Federal Employees: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Performance Management Pilot
Published: 2013-09-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: A longstanding challenge for federal agencies has been developing credible and effective performance management systems that can serve as a strategic tool to drive internal change and achieve results. In 2011, various federal agencies, labor unions, and other organizations developed the Goals-Engagement-Accountability-Results (GEAR) framework to help improve performance management.
GAO was asked to evaluate GEAR. This report (1) analyzes how the GEAR framework addresses key practices for effective performance management and identifies opportunities to improve GEAR implementation government-wide; (2) describes the status of GEAR implementation at pilot agencies and lessons learned to date; and (3) assesses the extent to which each pilot agency's GEAR implementation plan includes selected best practices for project planning. The report is based on GAO's analysis of GEAR documents, agency project plans, and interviews with agency officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that the GEAR framework generally addresses previously identified key practices for effective performance management, such as aligning individual performance expectations with organizational goals, but refinements could improve future government-wide implementation. Five federal agencies are piloting GEAR--the Departments of Energy (DOE), Homeland Security/Coast Guard (DHS/Coast Guard), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs/National Cemetery Administration (VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)--with the intention to expand GEAR government-wide. The Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO Council) is developing a toolkit based, among other things, on the experience of the pilot agencies. The toolkit is intended to help additional agencies implement the GEAR framework; CHCO Council representatives expect the toolkit to be complete by the end of September 2013. However, beyond the toolkit, neither the CHCO Council nor OPM have identified next steps to implement GEAR government-wide, such as identifying roles and responsibilities. Further, neither OPM nor the CHCO Council has plans to regularly update the GEAR framework or toolkit to include additional lessons learned, or to make such information available more broadly to key stakeholders, such as human resource professionals who may be responsible for future implementation. Without taking these steps, agencies that have already begun implementing GEAR risk losing their momentum; in addition, it may be challenging to implement GEAR government-wide.
The five pilot agencies adopted various approaches to implementing GEAR -DOE, HUD, and OPM implemented GEAR agency-wide, while Coast Guard and NCA adopted GEAR in single units - based on agency needs, available resources, and GAO's lessons learned to date. For example, early stakeholder involvement, including engagement between those representing labor and management, resulted in greater transparency and fewer obstacles. In addition, administering employee surveys to identify the greatest needs before implementing GEAR helped establish a baseline to better track results.
Each of the pilot agencies developed a GEAR project plan that outlined specific actions. DOE's GEAR plan was the most thoroughly documented. The other four agency plans did not include all project planning best practices. Without these elements, agencies may be limited in their ability to determine what needs to be done, when it should be done, who should do it, and how to measure progress towards achieving objectives.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: As GEAR is adopted government-wide, GAO recommends that the Director of OPM, in collaboration with the CHCO Council, define roles and responsibilities for OPM, the CHCO Council, and individual agencies, in such areas as updating the toolkit (as needed) and disseminating information on GEAR more broadly. GAO also recommends that OPM, Coast Guard, HUD, and NCA update their GEAR project plans to be consistent with best practices for project planning. OPM, DHS, HUD, and VA agreed with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In our past work we have noted how current budget and long-term fiscal  pressures, combined with a potential wave of employee retirements,  could produce gaps in leadership and institutional knowledge that could  impair the ability of federal agencies to carry out their complex and  evolving missions. We concluded that effective performance  management systems that link individual performance to organizational  results will be key to mission success in this difficult environment. In  2011, representatives of various federal agencies, labor unions, and  management organizations were brought together by the National Council  on Federal Labor-Management Relations (LMR Council), in conjunction  with the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCO Council), to identify  ways to reform and improve employee performance management in the  federal government. The resulting effort, the Goals-Engagement- Accountability-Results (GEAR) framework, is a set of five high-level  recommendations intended to create high-performing organizations that  are aligned, accountable, and focused on results. Five federal agencies  are piloting GEAR, either agency-wide or in single units: the Department  of Energy (DOE), the Department of Housing and Urban Development  (HUD), the Department of Homeland Security/United States Coast Guard  (DHS/Coast Guard), the Department of Veterans Affairs/National  Cemetery Administration (VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel  Management (OPM).
You asked us to evaluate the GEAR framework. This report (1) analyzes  how the GEAR framework addresses key practices for effective  performance management and identifies opportunities, if any, to improve  GEAR implementation government-wide; (2) describes the status of each  pilot agency’s GEAR implementation and any lessons learned to date;  and (3) assesses the extent to which each agency’s GEAR  implementation plan includes selected best practices for project planning.
To address our first objective, we systematically reviewed the GEAR  report from the LMR Council to determine whether the goals,  recommendations, and actions described in the document reflected key  practices for effective performance management that we previously  identified.purposes of this engagement by conducting a literature review of leading  performance management practices and consulting with internal subject  matter experts. In addition, we interviewed OPM officials and CHCO   We verified that the key practices were applicable for  Council officials who were members of the LMR Council work group that  drafted the report.
To address our second objective, we obtained and analyzed each  agency’s GEAR implementation plan(s) and obtained and analyzed  updates from the agencies and other documentation that identified their  current GEAR implementation status. We developed an interview  instrument to discuss agency strategies with human resource/human  capital officials, program managers, and other officials responsible for  GEAR implementation. We also interviewed labor union representatives  about any problems or concerns with implementing the GEAR framework.  In addition, in May 2013 we visited Coast Guard Base Boston, where we  observed initial GEAR training sessions and interviewed supervisors and  employees about their reactions to the training and the GEAR framework.  We chose this site because the Coast Guard was the most recent of the  five pilot agencies to implement GEAR and we were able to visit soon  after the start of their implementation efforts.
To address our third objective, we identified project planning best  practices (drawn primarily from Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government, GAO’s definitions of performance measurement,  and GAO’s guide for best practices in project schedules) and assessed  the inclusion of information contained in the agencies’ GEAR plans  against the best practices. We focused on the inclusion of the following  best practices because they were relevant to GEAR: (1) plan objective(s)  describing a goal; (2) specific actions needed to attain that goal; (3) roles  and responsibilities identified and assigned to project stakeholders; (4)  schedules containing logically related project elements leading to the  goal; and (5) valid performance measures that permit comparison  between desired outcomes and actual results. We assessed each  agency’s GEAR plan to determine the extent to which the information that  was included met each of the five best practices. In cases in which plans  provided inconsistent information, we used a rating of “partially” included.  In addition, we noted strengths and areas for further attention in each  plan.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to September  2013 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 audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details of our  scope and methodology appear in Appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: A long-standing challenge for federal agencies has been developing  credible and effective performance management systems that can serve  as a strategic tool to drive internal change and achieve results.  According to OPM regulations, performance management is the  systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as  individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational  effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency mission and goals.  Performance management includes such actions as  setting expectations, continually monitoring performance, developing the  capacity to perform, periodically rating performance in a summary  fashion, and rewarding good performance.
In December 2009, the LMR Council was created to establish a  cooperative and productive form of executive branch labor-management  relations in an effort to improve the productivity and effectiveness of the  federal government. The LMR Council is co-chaired by the Director of  the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Deputy Director for  Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with  members representing executive branch departments and agencies,  several labor unions, and other management associations. The LMR  Council serves as an advisor to the President on matters involving  executive branch labor-management relations; it also promotes  partnership efforts between labor and management within the executive  branch. For example, the order states that management should discuss  workplace challenges and problems with labor and endeavor to develop  solutions jointly, rather than advise union representatives of  predetermined solutions to problems and then engage in bargaining over  the impact and implementation of the predetermined solutions.
In April 2011, the LMR Council, in conjunction with the CHCO Council, set  out to examine the federal government’s performance management  accountability framework and to make recommendations for  improvement. The CHCO Council supports OPM in the strategic  management of human capital at federal agencies and provides a forum  for senior management officials to exchange human resources best  practices. By May 2011, a work group was formed (with members  representing various federal agencies, labor unions, and management  organizations from both the LMR and CHCO Councils) to discuss ways to  examine the existing system of employee performance management in  ways that the work group felt were different from previous attempts that  focused on actions such as increasing employee accountability through  changes to regulations.
The work group developed the GEAR report, issued in 2011, which  identified challenges with the federal performance management system,  such as a lack of evidence that the mechanical aspects of public and private  sector performance management systems, such as rating levels and  awards, do a good job of improving employee and organizational  performance; and a disconnect among the various functions responsible for  organizational performance improvement and employee performance  improvement. For example, there were few formally structured  opportunities for the individuals responsible for these functions to  interact and communicate.
As a result of identifying these challenges, according to the GEAR report,  the work group agreed to  focus on the relational elements of organizational and employee  performance management, such as how to set clear expectations in  work plans through frequent formal and informal feedback between  supervisors and employees; and engage employees and agency managers, through their labor unions  and CHCOs, and identify successful practices that have improved the  selection and training of supervisors and the engagement between  employees and supervisors such as two-way communication and  continual informal feedback.
The work group constructed the GEAR framework, as presented in the  GEAR report, with the following recommendations:  1.  Articulate a high performance culture.  2.  Align employee and organizational performance management.  3.  Implement accountability at all levels.  4.  Create a culture of engagement.  5.  Improve supervisor assessment, selection, development, and   training.
OPM officials told us that the practices in the GEAR report are well known  and credible but not universally applied in federal agencies. According  to an OPM senior official, the GEAR recommendations are “common  sense but not common practice.” The same official noted that the GEAR  recommendations align with current regulations addressing federal  performance management, but that GEAR adds specific strategic and   Agency officials said  technical guidance and communication strategies.that combining the recommendations into one framework can aid officials  in maintaining focus and attention on improving performance  management in the context of competing priorities.
The GEAR recommendations and framework were presented to and  accepted by the LMR Council in November 2011. By December 2011,  five agencies had volunteered to implement the GEAR framework. Of  these, three agencies – DOE, HUD, and OPM – implemented GEAR  agency-wide with few exceptions. Two agencies – Coast Guard and NCA  – implemented GEAR in single units. The agencies all created GEAR  implementation plans and periodically met as a group to discuss  strategies and challenges, and to share successes and additional training  opportunities throughout implementation. The pilot agencies also  periodically reported their progress to both the LMR and CHCO Councils.  No additional agencies have volunteered to pilot GEAR. However, in  Analytical Perspectives: Performance and Management section in the  President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, there is a stated goal of broader  application of the GEAR framework across the federal government, with  no stated timeframe for completion.
section_title: The GEAR Framework Generally Addresses Key Performance Management Practices; Refinements Could Improve Future Government-wide Implementation
subsections: section_title: The GEAR Framework Generally Addresses Key Performance Management Practices
paragraphs: We have previously identified a set of key practices for modern, effective  performance management, which appear with summary descriptions in  table 1. Our current review found that the GEAR framework generally  addressed seven of these key practices, but it does not give clear  attention to two other practices.
As shown in table 1, two practices—connecting performance expectations  to crosscutting goals, and linking pay to organizational performance—do  not receive clear attention in the GEAR framework. LMR work group  members who helped to draft the GEAR report told us they did not  specifically discuss agency crosscutting goals during the drafting and  instead, focused on aligning employee and organizational performance  management. However, they also told us that GEAR does not deter  agencies from connecting performance expectations to crosscutting  goals, and that they felt that crosscutting goals would be subsumed under  individual and agency performance goals, as appropriate. OPM officials  agreed that connecting performance expectations to crosscutting goals is  essential to improving performance across the federal government.
In addition, these same LMR work group members said that they  excluded linking pay to performance because Congress authorizes pay.  Congress is responsible for authorizing pay-for-performance plans, and  tools to reward good performance with pay are increasingly limited in the  federal government. They said that the GEAR report suggests  appropriate action for both good and poor performance and that use of  pay-for-performance could be understood as such an action.
According to the GEAR report, effective, and productive relationships  between managers and employees are necessary for performance  improvements. The greater an employee’s level of engagement, the more  likely he or she is to go beyond the minimum required. GEAR emphasizes  promoting employee-supervisor engagement through continual informal  feedback and frequent (up to four times per year) formal feedback.  Beyond the establishment of competencies and aligned goals, GEAR  recommends frequent interaction and accountability—both for supervisors  and employees—based on measurable goals.
The GEAR report also recommends that agencies improve the  assessment, selection, development, and training of supervisors,  emphasizing that agencies should select and assess supervisors based  on supervisory and leadership proficiencies, rather than technical  competencies, and should hold them accountable for performance of  supervisory responsibilities. In addition, GEAR emphasizes the need to  hold supervisors accountable for providing feedback, documenting  performance discussions, and holding poorly-performing employees  accountable. According to the GEAR report, focusing on accountability of  managers and supervisors helps to ensure continual, effective  communication and to make performance management a daily feature of  work. Senior officials at three of the pilot agencies reported that  supervisors sometimes say there is not enough time for supervisory  responsibilities. For example, officials at DOE and HUD said that  supervisors sometimes see their supervisory responsibilities as  secondary to programmatic responsibilities and may not allocate sufficient  time to set clear expectations or provide frequent feedback to employees.
As part of improving supervision, GEAR recommends greater integration  between the agency units dealing with organizational performance and  those dealing with individual employee performance. Specifically, GEAR  proposes greater integration between the CHCO and Performance  Improvement Officer (PIO) functions to improve overall program  execution, either through creation of a Performance Management  Integration Board or through continuous communication so that the  functions work in tandem. Similarly, GEAR emphasizes long-term  integration of performance management into agency functions. For  example, it recommends mentoring to ensure general organizational  continuity, continual planning and assessment to ensure continued focus  on personnel management and high performance, and targeted training  and development programs to ensure agencies will have qualified  supervisors and be able to fill other critical occupations. We have  previously concluded that integrating human capital planning with broader  organizational strategic planning is essential for ensuring that agencies  have the talent and skill mix needed to cost-effectively execute their  mission and program goals.
section_title: OPM and CHCO Council Have Not Fully Defined their Roles for Implementing GEAR Government-wide
paragraphs: While OPM and the CHCO Council have been supportive of the pilot  effort to date, neither entity has identified their specific respective roles or  responsibilities for achieving the current administration’s goal of  implementing GEAR more broadly across the federal government going  forward. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities will be important for  maintaining the momentum of the pilot, sharing the pilot effort’s lessons  learned, and encouraging additional agencies to implement the GEAR  framework.
OPM has taken several steps to help the pilot agencies implement GEAR.  For example, OPM officials have facilitated conversations among the pilot  agencies to share information and lessons learned, and have made web- based training on performance management available to federal agencies  at no cost. According to OPM officials, OPM, as co-chair of the CHCO  Council, will provide leadership and direction for the government-wide  implementation of GEAR, but the future of GEAR will be determined by  the CHCO Council as a whole and not by OPM alone. They noted that the  GEAR framework is intended to be flexible and thus did not want to  mandate how agencies should implement it.
CHCO Council officials agreed that the framework provides flexibility to the  agencies; however, the same CHCO officials also cited the need for some  standardization of GEAR metrics to ensure accountability among agencies.  As noted, in Analytical Perspectives: Performance and Management of the  President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2014, “the CHCO Council is currently  reviewing the progress of GEAR and lessons learned in these agencies  and identifying other leading practices across the Federal sector and  private sector with the goal of broader application of the GEAR framework  across the Federal Government.”
For its part, the CHCO Council is reviewing the pilot agencies’  implementation of GEAR with an eye toward identifying promising  practices. Specifically, CHCO Council officials told us that an internal  work group is identifying promising practices and metrics that, when  combined, may provide additional guidance in the form of a diagnostic  toolkit to assist agencies in implementing the GEAR framework.  According to CHCO Council work group members, a toolkit is needed  because the GEAR recommendations were high-level in nature, and the  report itself did not include practical guidance. For example, an agency  may want to implement GEAR’s recommendation to create a culture of  engagement, but the GEAR report provided limited guidance on how to  do so.
According to a CHCO Council work group member, the diagnostic toolkit  will enable agencies to identify their level of “maturity” on a scale by  analyzing the results of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS),  the Human Capital Framework (HCF), the non-SES Performance  Appraisal Assessment Tool (PAAT), and the SES certification process.  Federal agencies can use these tools to measure whether, and to what  extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in  federal agencies (FEVS); to assist officials in achieving results in  personnel management programs (HCF); and to assess agencies’  performance appraisal systems and develop plans and strategies for  making improvements (non-SES PAAT and SES certification process).
From this, agencies can use the results to identify a range of promising  practices that the agency may choose from, based on identified resources  and needs. According to the same CHCO Council work group members,  these promising practices align with the five GEAR recommendations and  reflect a range of initiatives (compiled from both public and private sector  efforts, as well as pilot agencies’ experiences), that provide options for  agencies based on their specific needs. The CHCO Council’s subgroups  plan to complete the diagnostic toolkit by August 2013 and to present the  final product to the CHCO Council by the end of September 2013.  However, beyond its completion in September 2013, the CHCO Council  has no stated plans to update the toolkit, such as collecting lessons  learned on an ongoing basis from the pilot agencies, or including  additional promising practices as needed. Without gathering information  from the pilot agencies as they continue their implementation process,  valuable information that could help agencies implement GEAR in the  future may be lost.
While the toolkit shows promise for refining the future implementation of  GEAR, its utility in this regard could be limited because neither the CHCO  Council nor OPM have stated plans to broadly disseminate it. CHCO  Council officials told us that the completed diagnostic toolkit will be  presented to the entire CHCO Council but there is no plan to share that  information on a broader basis, which would be consistent with the  Administration’s goal to more broadly implement GEAR government-wide.  CHCO Council officials stated that it was OPM’s responsibility to  determine the future of the diagnostic toolkit. One vehicle for  disseminating the toolkit’s information more broadly could be the OMB  Max Federal Community Website where OPM officials have already  posted informational material on GEAR and where pilot agencies can add  their own information and experiences. Without making such information  more widely available, front-line managers, supervisors, representatives  of labor unions, and other federal human capital stakeholders may not  have access to information that could improve employee engagement.
Moving forward, it will be important for both OPM and the CHCO Council  to agree upon their specific roles and responsibilities if the goal of broader  application of the GEAR framework government-wide is to be realized.  Once specific roles and responsibilities have been established going  forward, plans may be made to update the GEAR framework and  diagnostic toolkit as needed and to broadly disseminate the information  so that stakeholders government-wide who are already implementing  GEAR (or may implement in the future) will have access to the most  recent guidance available.
section_title: Pilot Agencies Adopted Various Approaches to Implementing GEAR; Opportunities Exist to Capture Lessons Learned
subsections: section_title: Pilot Agencies Adopted Various Approaches to Implementing GEAR
paragraphs: The five pilot agencies adopted various approaches to implementing all  five of the GEAR recommendations based on their needs and available  resources. The GEAR report provides agencies with a framework focused  on feedback, employee-supervisor engagement, and improving  supervision; it gives agencies the flexibility to implement as they see fit.  Thus, three of the five agencies – DOE, HUD, and OPM – implemented  GEAR agency-wide, while two agencies – Coast Guard and NCA–  established pilots in single units. DOE, HUD, and OPM officials all said  that the project had the best chance of changing the organizational  culture if they implemented it agency-wide. For example, HUD officials  said they felt that implementing GEAR agency-wide would permit it to be  better embedded in the performance culture. An OPM official said that  GEAR focused attention on previously identified human capital needs,  such as supervisor assessment, that had not been addressed due to  limited resources and competing priorities.
VA is implementing GEAR within its NCA agency as a single unit pilot in  its Memorial Service Network (MSN) II in the southeastern region of the  country. According to VA officials, VA chose the NCA because it has a  reputation as a high-performing organization and an existing focus on  metrics and feedback. NCA officials said they chose to implement GEAR  as a single unit, rather than agency-wide, because doing so allowed them  to provide closer attention and support. The Coast Guard is implementing  GEAR at Base Boston, which, according to officials, was chosen as the  pilot site for several reasons: the presence of both general schedule (GS)  and wage grade (WG) employees (who happen to be supervised by both  military and civilian personnel) a wide variety of occupations, and the  representation of a single union – the American Federation of  Government Employees (AFGE) – rather than the multiple unions that are  present at other Coast Guard bases. Coast Guard officials said they  chose to pilot GEAR at a single unit because implementation brought  challenges such as dealing with such a large military population  (approximately 42,000 military personnel that rotate bases approximately  every two to three years and operate on a different performance  management plan compared with approximately 9,000 civilian  employees) and negotiating with approximately nine unions. According to  one Coast Guard official, to develop more than one site would create a  capacity issue that would make it very difficult to plan and implement.
Table 2 shows how many employees will be covered by GEAR at each  agency, as well as each agency’s time frame for implementation.  Additional information on the actions taken by each agency is included in  appendices V-IX.
Each of the agencies said they had engaged labor unions during GEAR  implementation. Of the agencies that mentioned the results of their  engagement, DOE officials said that prior to launching the pilot, the Office  of the Chief Human Capital Officer briefed the local unions that cover their  employees, but received no feedback. In contrast, NCA officials said that  the two unions that cover their employees, AFGE and the National  Association of Government Employees, have been involved in GEAR  implementation and made contributions to NCA’s approach to GEAR.  Coast Guard officials said the agency met with union representatives for  several extensive discussions involving facilitators and brain-storming  sessions, in order to include union input in the final GEAR implementation  plan. As a result of these discussions, Coast Guard officials told us that  the agency has the approval of the union and that both parties are  mutually responsible for the successful implementation of GEAR.  Representatives from labor unions that we interviewed generally agreed  that the GEAR pilot agencies had briefed them during GEAR  implementation.
Finally, although the five pilot agencies have defined different benefits  that they hope to achieve through implementing GEAR, some common  benefits include improved performance management overall, better  engagement between employees and supervisors, and improved  communication throughout the agencies.
section_title: Opportunities Exist to Capture Lessons Learned for Future Implementation Efforts
paragraphs: The GEAR pilot agencies have demonstrated leadership over their own  implementation efforts. Our work with the pilot agencies identified lessons  learned both from implementation within their agencies, and from hearing  about the experiences of others including the following:
Strong agency leadership support from the beginning helped  provide needed attention and focus upon implementation efforts.  For example, DOE’s Secretary sent a memo to all DOE employees  stating his personal support for the LMR Council GEAR report and the  agency’s commitment to the pilot effort.
Early stakeholder involvement with employees, management,  executive team and unions resulted in greater transparency and  fewer obstacles during implementation. For example, NCA officials  told us that two labor unions that have been involved in GEAR  implementation contributed valuable input that enhanced the agency’s  approach to GEAR – such as suggesting that exceptional  performance be defined in performance plans.
Timing GEAR implementation to coincide with the beginning of  the annual performance cycle in order to better track changes  resulting from GEAR. For example, Coast Guard officials told us that  they decided to implement GEAR at the start of their annual  performance cycle, based on the experience of another pilot agency  that implemented GEAR within a cycle and faced greater difficulty  because of their timing.
Administer employee surveys prior to implementation to identify  the greatest needs and to establish a baseline to better track  results. For example, Coast Guard administered a survey to its Base  Boston employees to solicit their thoughts, experiences, and  assessment of the current state of the employee performance  management systems.
Leverage shared training opportunities across agencies to  conserve limited resources. For example, OPM officials told us that  they worked with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to  make a suite of performance management web courses available to  all agencies free of charge.
Incorporate supervision as part of an agency’s performance  expectations. For example, according to DOE officials, they  developed a mandatory supervisory element which holds supervisors  accountable for each phase of the performance process.
Allow additional time for supervisors to meet their requirements.
For example, HUD instituted quarterly in-service days for managers  for the purpose of focusing on communication and employee  feedback.
Ensure continued momentum for implementation by accepting  GEAR as a long-term culture change commitment. For example,  HUD officials told us that agency leadership is committed to cultural  transformation and the time required to accomplish it.
As the pilot agencies continue with their implementation plans, additional  lessons may be learned. As we stated earlier in this report, OPM and the  CHCO Council officials have not yet identified a plan following the  completion of the diagnostic toolkit to capture additional lessons learned.
section_title: Some Agencies’ GEAR Project Plans Were More Complete than Others
paragraphs: As we concluded in May 2012, a well-developed and documented project  plan can help ensure that agencies are able to gauge progress, identify  and resolve potential problems, and promote accountability at all levels of  the project, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.  Project planning is the basis for controlling and managing project  performance, including managing the relationship between cost and  time. As we have previously concluded, preparing a project plan  encourages agency managers and stakeholders to systematically  consider what is to be done, when and how it will be done, what skills will  be needed, and how to gauge progress and results. Agency approaches  to such planning can vary with each agency’s particular needs and  mission. Nevertheless, existing best practices stress the importance of  accountability and sound planning for any project. Inherent in such  planning is the development and use of a project management plan that  describes, among other factors, the project’s objectives, implementation  actions, lines of responsibility, estimated schedule for development and  implementation, and performance measures. Having accurate and  transparent project cost and schedule information is also essential to  effective oversight.
Each of the pilot agencies developed a GEAR project plan that outlined  specific actions. Other elements (such as schedules and roles and  responsibilities) were either implemented to varying degrees, or (in some  cases) not implemented at all. Best practices emphasize the importance  of establishing a complete description that ties together all project  activities and evolves over time to continuously reflect the current status  and desired outcome of the project. For example, DOE’s GEAR project  plan was the most thoroughly documented of the five plans we assessed  and included project planning best practices for all five elements we  assessed. The other four agency plans did not include all project planning  best practices. Not including such best practices could limit their  effectiveness in further implementing the GEAR framework. As a result,  the information included in the plans may not be specific enough to  improve engagement, provide accountability, or measure progress in the  agencies.
We identified project planning best practices from Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government, our definitions of performance  measurement, and our guide for leading practices in project planning. We assessed information contained in the agencies’ GEAR plans against  the inclusion of the following best practices: (1) plan objectives,  describing a goal; (2) specific actions needed to attain that goal; (3) roles  and responsibilities identified and assigned to project stakeholders; (4)  schedules containing logically related project elements leading to the  goal; and (5) valid performance measures that permit comparison  between desired outcomes and actual results. Since the volunteer pilot  agencies are in the process of implementing GEAR, we assessed them  on the contents of the plan and not against the progress made towards  implementation of the plan. The GEAR report did not include guidance on  developing project plans. Table 3 identifies the extent to which the five  agency GEAR project plans address each of the project planning best  practices.
We found that the Coast Guard’s GEAR plan includes information on  objectives, specific actions, and roles and responsibilities, as shown in  table 4. According to the plan, the Coast Guard selected its pilot location  at Base Boston, with both military and civilian personnel, as a result of  discussions between management and labor unions. The plan clearly  states that a primary project manager in the Coast Guard’s human  resources office and a project manager at Base Boston are in charge of  GEAR implementation.
The Coast Guard’s plan has a high-level schedule that includes nine  different actions and dates, such as deploying a communication plan to  the workforce in February 2013, with the last date being the start of the  pilot in April 2013. This is the last date in the plan associated with a  specific action. Elsewhere in the plan, the Coast Guard lists pending and  ongoing actions under each of its objectives but does not include dates.  According to Coast Guard officials, the pilot will run the length of a  performance cycle (from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014). However,  based on the plan, we are unable to determine whether the Coast Guard  has additional actions planned for implementing GEAR that extend  beyond preparing for and starting the project itself. Best practices note  that planning and scheduling are continual processes throughout the life  of a project. They state that planning may be done in stages throughout  the project as stakeholders learn more details. Because GEAR-related  work continued at Coast Guard after April 1, 2013 the information  included in the plan is insufficient to gauge progress.
In addition, the plan lacks detail in defining performance measures that  include clearly stated performance targets that are aligned to the plan’s  objectives and enable the agency to monitor and measure progress.  According to the plan, the Coast Guard disseminated a pre-pilot survey in  March 2013 at Base Boston with plans for additional surveys mid- and  post-pilot to create a baseline. In addition, the Coast Guard created a  data repository to gather and analyze performance management  responsibilities. However, for both examples, there is no statement within  the plan specifying whether these are performance measures or  identifying what types of data are being collected. According to internal  control standards, performance measures should be established to  evaluate the success or failure of their activities and programs.  Performance measurement involves identifying performance goals and  measures, establishing performance baselines by tracking performance  over time, identifying targets for improving performance, and measuring  progress against those targets. Without additional information on  performance measures, the Coast Guard is missing opportunities to  gauge progress and measure the success of their implementation efforts  and, as a result, the agency may not have all available data for decision- making. Specifically, agency officials told us that the success of GEAR’s  implementation at Base Boston is one of the factors that will determine  whether or not the Coast Guard exports the GEAR framework to its  remaining bases and employees.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: The GEAR framework presents an opportunity for federal agencies to  increase employee engagement and improve performance management.  Indeed, even though the GEAR pilot has only been in place a short period  of time, agency officials have already described such benefits as  improved engagement and communication between employees and  supervisors. Although the recommendations outlined in the GEAR report  do not represent new concepts, implementing them in practice may  present challenges unique to each agency, as demonstrated by the  experience of the five pilot agencies. OPM has facilitated conversations  among participating GEAR agencies to identify lessons learned and the  CHCO Council is developing a GEAR toolkit to help agencies improve  performance management and increase employee engagement.  However, going forward, the roles and responsibilities of OPM, the CHCO  Council, and participating federal agencies have not been fully defined,  including how to identify future promising practices, and how to update  and disseminate information on the government-wide implementation of  GEAR. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities will be important for  capitalizing on the improvements made at the five pilot agencies, as well  as for sustaining and achieving the current Administration’s goal of  implementing GEAR more broadly. Without these next steps, the  momentum and lessons learned from the GEAR pilot may be lost and  desired performance management reforms in federal agencies may not  be fully realized.
The five pilot agencies deserve significant credit for taking steps to  implement the GEAR recommendations and improve performance  management within their organizations in a relatively short amount of  time. Although it is too early to tell whether GEAR is changing  organizational culture within the pilot agencies, leading practices  identified during the pilot should help inform GEAR implementation efforts  at other agencies. However, as part of implementing the GEAR model,  most of the pilot agencies did not develop complete project plans that will  help guide their GEAR-related efforts into the future. Updating these  plans to fully reflect the nature and scope of their efforts will help ensure  that these agencies meet the goals of their respective GEAR efforts and  serve as a model for other agencies to follow.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Recognizing that moving toward a more performance-oriented culture  within federal agencies is likely to be a continuous effort and to ensure  that the opportunity GEAR recommendations offer to improve  performance management is not lost, we recommend the Acting Director  of OPM, in collaboration with the Chief Human Capital Officers Council,  define roles and responsibilities of OPM, the CHCO Council, and  participating federal agencies going forward as the GEAR framework is  implemented government-wide. In doing so, OPM, in collaboration with  the CHCO Council, could define roles and responsibilities such as  supplementing the GEAR report and updating the diagnostic toolkit as  needed to reflect additional promising practices and lessons learned  (such as those we identified) and guidance on using metrics. This  should include considering whether connecting performance  expectations to crosscutting goals should be part of the GEAR  framework. disseminating the information contained in the GEAR report and  diagnostic toolkit through multiple venues and various government- wide websites, such as OMB Max, to ensure federal managers,  supervisors and other stakeholders have access to promising  practices and additional guidance on improving performance  management.
In addition, to improve agencies’ GEAR implementation plans, we  recommend that:  the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Commandant of the  Coast Guard take the following two actions to update the agency’s  GEAR implementation plan to include: (1) performance measures that  permit comparison between desired outcomes and actual results and  (2) additional information on schedules that are linked to specific  actions;  the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development take the following two  actions to update the agency’s GEAR implementation plan to: (1)   include objectives describing the goals the agency plans to achieve and  (2) identify roles and responsibilities for specific actions and  stakeholders; the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct the Under Secretary for  Memorial Affairs take the following three actions to update the  National Cemetery Administration’s GEAR implementation plan to  include: (1) performance measures that permit comparison between  desired outcomes and actual results, (2) additional information on  roles and responsibilities for specific actions and stakeholders, and (3)  additional information on schedules that are linked to specific actions;  and the Acting Director of OPM to take the following two actions to update  the agency’s GEAR implementation plan to: (1) include objectives  describing the goals the agency plans to achieve and (2) identify roles  and responsibilities for specific actions and stakeholders.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Acting Director of OPM and the  Secretaries of Homeland Security (Coast Guard), Housing and Urban  Development, Energy, and Veterans Affairs (National Cemetery  Administration). The Associate Director for Employee Services at OPM,  the Chief of Staff at Veterans Affairs, and the Director of the Departmental  GAO-Office of Inspector General Liaison Office at DHS provided written  comments on a draft of the report, which are reprinted in appendixes II,  III, and IV, respectively.
In their written responses, OPM, DHS, and VA officials agreed with our  recommendations. HUD officials also stated that they agreed with our  recommendation to HUD in an e-mail exchange. We modified our  assessment of VA’s GEAR implementation plan, changing schedules  from not included to partially included, based on additional information the  agency provided after the report was sent for comment.
DOE, DHS, and VA also suggested technical changes to the report,  which we incorporated where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until thirty days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Energy,  Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans  Affairs, and the Acting Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel  Management, as well as the appropriate congressional committees and  other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge  on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6806 or goldenkoffr@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 key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix XII.
section_title: APPENDIX I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report (1) analyzes how the Goals-Engagement-Accountability- Results (GEAR) framework addresses key practices for effective  performance management and identifies opportunities, if any, to improve  GEAR implementation government-wide; (2) describes the status of each  pilot agency’s GEAR implementation and any lessons learned to date;  and (3) assesses the extent to which each agency’s GEAR  implementation plan includes selected best practices for project planning.  The GEAR framework is currently being piloted in five departments and  agencies – the Departments of Energy (DOE), Homeland Security/United  States Coast Guard (DHS/Coast Guard), Housing and Urban  Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs/National Cemetery Administration  (VA/NCA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). For  purposes of this report, we are referring to both departments and  agencies as “agencies.”
To analyze how the GEAR framework addresses key practices for  effective performance management and identify opportunities, if any, to  improve GEAR implementation government-wide, we verified that key  practices we previously identified were applicable for purposes of this  engagement by conducting a literature review of leading performance  management practices and consulting with internal subject matter  experts. In addition, OPM officials reviewed these criteria and agreed that  many of the practices are very important contributors to organizational  success. We systematically reviewed the GEAR report from the National  Council on Federal Labor-Management Relations (LMR Council) using a  methodology to determine whether the goals, recommendations, and  actions described in the document qualitatively reflected the presence or  absence of the key practices. We also reviewed LMR Council meeting  minutes and other materials from LMR Council meetings. Finally, we  interviewed OPM officials and Chief Human Capital Officers Council  officials, some of whom were members of the LMR Council work group  that drafted the report. also interviewed labor union representatives about any problems or  concerns with implementing the GEAR framework. We interviewed OPM  officials responsible for assisting the pilot agencies in GEAR  implementation as well as OPM officials who had contributed to  developing the GEAR framework in their capacity as LMR Council  members for perspectives on lessons learned. In addition, we conducted  a site visit at the Coast Guard’s Base Boston in May 2013, where we  observed initial GEAR training sessions and interviewed supervisors and  employees about their reactions to the training and GEAR itself. We  chose this site because the Coast Guard was the most recent of the five  pilot agencies to implement GEAR and we were able to visit soon after  the start of their implementation efforts.
To assess the extent to which each agency’s GEAR implementation plan  includes selected best practices for project planning, we identified project  planning best practices primarily from Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government, GAO’s definitions of performance measurement,  and GAO’s guide for best practices in project schedules, and assessed  the inclusion of information contained in the agencies’ GEAR plans  against the best practices. We focused on the following best practices  because they were relevant to GEAR: (1) plan objective(s) describing a  goal; (2) specific actions needed to attain that goal; (3) roles and  responsibilities identified and assigned to project stakeholders; (4)  schedules containing logically related project elements leading to the  goal; and (5) valid performance measures that permit comparison  between desired outcomes and actual results. Since the pilot agencies  are in the process of implementing GEAR, we assessed them on the  contents of the plan and not against the progress made towards  implementation of the plan. Two analysts independently assessed each  agency’s GEAR plan to determine the extent to which information that  was included met all five best practices and rated each plan using a  three-level scale of included, partially included, or did not include, and  reached a level of inter-rater agreement greater than 80 percent. In  addition, we noted strengths and areas for further attention in each plan.
We assessed partial inclusion if the agency made at least one reference  to a specific best practice within the plan but were not able to assess full  inclusion if the information was not consistently provided.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to September  2013 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 audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
section_title: Appendix V: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of Homeland Security/Coast Guard
paragraphs: DHS was involved in the early development of the GEAR framework as  part of the CHCO Council and subsequently volunteered the Coast Guard  to pilot the GEAR framework, with consideration given to expanding  implementation after achieving success through the limited pilot effort.  The Coast Guard is implementing all five of GEAR’s recommendations in  a single-site pilot at Base Boston, affecting approximately 200 employees,  both GS and WG. The Coast Guard chose Base Boston for several  reasons: the presence of both GS and WG employees – who happen to  be supervised by both military and civilian personnel, a wide variety of  occupations, and the representation of a single union rather than the  multiple unions that are present at other bases. Coast Guard officials said  they chose to implement GEAR as a pilot because agency-wide  implementation brought challenges such as dealing with such a large  military population – approximately 42,000 military personnel that rotate  bases approximately every two to three years and operate on a different  performance management plan compared with approximately 9,000  civilian employees – and negotiating with approximately nine unions.  According to one senior Coast Guard official, to develop more than one  site would create a capacity issue that would make it difficult to plan and  implement GEAR.
The Coast Guard began planning for GEAR in March 2012 and launched  the pilot in April 2013 to coincide with the start of the annual performance  process. According to Coast Guard officials, the planning process was in  place but implementation was delayed due to Base Boston personnel  being deployed to assist in Hurricane Sandy recovery efforts. The pilot is  expected to run for the length of one annual performance cycle and  complete on March 31, 2014. According to Coast Guard officials, agency  officials met with union representatives for extensive discussions  involving facilitators and brainstorming sessions in order to include union  input in the final GEAR implementation plan. As a result of these  discussions, Coast Guard officials told us that the agency has the  approval of the union and that both parties are mutually responsible for  the successful implementation of GEAR.
The Coast Guard currently requires every civilian employee to have a  documented performance appraisal at the end of the rating cycle and  under GEAR implementation, employees and supervisors are to receive  increased training to improve the accountability and engagement between  employees and supervisors. Coast Guard officials noted that the agency  needs to improve its culture of engagement. They said part of the  problem is that supervisors do not have enough time to provide feedback,  and employees do not know how to prepare adequately for their  assessments or feedback sessions. By September 2013, all new  supervisors (both civilian and military) will have to take 40 hours of  mandated supervisor training so they will have a base knowledge of how  to provide effective feedback. For more information on steps the Coast  Guard has taken to implement GEAR, see table 9.
Coast Guard has identified the following benefits that may be realized at  Base Boston through GEAR implementation:  improved performance management accountability; improved employee-supervisor engagement through training and  additional educational resources; increased communications to improve awareness and importance of  the performance management process; improved overall labor management relations through involvement of  the labor unions; and projected fewer grievances over performance appraisals at the end of  the pilot.
section_title: Appendix VI: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of Energy
paragraphs: DOE officials said the agency is implementing the GEAR framework in  part because it aligned with existing human capital priorities and  supported DOE’s vision of improving its performance-based culture. DOE  is implementing GEAR agency-wide with the exception of Bonneville  Power Administration and the National Nuclear Security Administration,  affecting approximately 8,400 employees. DOE officials told us that a  holistic approach to GEAR implementation provided the best opportunity  for success and that only by engaging the entire organization could the  agency hope to improve organizational culture. According to DOE  officials, implementing GEAR is a two-year effort and the agency is in the  second year of implementation; however, DOE is implementing the GEAR  framework as part of a larger continuous effort to improve its  performance-based culture. DOE employees are covered by local union  collective bargaining agreements and according to DOE officials, each  union local was engaged in GEAR implementation where appropriate.  DOE does not have any unions with department-level recognition or  collective bargaining rights. Before launching the pilot, the DOE Office of  the CHCO briefed local union representatives on the GEAR framework  and asked for their input on rollout. Agency officials said that they  received no feedback from the unions.
As a first step towards implementation of GEAR, DOE officials surveyed  supervisors and employees to establish a baseline. Additionally, DOE  officials said they held employee focus groups about the agency’s  performance management system to help inform some of the key actions  of the GEAR implementation plan. Agency officials said that they  expected, and found, that employees did not view the effective execution  of the performance management process as positively as supervisors; in  other words, performance discussions are occurring but they are not  perceived by employees as adding value. Based on data showing that  timely completion of the reviews declined over the previous year, DOE  officials have begun to look for ways to streamline the review process.  This includes shifting to a system that allows supervisors to indicate  satisfactory performance without the need for extensive documentation.  Officials also said that a new electronic performance assessment system,  ePerformance, has facilitated completion of quarterly reviews. According  to DOE officials, ePerformance allows management to monitor feedback  sessions centrally and ensure that supervisors complete them in a timely  fashion, something that was impossible under the agency’s old paper- based system for conducting performance reviews. According to DOE  officials, it is still not possible to ensure that all reviews are of good  quality, only that they are timely. DOE officials feel that improved  communication between managers and employees will be a major  benefit. To reinforce the importance DOE places on supervision, the  agency developed a mandatory supervisory critical element, which holds  supervisors accountable for each phase of the performance process,  according to officials. DOE also issued a mandatory training framework  for supervisors and employees to support ongoing improvements in the  agency’s performance-based culture. For more information on steps DOE  has taken to implement GEAR, see table 10.
According to DOE officials the agency will realize additional benefits from  implementing the GEAR framework, including  incremental improvements to its organizational culture on a yearly  basis demonstrated through employee feedback and other human  capital metrics, such as ePerformance metrics; continued focus on human capital efforts at senior levels of agency  management; and reinforcement of performance management as a year‐round priority.
In addition, DOE officials stated that benefits resulting from GEAR  implementation have already been realized. For example, DOE officials  stated that their use of human capital performance metrics, supported by  GEAR’s recommendation to align performance management with  organizational performance management, has resulted in DOE reducing  its reliance on targeted support service.
section_title: Appendix VII: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Department of Housing and Urban Development
paragraphs: According to agency officials, HUD’s CHCO was an active participant in  the CHCO Council meetings that first developed the GEAR concepts. The  agency volunteered to participate because GEAR is consistent with the  Secretary’s Transformation Initiative, which aims to improve the quality of  performance plans and increase the quality and timeliness of feedback.  While HUD was already pursuing several objectives that it now views as  part of GEAR, GEAR provided a framework of guiding principles that  helped HUD officials organize their efforts. HUD is implementing GEAR  agency-wide (with the exception of its Office of the Inspector General)   HUD  affecting approximately 8,100 employees and four labor unions.has established the Labor-Management Advisory Committee (LMAC),  which includes representatives from each of HUD’s four unions as well as  managers. HUD officials did not think they could be successful if they  implemented GEAR within a single unit. They felt that implementing it  agency-wide would permit it to be better embedded in the performance  culture. HUD plans for GEAR to be fully implemented in September 2013.
At the beginning of implementation, HUD decided not to pursue GEAR’s  fifth goal – improving the assessment, selection, development, and  training of supervisors – based on staff capacity at that time, according to  HUD officials. Since then, the agency has recruited a Chief Learning  Officer and has taken several actions to implement the fifth goal, such as  distributing guidance on holding crucial conversations with employees  and adding supervisory training courses. As a result of GEAR, HUD has  acquired a new performance management system that supports strategic  alignment to individual performance objectives and will support feedback  on performance objectives, including feedback from peers and  subordinates. HUD officials said that they procured a new performance  management system in October 2012 and completed union negotiations  in June 2013 to adopt a new performance management policy and  framework. Senior executives have already moved to the new  performance management system and the agency is in the process of  rolling it out to the rest of the agency. For more information on steps HUD  has taken to implement GEAR, see table 11.
HUD has identified the following benefits that may be realized as a result  of GEAR implementation:  increased alignment between HUD’s work and mission through  performance objectives outlined in the department’s strategic plan; more engaged workforce through increased quality and timeliness of more accurate performance ratings as performance plans better  reflect the work staff are doing; help with retention of employees; and  improved performance management overall at HUD.
section_title: Appendix VIII: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs/ National Cemetery Administration
paragraphs: Unlike the other pilot agencies, VA officials had no official interaction with  the LMR Council in the development of the GEAR framework. VA began  implementing GEAR in October 2012 to coincide with the VA  performance management cycle. VA officials project the implementation  to be complete by 2016. VA is implementing GEAR within its NCA agency  as a single unit pilot in MSN II, encompassing national cemeteries located  in the southeastern area of the country. NCA officials expect to expand  GEAR to the remaining four networks beginning in 2014. VA chose the  NCA because it has a reputation as a high-performing organization and  an existing focus on metrics and feedback. VA officials said they chose to  implement GEAR as a single unit, rather than agency-wide, because  doing so allowed them to provide closer attention and support.
NCA is implementing the GEAR framework to seven mission critical  occupations totaling approximately 240 employees. NCA plans to include  10 additional occupations in MSN II during fiscal year 2014, and to also  apply the GEAR framework to the original seven mission critical  occupations in the remaining four networks beginning in fiscal year 2014.  NCA plans to continue to phase in occupations during fiscal years 2014- 2016. According to NCA officials, representatives from two unions have  been involved in GEAR implementation and contributed valuable input  that has enhanced NCA’s approach to GEAR. Although NCA officials told  us they are committed to all five of GEAR’s recommendations, the agency  is currently implementing four of the recommendations and plans to  implement the fifth recommendation after an evaluation of current  approaches to assessing, selecting, and developing supervisors has been  completed.
According to NCA officials, NCA has increased feedback to employees on  individual, unit, and agency goals and performance by implementing a  three-step feedback process with meetings every four months (in  February, June, and October), as well as providing tools to assist  supervisors in preparing for and conducting those one-on-one meetings.  Supervisors and employees also receive a monthly performance  scorecard with information on several of NCA’s performance targets that  include agency, region, and cemetery-level performance in key  operational areas such as client satisfaction and employee safety.
As part of GEAR, NCA defined “exceptional” performance, in addition to  the “fully successful” level, in new performance plans for all seven of the  targeted occupations. NCA officials said that officials representing labor  unions recommended this approach so employees have a clear target.  NCA officials stated that this practice will continue as new performance  plans are created. NCA plans to also refine their approach to rewarding  and recognizing exceptional performers to correspond with what  employees value. For example, they are considering possible  generational preferences in the nature of rewards and preferences  associated with the stages of employees’ careers. For more information  on steps NCA has taken to implement GEAR, see table 12.
NCA has identified the following benefits that may result from GEAR  implementation: by aligning performance goals with organizational goals, employees  may better understand the connection between their daily activities  and the organization’s success; employees can better identify performance successes, gaps, and  opportunities to improve performance at their cemetery and within  their network; and involving employees and their labor representatives in efforts to  improve performance management systems increases their  understanding and ownership of these systems and organizational  goals and increases their belief in the fairness of the systems,  including in the ability to reinforce accountability.
section_title: Appendix IX: GEAR Implementation Approach for the Office of Personnel Management
paragraphs: OPM’s Director, as Chair of the CHCO Council and co-chair of the LMR  Council, helped propose the idea of examining the federal government’s  performance management accountability framework and make  recommendations for its improvement, which resulted in the GEAR  framework. In addition, OPM officials reported that the agency  collaborated with and supported all pilot agencies in the initial  development of their processes and implementation efforts. As a result of  their role in developing the framework, OPM is implementing GEAR  agency-wide, affecting approximately 5,800 employees, including  employees represented by two unions. According to OPM officials, it  made sense to implement GEAR agency-wide from the beginning. OPM  had previously identified human capital needs, such as improving  supervisor assessment, that had not been addressed due to limited  resources and competing priorities. However, an official said that GEAR  focused attention on some of these issues and provided a framework to  move forward. Initially, OPM planned on implementing four of the five  GEAR goals agency-wide, according to OPM officials, and did not take  steps to implement the first goal of articulating a high-performance  culture. However, according to OPM officials, the agency is currently  developing a performance culture statement, in collaboration with its  employees and elected labor representatives, which officials stated would  meet GEAR’s first goal of articulating a high-performance culture when  complete.
OPM officials said that they decided to focus on the assessment and  selection of supervisors. Currently, OPM is identifying supervisory  competencies to be balanced with technical requirements of supervisors.  For example, an official said that OPM is expanding its use of situational  judgment assessments, an emerging approach from the law enforcement  and security community in which the supervisor would be assessed on his  or her leadership qualities in addition to the ability to communicate  effectively. In addition, OPM is implementing quarterly progress reviews  using previously developed forms for supervisors and employees. An  OPM official said that the simplicity of the new forms will make it easier  for supervisors to use. For more information on steps OPM has taken to  implement GEAR, see table 13.
OPM has identified the following benefits that may be realized as a result  of GEAR implementation: employees will understand the agency mission and goals and be  engaged in the process of achieving those goals; employees will receive feedback on their performance at least  supervisors will be hired based on their leadership potential and  demonstrated supervisory competencies; and supervisors will be held accountable for practicing good performance  management.
section_title: Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Robert Goldenkoff, (202) 512-6806 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Tom Gilbert, Assistant Director;  Dewi Djunaidy; Karin Fangman; Robert Gebhart; Erik Kjeldgaard; and  Cindy Saunders made key contributions to this report.