

Also, Congress has taken action to address retirement risks in 

specific occupations, such as acquisition-related positions, and as 

you noted, bills are pending that could help agencies look to older 

workers without financial penalty. 

Still, improvements are needed. Agencies, with OPM’s help, must 

plan better, take advantage of flexibilities already available to 

them, and share information on promising practices. OPM, meanwhile, must continue to provide leadership and support in these 

same areas. Collectively, these measures can help make the Federal Government a model employer for all demographic groups and 

ensure that the untapped expertise of older workers is utilized. 

That concludes our statement, Mr. Chairman. We will welcome 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bovbjerg and Mr. Goldenkoff follows:] 

6 


46168.0001
7 


46168.0002
8 


46168.0003
9 


46168.0004
10 


46168.0005
11 


46168.0006
12 


46168.0007
13 


46168.0008
14 


46168.0009
15 


46168.0010
16 


46168.0011
17 


46168.0012
18 


46168.0013
19 


46168.0014
20 


46168.0015
21 


46168.0016
22 


46168.0017
23 


46168.0018
24 


46168.0019
25 


46168.0020
26 


46168.0021
27 


46168.0022
28 


46168.0023
29 


46168.0024
30 


46168.0025
31 


46168.0026
32 


46168.0027
33 


46168.0028
34 


46168.0029
35 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bovbjerg. 

Ms. Kichak. 

STATEMENT OF NANCY KICHAK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES POLICY, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL 

MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. KICHAK. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator Smith for 

holding this hearing to highlight the benefits of hiring older Americans and for inviting me to share with you some of the steps the 

Federal Government as an employer is taking to attract and retain 

experienced workers. 

As our workforce ages, we have become keenly aware that a 

growing portion of today’s workers are becoming—eligible to retire 

with each passing year. The Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) has been working with Federal agencies to develop effective 

human capital strategies to plan for the future. We are diligently 

continuing our efforts to recruit and retain older workers with essential expertise. Many of these older workers want to continue 

working and still have many productive years ahead of them. 

Although there is always room for improvement, I think it is fair 

to say the Federal Government compares very favorably to the private sector in employing older workers. Our data show that 24 percent of the Federal workforce is over age 55, compared to 15.4 percent in the civilian labor force. One of the reasons for this is Federal employee benefits are attractive to older workers. For example, 

Federal employees who are covered under our health program can 

continue that coverage into retirement as long as they participate 

in the program for at least the 5 years immediately before they retire. 

Other workplace flexibilities the Government offers, such as 

flexible schedules and telework, are attractive to a wide variety of 

employees, including many older workers. OPM developed the Career Patterns initiative, which entails reviewing individual positions to assess their potential for using workforce flexibilities to recruit the broadest pool of applicants, including older workers. 

We recognize that facilitating the re-employment of retirees with 

critical skills is an essential element of any strategy to optimize the 

employment of older workers. Currently, Federal agencies can rehire retired civil servants, but generally their salaries are reduced 

by the amount of their retirement annuities. We have developed a 

legislative proposal that would allow agencies to rehire annuitants 

on a part-time or limited-term basis under certain conditions without the salary offset. 

We want to especially thank Senator Collins, who is a member 

of your Committee, for her introduction of this proposal as S. 2003, 

along with Senators Warner and Voinovich. We also want to thank 

the Partnership for Public Service and the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association for their support of this measure. We hope that other members of this Committee will decide to 

co-sponsor the bill as it moves through the legislative process. 

We believe this legislation is necessary to encourage experienced 

retirees to continue their service part-time for a limited period, 

while providing them the same advantage as retirees from the private sector, who do not need to give up their pensions to accept 

36 

Federal employment. This proposal is carefully drafted to make 

such re-employment attractive to annuitants, easy for agencies to 

use, and unlikely to be abused. 

In addition, we have proposed a statutory amendment that would 

remove the penalty in the calculation of the high 3 years average 

salary on which annuities are based, which results from part-time 

services at the end of the career under the Civil Service Retirement 

System. Our proposal would remedy this unfortunate situation, 

thus eliminating the potential adverse effect of part-time service 

performed late in an employee’s career. 

Senator Smith and Chairman Kohl, we very much appreciate 

that you included this proposal as part of S. 2933, which was introduced yesterday. We look forward to working with you as this bill 

progresses through the Committee process. Both of these legislative 

initiatives are important to our efforts to make the Federal Government a leader in employing older Americans. 

All of the efforts I have described—our record of employing older 

workers, our benefit programs, and our legislative initiatives—demonstrate that the Federal government as an employer understands 

and values the particular contributions that mature workers can 

bring to the workplace. I am confident the Federal Government will 

continue to be an attractive employer to older workers. 

Thank you again for inviting me, and I will be happy to take any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kichak follows:] 

37 


46168.0030
38 


46168.0031
39 


46168.0032
40 


46168.0033
41 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Kichak. 

Mr. Dowd. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS DOWD, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH, EMPLOYMENT AND 

TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. DOWD. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Smith, I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you today on the hiring and retention of 

older workers in the Federal Government. 

The aging of the baby boomer population has many implications 

for the U.S. labor market, including possible labor and skill shortages. Employers will be challenged to find and train replacements 

as some of their most experienced workers retire. This has also important implications for the Federal workforce. 

For the past several years, the department has undertaken efforts to address the broader implications of an aging workforce. Encouraged by the leadership of this Committee, the Employment and 

Training Administration launched an interagency effort to focus on 

the aging and retirement of the baby boomer generation and its impact on the workforce. 

The Task Force on the Aging of the American Workforce began 

meeting in May 2006 and brought together senior representatives 

from nine key Federal agencies that affect the lives of older Americans—the Departments of Commerce, Education, Health and 

Human Services, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Small Business Administration, 

and Social Security Administration. 

The task force elected to focus on three main areas, the first 

being the opportunities and needs of employers in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining older workers; the challenges in identifying the opportunities for older workers to increase their workforce participation; and third, laws and regulations that may function as impediments and disincentives to continued employment. 

The task force examined the key issues within these three areas 

and developed strategies to address these issues. In February 2008, 

the task force report was released, expressing strategies that could 

address the most significant issues related to the aging of the 

American workforce. In March, the task force reconvened to discuss 

how to prioritize and move forward with the strategies put forth in 

the report. 

Workgroups were established for each of the categories of the 

strategies, and since then, they have begun meeting to determine 

priorities, identify resources, and develop plans for the strategies. 

Although the task force report addresses a wide spectrum of 

workforce challenges and opportunities for the aging population, 

one of the task force strategies that is of particular relevance to today’s hearing is to encourage Federal agencies to serve as models 

for the private sector by adopting these flexible employment policies. 

The task force recognized that it is expected that 40 percent of 

the Federal workforce will retire between 2006 and 2015 and that 

a new mindset is needed in the Federal Government to recruit and 

42 

retain the talent that will be needed in the 21st century. The strategy proposed by the task force embraces an approach suggested by 

the Office of Personnel Management by encouraging agencies to 

adopt and promote policy changes that facilitate the recruitment 

and retention of older workers. 

The task force suggested four possible initiatives, the first being 

that the task force member agencies could purchase the expertise 

of older or retired workers by, for example, entering into contracts 

with former Federal employees. 

Second, task force member agencies could expand their existing 

telework programs to ensure telework opportunities are available 

to their workforces, including Federal workers. 

Third, task force member agencies could work in partnership 

with OPM to provide information, technical assistance, and support 

on identifying best practices within the Federal Government for improving and increasing flexible and customized work options for 

older workers. 

Finally, task force member agencies could take additional steps 

to review their respective agencies’ policies, programs, and regulations to identify barriers to flexible and customized employment opportunities for older workers and propose changes to ensure such 

opportunities are available. The Workgroup on Flexible Work Arrangements and Customized Employment has begun meeting to 

discuss how best to move forward with this strategy. 

Turning to my own agency, the Employment and Training Administration, like many Federal agencies, faces the effects of an 

aging Federal workforce, particularly due to possible retirements at 

higher grade levels. Even though many of these employees may not 

retire when they first become eligible, this represents a potentially 

significant loss of skills, expertise, and institutional knowledge that 

is critical to the operation of our agency and underscores the need 

for planning for these eventual retirements. ETA has begun focusing on succession management as one of the strategies, as other 

agencies have as well. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. At this 

time, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other 

members of the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dowd follows:] 

43 


46168.0034
44 


46168.0035
45 


46168.0036
46 


46168.0037
47 


46168.0038
48 


46168.0039
49 


46168.0040
50 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Dowd. 

Now we turn to Senator Smith for questions and comments. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Kohl. 

Mr. Dowd, when Senator Kohl and I called upon the Labor Department to convene this interagency task force on older workers, 

one of the things we were interested in was the legal and regulatory barriers. I very much appreciate your report, but I didn’t 

find a lot in it on those particular barriers, which are the kind of 

things that he and I, if we know about them, can change some 

laws, some statutes, some policies. 

I wonder if you have any other plans on the task force to address 

those issues and, if so, what kind of timing is there? 

Mr. DOWD. Yes. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

As with all workgroups, particularly of the interagency nature, 

it isn’t always easy to get everyone to come around and agree to 

a final product that says we have found the definitive answer or 

suggestions that we might recommend to this Committee. Given 

that, the Department of Labor was asked and has been willing to 

take the lead on this and to ensure that it continues to move forward. 

Much of the focus really, as you suggest, perhaps was more 

around the workforce aspects. But we didn’t ignore the legal and 

regulatory issues, and in fact, we created seven follow-up 

workgroups. One of those workgroups is the Legal and Regulatory 

Issues Workgroup. 

One of the things I can share with you is that we wanted to ensure and we want to convey to the Committee that the work of this 

task force is not done because the report is finished. In fact, we 

met in March and established these workgroups to move forward 

on these issues, and particularly the area of the legal and the regulatory, the Treasury Department has taken the lead for examining 

those issues. Within that workgroup is the SSA, HHS, EEOC, and 

two agencies within Labor, EBSA and the Office of Policy. 

Again, we want them to be able to continue to work on those 

issues so that we can come back to you with recommendations beyond just what is in the report itself. 

Senator SMITH. Well, Tom, don’t get me wrong. I am grateful for 

the report. I am anxious to know what Senator Kohl and I can do 

in terms of the lights that you bring to this, so we can change some 

policies. The sooner we do, the better off we are going to be so that 

we don’t suffer the kind of brain drain that is projected in our Federal Government. 

Flextime, work from home, those kinds of things, if there are 

barriers, impediments, pension issues that we can address, heck, I 

am on the Finance Committee. He is on the Appropriations Committee. If we can’t figure it out on those two committees, nobody 

can figure it out. 

But we need to get on it, and as soon as you have—and I would 

emphasize sooner than later—we would love to have that information. 

Mr. DOWD. If I could follow up, Senator? The Legal and Regulatory workgroup met this morning. They will meet again in May 

and will report back to the Taskforce in June. I think they are 

51 

moving pretty speedily, given that their focus is on just those 

issues. 

Senator SMITH. Well—— 

Mr. DOWD [continuing]. From the report and being able to report 

back to you. 

Senator SMITH. My question is not a criticism, just a request that 

we—the sooner we can get it, the better off the Federal Government is going to be in the years ahead. 

Nancy, I noted with interest the Partnership for Public Service 

and American University Institute for the study of Public Policy 

Implementation study that they did on Best Places To Work in the 

Federal Government. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 

GAO, and the SEC top the list. I wonder what is so good about 

working at the GAO? 

Ms. KICHAK. Well, these folks are from the GAO. They definitely 

look very happy to be working there. [Laughter.] 

Ms. KICHAK. We do provide some of the data that helps determine the agencies that are ranked there. The ranking that is done 

is based on a job satisfaction index. They simply ask folks if it as 

a good place to work. We think it is because they have a very clear 

mission. They have very capable people who are at higher grades 

than some of the other agencies, and they are well funded and focused, and they indicate that it is a good place to work. 

Senator SMITH. Every time I see Barbara, I just feel better. So 

if I could work with Barbara, I would like it, too. 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Well, I feel definitely better now. 

Senator SMITH. What is so good about the GAO as a place to 

work? Are there any policies beyond just working with you that 

make it such a nice place? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. I know there are particular questions from the 

GAO employee satisfaction survey that we feed into the questionnaire about the best places to work. But I do think that it is a combination of people coming to us both to use their brains and to 

work to make Government better, and that is what we do. We try 

to give them the scope to do their work. 

We also provide transit benefits. We have flexible work hours. 

We, I think, are leaders in telework, and Robert might be able to 

comment more on that. But I think that we do try to be a model. 

Senator SMITH. Are there things that you do that are models for 

other agencies of the Federal Government? 

Mr. GOLDENKOFF. I think certainly our flexible work arrangements. As Barbara mentioned, we have a telework policy, which 

won an award just a few weeks ago, onsite daycare and fitness facilities. We also encourage people to use and take advantage of 

these different flexibilities. 

Some agencies have the authority available—they all have the 

authority available, but they don’t always encourage or manage to 

allow people to use them, whereas, at GAO, certainly we encourage 

that. Then also, as Barbara mentioned, GAO goes to great lengths 

to be a world-class professional services organization that happens 

to be in the Federal Government, and I think you see a lot of that 

reflected in the scores that we have. 

Senator SMITH. As you have examined the private sector, are 

there some things that are happening there that might be transferVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:27 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\46168.TXT SAG PsN: JOYCE
52 

able to the Federal Government that can help older workers work 

longer if they choose to? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Well, we did have a forum. We convened a controller general’s forum a couple of years ago, where we invited people from Government, including OPM and Labor, and academia, 

but also some of the employers who are on the AARP best employer 

list. We talked about best practices, and we also talked about the 

need for the Federal Government to be a model employer. 

What we came down—we also talked about flexible work situations. We talked about the right mix of incentives, benefits, focused 

on things that older workers appreciate, although I think nearly 

everyone there observed that everyone likes those benefits, just by 

the way. Telework isn’t only desirable to older workers. 

One of the fundamental truths that everyone seemed to agree on 

come up with in the forum was that it is not a one-size-fits-all approach, that each employer in a different industry has a different 

situation, a different demographic profile, and that it is really important to try to tailor your approach to your particular situation. 

Senator SMITH. Sure. Barbara, as you look at the State and local 

governments, are they preparing for this? Do you have much contact with them where you could evaluate their systems and their 

regulations and their barriers to older workers? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. Well, I can assure you that in our most recent 

work on State governments, they are very, very focused on how 

they are going to pay for retiree health. That is a major focus of 

State governments as employers right now. 

Senator SMITH. Is part of the answer to that to keep them working? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. It could be. Several years ago, we did try to look 

at what employers are doing for older workers, and there was more 

activity in the public sector than in the private sector at that time. 

In particular, there were some States who were taking actions to 

keep teachers, to get teachers who had retired to come back. They 

had these things called ‘‘DROP plans,’’ which is like the dual compensation waiver, eliminating the dual compensation rule in some 

way. 

You can put the retirement annuity in an account essentially, an 

individual account—for the person where it earns interest while 

they pay wages the person who is back at work. We looked in detail at a couple of States who were doing that and also found there 

were a couple of others that had eliminated the dual compensation 

rule and were trying to do something like what your bill would do 

with Social Security, trying to provide extra credit for working 

longer. 

So there are some things happening out there. I do want to say 

that was several years ago. So, it may be that there is much more 

than that going on now or perhaps less. 

Senator SMITH. Well, thank you all very much. 

Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Smith. 

Ms. Kichak, OPM’s Career Patterns initiative offers many flexible work options that could be very useful tools in retaining experienced and skilled older workers in the workforce. What is OPM 

53 

doing to promote the use of this initiative and to ensure that other 

agencies are taking advantage? 

Ms. KICHAK. There are many ways that we are promoting Career 

Patterns. One way is that we have required every agency to look 

at positions they are about to advertise to see what career pattern 

would be appropriate and not just one, but how many different career patterns would be appropriate so that they can identify that 

when they recruit. So it is clear what workplace options—parttime, et cetera—are available. 

We also score agencies on that activity on the President’s Management Agenda, so agencies need to pay particular attention to 

working in that area to get a good score. We also are working with 

agencies to incorporate Career Patterns into their strategic plans 

and into their succession planning, and many agencies are putting 

this on their Web site. 

We also have put on our Web site best practices of agencies in 

this area so that agencies can go there and see some of the strategies that work in this area. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Federal Government currently does a lot of 

recruiting on college campuses. 

Ms. KICHAK. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you outline the recruitment efforts that 

you employ to target older workers? 

Ms. KICHAK. In addition to the college campuses, we ran ad campaigns, which the Government hadn’t done before. Within the last 

few years, we ran the ‘‘What Did You Do At Your Job Today?’’ campaign to get people interested in Federal employment. 

We also do a lot of recruiting in veterans groups. We have initiatives going on right now at the hospitals that are discharging 

wounded veterans. Thus, that we are reaching out to that community. That is an older community. We also have special hiring authorities that can be used for bringing people on later in their career. One of those is for disabled individuals, special flexibilities to 

bring folks like that on. 

So, those are some of the things that we are doing. 

The CHAIRMAN. As we said in our statements, there will be enormous numbers of people retiring who work for the Federal Government over the next 10 years. Do you think the Federal Government 

has policies or is going to develop policies, put them in place, have 

them up and operating in order to deal with this tremendous loss 

of people over the next 10 years, Ms. Bovbjerg? 

Ms. BOVBJERG. I like to think that we can do that. I think we 

need to approach it with a more concerted effort. I applaud the approach of the Department of Labor’s task force. I think that institutionalizing the collaboration among agencies is really important. 

But as Senator Smith noted, it is crucial to get to the statutory and 

regulatory changes that might need to be made because, as you 

know better than anyone, those things can take time. 

This is urgent. It is particularly urgent, as Robert pointed out 

earlier, in certain occupations. An agency that I look at for a lot 

of reasons, the Social Security Administration, is going to get it 

from both sides. They are going to lose a lot of very capable and 

experienced people and perhaps not be able to recruit the people 

54 

they need to follow behind them unless they do something to try 

to encourage people to work longer. 

We need to move quickly. But I like to think that with leadership 

from OPM and from Labor, with agencies paying more attention to 

those flexibilities, with the support from the Committee on Aging 

and from the bills that we are considering now, that we could do 

it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other comments from anybody on the panel? 

Mr. Dowd. 

Mr. DOWD. I would only like to echo the thoughts of my colleague, and that is to say that we at Labor are very committed to 

continuing the effort with regards to not only the completion of the 

report, but continuing to work with these workgroups to get these 

things done on a variety of levels within all seven of those 

workgroup committees. 

I think that is really key to actually making progress, to answer 

your question that you just asked, if we just simply put the report 

on the shelf, then I don’t think anything will get done. But we are 

certainly not doing that, and we are very committed to working 

with our colleagues at OPM and GAO and all the other agencies 

to make sure we keep moving forward because this is a fundamental issue. 

We need all the talent and we need all the workers we can get 

in America going forward to be competitive, and we certainly can’t 

let up just because we completed a report. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other comments? We thank—yes, Ms. 

Kichak? Go right ahead. 

Ms. KICHAK. As you mentioned, we have lots of programs in 

place to prepare for the folks that are leaving, such as succession 

planning, et cetera. But nothing substitutes for being able to retain 

your experienced worker. 

You can do everything that you want to prepare to look for the 

same skills and to try to transfer the knowledge, but nothing 

equals being able to keep the person who has been in the field and 

has done it, which is why we would really like and appreciate any 

help on either of these proposals that will help us keep our folks 

in the office longer and helping us with our work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very, very valid comment and certainly totally 

accurate. 

We thank you all for appearing, and at this point, we will turn 

to our second panel. 

Our first witness on the second panel is Max Stier. Mr. Stier is 

the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, which 

is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to revitalizing 

our Federal Government by inspiring Americans to consider a career in public service. The recently launched Fed Experience initiative to encourage older Americans to resume careers with the Federal Government is an outstanding example of what he is trying to 

do. 

Our second witness is Chai Feldblum. She is a professor at the 

Georgetown University Law Center, where she directs their Federal Legislation Clinic. She also serves a co-director of Workplace 

Flexibility 2010, where she researches and promotes flexible work 

arrangements, including those utilized within Federal agencies. 

55 

We appreciate the fact that you are here with us today, and Mr. 

Stier, we will take your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. STIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here and to speak 

with you today. I think you have exactly the right goal of trying 

to make the Federal Government a model in employing older Americans. 

Jesse James once said, ‘‘I rob banks because that is where the 

money is.’’ The Federal Government needs to be looking at older 

Americans because that is where much of the talent is that the 

Federal Government desperately needs. 

Before launching into a quick conversation about some of the 

areas that I think this Committee could very effectively focus on, 

I want to take a second and step back and look at the general landscape because from our perspective, the talent system in Government is truly broken. The consequences are such that they are literally happening today. 

You don’t have to pick up a newspaper very often, but to see instances in which the Government is not providing us the services 

that we need in order to be able to address the multitude of challenges from global warming to globalization. By and large, addressing these problems means ensuring we have the right talent in 

Government. As I said earlier, older talent has to be a key part of 

that equation. 

The system, I would argue, is broken in three primary ways. No. 

1, much of talent, much of older talent simply is unaware about the 

opportunities that exist for them in Government. They want meaningful work. They can get it in Government, but they don’t know 

that they can look to Government for it. 

No. 2, the hiring process is broken. It is too difficult. It is too 

complicated. It is nontransparent. It takes too long, and ultimately, 

in many instances, it fails to select the right person. 

Then, third, once an individual makes it through this process, 

they are often managed in a way that doesn’t enable them to give 

of their best talent. So those are the three buckets of issues that 

this Committee, I would argue, should be focusing on in trying to 

fix the system. 

There are three primary places that I would argue that the Committee can best invest in trying to make a difference with respect 

to changes. First, I would argue that we need an applicant bill of 

rights, and this is focusing on the hiring process. In order for us 

to ensure that talented Americans and talented older Americans 

want to come into Government service, they need a system that is 

going to be clear. They need to understand what kind of opportunities are there and why they are exciting. 

It needs to be easy. Things like just submitting a resume, rather 

than a very challenging system you have to go in through right 

now, transparent so that they actually know where they are in the 

process. You may wait more time if you know it is going to take 

a particular period of time. But by and large, for many Americans 

applying for Government jobs, they have no idea. Their application 

56 

enters a black box. They are given no information about where they 

are in the process. 

Then, finally, it needs to be speedy. Again, that is a place that 

OPM has been working on and a variety of issues, but we need to 

do more in that respect. Beyond the applicant bill of rights on the 

hiring process, we need to also ensure that the assessment process 

is improved because, again, fast or slow, if you hire the wrong person, it doesn’t much matter. 

Second area I would focus on is on the area of metrics, and Senator Smith referenced the Best Places To Work rankings. It is actually produced by American University and the Partnership for Public Service, and it is ultimately based on the work that OPM does. 

The OPM is actually the entity that produces the Federal Human 

Capital Survey on which the Best Places to Work rankings are 

based. 

This is incredibly valuable data that has not existed previously, 

and the old adage that you can’t manage what you don’t measure 

is absolutely true. By actually providing data, both for the public 

and for managers in Government, you can drive change that will 

make a very big difference and make Government more effective. 

We have a lot of data in Government, but we don’t always have 

the right data, the data that will enable managers to make the 

right decisions. The Best Places to Work says two things. First, you 

need to focus on leadership, and you need to focus on mission. On 

mission, the Federal Government stacks up very well against the 

private sector. On leadership, it does not. 

So, again to the question that Senator Smith asked, what makes 

a best place to work? It is organizations that have had very effective leadership, and we need to see a heavier emphasis on that in 

Government. 

We also need to see other metrics, and the primary one that I 

would argue would make the biggest difference in Government is 

a real metric around talent. I mentioned earlier that older workers 

provide a very valuable talent resource for Government. Unless the 

Government understands what kind of talent it is getting and that 

it can get better talent from older workers, we won’t actually incent 

the behavior to try to recruit those folks in. So that would be No. 

2. 

No. 3, you mentioned the pilot project we are working on called 

Fed Experience. Our belief is, again, that the way things need to 

be changed in Government, there are a lot of good ideas, but the 

greatest challenge is implementation. You really don’t know what 

the real issues are until you actually do try to implement it. We 

have, as a starting point, gotten IBM to sign on as a corporate 

partner, along with the Department of Treasury—and we expect 

other Federal agencies will follow suit—where we are going to have 

a concentrated effort to drive experienced talent from the private 

sector into the Federal Government at older worker levels. 

IBM is going to allow us to market directly to their existing retirees and soon-to-be retirees, help those folks and train them to understand the Federal processes and improve the hiring process to 

allow them in to be effective. 

This is a win-win-win. A win for the talent. MSPB has done a 

research report that shows that older workers in the Federal GovVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:27 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\46168.TXT SAG PsN: JOYCE
57 

ernment say that they prefer the jobs they are in in the public sector over these they used to have in the private sector. It is a win 

for the Government that desperately needs the help. It is a win for 

the American people who will benefit from a more effective government. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:] 

58 


46168.0041
59 


46168.0042
60 


46168.0043
61 


46168.0044
62 


46168.0045
63 


46168.0046
64 


46168.0047
65 


46168.0048
66 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stier. 

Ms. Feldblum. 

STATEMENT OF CHAI FELDBLUM, CO-DIRECTOR, WORKPLACE 

FLEXIBILITY 2010, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. FELDBLUM. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Kohl. 

My name is Chai Feldblum. I am a law professor at Georgetown 

University Law Center and the co-director of Workplace Flexibility 

2010. 

I have submitted long written testimony, and many appendices. 

In fact, I want to particularly thank Marcy Karin, who is a supervising attorney in my clinic, for shepherding that work through. 

But let me just make three main points here from the testimony. 

First, any creative and effective system to engage older workers in 

the Federal Government has to include a specific and focused effort 

on increasing workplace flexibility in the Federal workplace. Workplace flexibility cannot be the tagline. It needs to be the headline. 

The data shows all this. 

I think the data shows that older workers either need to work 

or want to work, and they don’t want to work in the same way. As 

you noted in your opening statements, as did Senator Smith, they 

might need to be doing care giving of themselves or others. They 

might want to do volunteer work or community work. They want 

to hang out with their grandkids. They want flexible work arrangements. 

At Workplace Flexibility 2010, we have a broad definition of 

workplace flexibility of which one component, the one most relevant 

to today’s hearing, is flexible work arrangements, what we call 

FWAs. That way you know you are in Washington, you have got 

an acronym. 

So FWAs include, for us, flexibility in scheduling, flexibility in 

perhaps reduction of hours, and flexibility in terms of place. All 

that comes in under FWAs. If this Committee, if Congress cares 

about enhancing employment opportunities for older workers in the 

Federal Government, it needs to have a specific focus on enhancing 

FWAs. 

Second point, here is the good news. You have heard it already 

here. The Federal Government is ahead of the curve in this area. 

Unlike many private employers, the Federal Government already 

has a fair number of FWAs available in the workplace, which was 

basically generated at two points in time. In the 1970’s, the influx 

of women into Federal employment and the energy crisis resulted 

in a bunch of laws being passed to encourage FWAs and, more recently, with the impending retirement crisis. Again, my written 

testimony describes that in detail. 

So that is the good news. I mean, Congress, the agencies have 

realized that, in this case, older workers want good jobs that have 

FWAs. But here is the third point and the most critical. There is 

so absolutely much more that the Government can do. Congress, 

the agencies working together to, in fact, make flexible work arrangements work well. 

Here are just three things to think about that draw on the 

unique capacity of Government. All of it requires strategic thinking 

ahead. One, Government is able not only to implement new workVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:27 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\46168.TXT SAG PsN: JOYCE
67 

place policies, it has the capacity to self-assess, critique. I mean, 

OPM, GAO, congressional hearings, there is a wealth of opportunities to do that critique and assessment, but it needs to be done in 

a focused, strategic way on workplace flexibility. 

The testimony I handed in is a result of 5 years of work, of different students’ times finding stuff. It shouldn’t take that long to 

actually find all of that data. So the Government should assess the 

data, collect it, have an easy access portal. 

Two, the Federal Government is huge. You know that. Now that 

means it is a beast that is sometimes hard to move, but it also 

means that it offers an incredibly rich opportunity, given the widely varied jobs that it has. Here is a key point we have discovered 

in 5 years of focusing on workplace flexibility. Flexible work arrangements, FWAs, they don’t work well on autopilot. They don’t 

take just because you offer them. It needs—flexible work arrangements need to be integrated into the culture of the workplace, and 

that requires training and education. 

All of the data shows it works well if you have got a manager 

who understands how to do it. It works well if employees have understanding of the expectations. Now Government has the resources to do this, not unlimited resources, especially in tight economic times. But resources to do education and training, if carefully managed, could make a huge difference. 

Third and finally, the Federal Government can export its experiences, its best practices. Again, this is an area ripe for public/private partnership, either the types of partnerships that Max’s group 

is doing, which is actually a project together, or a project in exporting the best practices. 

In conclusion, at Workplace Flexibility 2010, we look forward to 

the day when FWAs and other forms of workplace flexibility are 

the simple, ordinary, and accepted ways of doing business in our 

country. Congress and the Federal Government can take the lead 

in building this type of model workplace for the 21st century. This 

type of model workplace will not only help retain older workers in 

the Federal Government, it will ultimately help all workers better 

manage their work and lives if flexible work arrangements become 

embedded in the basic culture of how we do work, and that would 

be a good thing to happen. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Feldblum follows:] 

68 


46168.0049
69 


46168.0050
70 


46168.0051
71 


46168.0052
72 


46168.0053
73 


46168.0054
74 


46168.0055
75 


46168.0056
76 


46168.0057
77 


46168.0058
78 


46168.0059
79 


46168.0060
80 


46168.0061
81 


46168.0062
82 


46168.0063
83 


46168.0064
84 


46168.0065
85 


46168.0066
86 


46168.0067
87 


46168.0068
88 


46168.0069
89 


46168.0070
90 


46168.0071
91 


46168.0072
92 


46168.0073
93 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Feldblum. 

Mr. Stier, the Partnership for Public Service does do extensive 

research to rank the best agencies for older workers. Can you tell 

us a little bit about which agencies receive the highest ranks and 

what policies made these agencies so friendly to older workers? 

Could they be duplicated throughout the Federal Government? 

Mr. STIER. I think Chai got it right, and that is that, by and 

large, what is good for older workers is good for all workers. Therefore, if you look at our rankings of Federal agencies, you will see 

that there really isn’t a whole lot of variation overall in terms of 

employee satisfaction on our rankings. The same agencies are at 

the top. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is No. 1 for all of its 

workforce. It is No. 1 for our workers over 40. 

There are about 11 agencies that you will see some substantial 

variation between sort of over 40 and under 40, but the reality is 

that they have to do a lot with individual cultural issues more than 

anything else. 

Again, what Chai said I think is exactly right, and that is that 

what all workers are going to want is a work environment in which 

they have meaningful work, in which that their skills are valued, 

in which they have leadership, where they can see what they are 

doing, how it is connected to the overall mission of the organization. Beyond that, there are obviously a variety of different support 

mechanisms that agencies can create. But fundamental is to make 

people understand that their work is valued and that their work 

is meaningful. 

I think, is the key, and it is a place where the Federal Government does well in some instances, certainly around the mission orientation, but has a lot of work yet to do in others. Again, as I mentioned, the primary area is around leadership development. The 

Federal Government has very, very low rankings when you ask 

Federal workers about their perception of leadership, and this includes both political and career leadership. 

Very importantly, when you benchmark that against the private 

sector, those ratings are incredibly low. The private sector is almost 

double the approval of the public sector around leadership issues. 

It is the issue that if you improved on would have the greatest impact on overall engagement of the Federal workforce. So, it is absolutely vital. 

The CHAIRMAN. What issue did you say would have the? 

Mr. STIER. Leadership. Focusing on leadership talent. Focusing 

on the ability of frontline managers all the way to the top of house 

to provide the environment, to provide the direction to their employees to enable them to give of their discretionary energy, to do 

the best possible. 

The question was asked about GAO as to why it is that it is No. 

2 on our Best Places To Work ranking. What is clear is that they 

have had superb leadership. In part, it has something to do with 

the fact that they have had leadership of longer tenure. Dave 

Walker, who just stepped down, spent 10 years as the leader, obviously, at GAO. 

I think one of the unique challenges the public sector, and in particular the Federal Government, faces is that it has short-term political leadership that is not incented to focus on the long-term orVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:27 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\46168.TXT SAG PsN: JOYCE
94 

ganizational issues that the Federal Government faces. So, again, 

I think this is an area where this Committee and Congress can 

play a very important role in providing that long-term attention to 

organizational health. 

Political leaders coming in an executive branch are not rewarded 

for focusing on organizational health. They need to be. If there are 

no metrics to understand organizational health, it only makes it 

worse, and part of our argument here is that we need to make sure 

we have those metrics to understand how healthy Government is 

from a real-time perspective. 

Right now, we have lagging indicators, public failures, response 

to Hurricane Katrina. We don’t have anything else, and that is a 

real problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, then what are the characteristics of leadership that tend to drive people out? 

Mr. STIER. Well, again, and the old saw is that people don’t leave 

jobs, they leave their boss. There are dissatisfiers, and there are 

satisfiers. Certainly, the characteristic that I think probably is 

most core is for leaders to be successful in keeping talent. I agree 

with Nancy that their first order of business is to keep the good 

talent that they have—yet there is no prioritization on it. 

So, by and large, managers in Government are not either assessed or rewarded on the basis of how they manage their talent. 

That is fundamental. Unless folks understand what good management is, unless they are judged on that basis, unless they are rewarded on that basis, then it is the unusual manager who pays sufficient attention to it. That is endemic in the Government, and I 

think it is a major, major problem. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with that, Ms. Feldblum? 

Ms. FELDBLUM. Yes, and actually, I am thinking about it in the 

context of the research we have seen on flexible work arrangements. People have sometimes a sense of how they do jobs. You 

come. You show up. There is this face time. There is a rigidity 

around it. 

When flexible work arrangements work well, it is because the supervisor has energized the office, all the folks there, to say we can 

get this job done well and still do it in a way that will accommodate, will manage, will facilitate whatever is going on in your lives. 

Be it care-giving or you want to get another training. It is so important to have continued training in some of these areas. 

So if you have a manager, a leader who says this is important, 

that is the first step. Now there are a few things you have got to 

do here. No. 1, as Max says, you have got to incentivize the manager to want to do that. I mean, I still remember reading just 

about a year ago in the Washington Post, some manager said, 

‘‘Well, I am getting rid of the alternative work schedules. Part-time 

just won’t work here.’’ 

I am thinking, OK, there is a little education that clearly needed 

to have happened. Right now, for that person, it wasn’t going to 

work. But across the Government, it is working, right? So this is 

both the challenge and the opportunity of how big the Government 

is. It is working well in some places. 

We have to figure out how to find those folks, bring them to 

training and education to other agencies. I mean, we have a law 

95 

that says they can offer it FEFCWA, Federal Employees Flexible 

and Compressed Workweek, blah, blah, right? We have a law that 

says they can offer it. We have OPM that says they are supposed 

to offer technical assistance, but there is not much more coherence 

behind it. 

As opposed to saying this is our headline. We are going to make 

workplace flexibility work. We are going to find where it is working. Then we are going to have a panel where we bring other supervisors and employees, and then 2 years later, someone who was 

in the audience will be up on the panel, training the next one. 

But it has got to be a combination of incentivizing the managers 

to want to do it, giving them the resources to do it, and saying this 

is a big deal to get this done right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you say that some of the best managers, 

some of the best motivators and leaders or the majority of them, 

simply because of the attractiveness of the private sector in so 

many ways, not the least of which is financial, but the best are 

found out there, and it is harder to find them and retain them in 

the Federal workplace? 

Mr. STIER. I don’t think so. I think that the Federal Government 

has unique advantages that enable it to recruit and retain some of 

the very best talent, some of the very best management talent. 

Most people are more motivated by meaningful work. Most people 

want to make a difference. 

Certainly the Federal Government does not stack up well in certain professions on the financial categories, but it compares well in 

other categories. For older Americans, healthcare is of extreme importance, and that is what our research and everyone’s research 

shows. The Federal Government offers an incredible benefit with 

respect to healthcare, particularly for those at the backend of their 

career. If they spend 5 years in the Federal Government, they can 

have healthcare for the rest of their lives. 

The point is that the Federal Government has intrinsically what 

it needs to attract the right talent. It needs to do a lot of work to 

ensure that the American public understands those opportunities 

because, right now, it is not on the radar screen. Older Americans, 

only 11 percent, say they have any real familiarity with Federal 

Government jobs. 

The same for younger folks as well. It is not on the radar screen. 

When they learn about it, the more they know, the more they like 

it. That is very powerful because, obviously, there is a solution 

there. You can market better, and you will actually see benefits. 

Nancy mentioned that OPM is starting to do some advertising. 

Think about the military versus the civilian side. On the military 

side, we have spent billions of dollars ensuring that we have the 

right talent going into the military. We have not had anything remotely close to that kind of investment on the civilian side. 

Yet ensuring that we have the right talent in the civilian side of 

Government is vital for our physical security as well as a lot of 

other things. So we have not, I think, invested appropriately in ensuring that the talent knows about these opportunities. 

Again, I would go back to my schematic. You have got to make 

sure that those entry processes, the hiring process allows you to 

bring that talent in and then to manage them effectively. This is 

96 

a system problem, though. You won’t fix it by simply doing one 

thing. 

I think Chai is right as well. You won’t fix it simply by passing 

laws. You have to ensure that you create incentive systems that 

allow for these laws to be used effectively, and part of that is increasing transparency and having the right data points and allowing the right people to know about it and which will, itself, generate change. 

Our Best Places To Work rankings, Hank Paulson at Department 

of Treasury, held a day-long session in which he brought together 

all of his top managers to talk about how to improve their rankings 

in the Best Places ranking. Senator Kempthorne did the same 

thing. 

These things could not happen but for the fact that they are 

being ranked against each other and that the data exists. It is a 

very powerful. Tim Zagat, who started Zagat’s Guide, got it right. 

That is very powerful stuff, and we need to see how to apply that 

power to driving the kind of change that we want in Government. 

Ms. FELDBLUM. Like that Zagat survey for Federal employees. 

But actually, I agree that there is talent, talented managers, passionate managers in the Federal Government. I mean, I have seen 

managers in the private sector who have gotten it, that integrating 

flexible work arrangements into their enterprise is going to help 

their bottom line. 

We have survey after survey that actually shows that, and in 

fact, in terms of some of this data collection of the Federal Government doing its own collection and assessment, I think this is ripe 

for a public/private partnership in the research, data collection because there is some very interesting stuff going on in the private 

sector. 

So, yes, there are some very passionate, smart managers in the 

private sector. But I think what the Federal Government has going 

for it is that mission piece. We are here to serve. We are not here 

to increase the bottom line. We are here to serve. There are a lot 

of people in the Federal Government who are energized by that. 

It is about finding those folks, telling those stories, having it as 

part of a strategic, coherent plan of finding them, telling the stories, giving them the incentives. That is why I say it can’t be the 

tagline. This workplace flexibility needs to be the headline. 

When I read the interagency task force report, I was struck by 

two things. One, as a group that has been running a phased retirement working group for a year and a half now and really digging 

into the statute, the regs and ERISA, the code, we have a good 

sense of the complexities around the statues and regs that need to 

be addressed, and they really did just do a little nod of it should 

be looked at. 

But the second reaction I had was workplace flexibility was 

there, but not highlighted in a way that I think could be much 

more effective, much more effective. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you both would say we, at the Federal level, 

are or are not, for the most part, a model of flexibility to encourage 

people to stay? We are or are not? 

Ms. FELDBLUM. I don’t think you are yet in a way that the American public understands. I think there is a lot going on and a lot 

97 

more going on in the Federal Government actually than in a lot of 

private sectors. But it is not marketed well to the outside. The private sector, one of the things that it knows how to do is market 

itself. So they market their flexible work arrangements. 

I think there is significant potential. It is not being leveraged yet 

in the way that it can be. 

Mr. STIER. I agree 100 percent, and the only thing I would add 

is also to address your prior question as well. That is that the hiring model in the Federal Government historically has been a career 

model. Someone would come in, spend 30 years, and then retire. 

The way the talent markets have changed and the way the demographics are currently existing for the Federal Government, the 

Federal Government has to move from that career model to what 

I would describe as a ‘‘career builder’’ model. I think the Career 

Patterns notion that OPM has presented is exactly the right approach to be thinking about multiple forms, multiple channels into 

public service. 

It is still the case, however, that that paradigm shift hasn’t really occurred in practice in the Federal Government, and it needs to. 

So if you look at older workers, in particular more experienced 

workers, by and large, we are not seeing that much talent flow 

from the outside coming in. Again, you have those series of issues, 

series of problems that you will need to address in order to make 

that happen. 

Part of it is the marketing, but part of it is also going to be a 

culture change within Government. I think it is a very important 

culture change because right now we have a very insular workforce, and as a result, we don’t benefit from the variation of ideas, 

the experimentation, the knowledge that exists by having multiple 

organizations contribute to a single organization, in this case the 

Federal Government’s ability to get stuff done. 

That is true even within the Federal Government, where you 

have a lot of talent that stays put in single agencies or single 

pieces of agencies. The Senior Executive Service was originally created as a management group that was supposed to move across 

Government and be transportable. That, by and large, does not 

happen. Part of it is that, again, there has not been the incentive 

for those folks to move around. 

In the intelligence community, they have just adopted the joint 

duty model that the military has already adopted. So if you want 

to be promoted, you need to move around. I think those are the 

kinds of things that you could do to, again, promote the movement 

of talent in Government that would be quite constructive. 

We have huge opportunities, but they have not all yet been realized. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good comment. Any other comments either one 

of you would like to make on this topic? 

Ms. FELDBLUM. Marcy Karin, the attorney I mentioned, put together a timeline for me, which I would like to actually submit, 

again, as another appendix. But it was a really fascinating timeline 

from 1978 to now of stuff the Congress has done and agencies has 

done in this area. 

I just want to say that the Senate Aging Committee has been, 

in fact, an incredible catalyst for a lot of good work. Now, it needs 

98 

to then connect with Finance, Homeland Security, Government Affairs, et cetera. But I have to say, reading that timeline said to me 

that what this Committee is doing is exactly right, and it is really 

about taking it now to the next step and moving with other committees, and Workplace Flexibility 2010 certainly stands ready to 

work on that. 

You can see I created this in 2004, and I put 2010 into the title 

of my organization to indicate that I didn’t have ideas and policies 

now, but I was trying to facilitate a process that would get us 

someplace in 2010. I certainly hope this is a committee we will be 

able to keep working with to get to where I hope we get to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, on that high compliment for the Aging 

Committee, I think it is a good time to take what we have and 

thank you for being here. You have added a lot to the debate. We 

all know there is a big challenge ahead. I think that working together, we can accomplish a lot. 

So appreciate you being here. Thank you all for being here. 

Mr. STIER. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(99) 

A P P E N D I X 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN M. COLLINS

Today’s hearing highlights a critical issue: the challenge to effective and efficient 

government operations as waves of Baby Boomers in the federal workforce reach retirement age. 

In 2006, the Office of Personnel Management reported that about 60 percent of 

federal white-collar employees and 90 percent of its federal executives would become 

eligible for retirement in the next decade. Retirements from the federal workforce 

have averaged more than 50,000 a year for the past decade, so we can only expect 

that the outflow of experienced and skilled employees will grow substantially. 

Today’s witnesses from the Government Accountability Office will discuss their 

new study of the issue, which should provide valuable guidance for Congress as we 

consider ways to mitigate the impact of a demographic storm surge of retirements. 

In GAO’s March 2007 review of the issue, we were advised that: 

Today and in the near term, the federal government is facing a retirement wave 

and with it the loss of leadership and institutional knowledge at all levels. Agencies 

not only face a fiercely competitive market for talent but hiring is also affected by 

uncompetitive salaries in some critical occupations and lengthy hiring processes. 

Our witnesses from OPM and the Department of Labor can provide additional insight into agency and policy options for addressing this workforce issue, and describe the work of the interagency task force on the aging workforce. The second 

panel, with witnesses representing the Partnership for Public Service and the Workplace Flexibility 2010 project at Georgetown University, can offer additional ideas 

to encourage older Americans to work in the Federal government and to help develop national policy promoting workplace flexibility. 

If the federal government can retain more of these older workers and attract others into federal service, it can ease the disruption of this demographic crunch and 

deliver benefits to taxpayers. Human-resources research has repeatedly shown the 

benefits of older workers in terms of their organizational knowledge, ability to work 

independently, commitment, productivity, flexibility, and mentoring ability. 

Making good use of their talents is, therefore, not charity. It is common sense and 

sound management. Federal agencies recognize the value of older workers, as witnessed by the fact that nearly 4,500 retirees have been allowed to return to fulltime work on a waiver basis. 

Agencies could make use of even more federal annuitants for short-term projects 

or part-time work, but for a disincentive embedded in current law. The law mandates that annuitants who return to work for the federal government must have 

their salary reduced by the amount of their annuity during the period of reemployment. 

Last August, I introduced S. 2003, cosponsored by Senators Warner and Voinovich 

and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to 

correct this problem. It provides a limited opportunity for federal agencies to reemploy retirees without requiring them to take pay cuts based on their annuity payment. 

Removing this disincentive to retiree service is a priority for OPM, and such a 

reform has also been endorsed by the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the Federal Managers Association, the Partnership for Public Service, and the Council for Excellence in Government. 

To prevent agencies from relying too much on annuitant service to the exclusion 

of succession planning and bringing younger people into federal agencies, my bill 

would limit the calendar-period and lifetime hours that retirees could work. These 

limits will give agencies flexibility in assigning retirees to limited-time or limitedscope projects, including mentoring and collaboration, without evading or undermining the waiver requirement for substantial or full-time employment of annuitants. 

100 

The bill would have no adverse financial impact. Reemployed annuitants would 

be performing work that the agencies needed to do in any case, but would not require any additional contributions to pension or savings plans. Meanwhile, the costs 

of their retiree health and life insurance benefits would unaffected by their parttime work. Even without making any allowance for the positive effects of their organizational knowledge, commitment, productivity, and mentoring potential, their reemployment is likely to produce net savings. 

Other statutory measures to promote workforce flexibility and to make more effective use of experienced older workers—especially in the current period of unusual 

demographic transition—may need to be considered as well. 

I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for organizing this important and 

constructive hearing. If federal agencies and Congress will take creative and effective steps to address the heavy outflows of experienced older workers from federal 

service, we can minimize any disruptions in efficient operations and in services for 

the public. 

Æ