In outlining the context for her Five Point Plan, the EEOC Chair discussed that today's workplaces are different from those of even a decade ago. Technological advancements, the globalization of world markets and demographic shifts are reshaping the American workplace. The workforce is more mobile with more contingent and alternative work arrangements. Employers and employees are dealing with complex issues such as talent shortages, greater competition for talent, and the advent of family friendly work programs such as telework, job sharing and flexible work schedules. EEOC's assessment of these workplace trends is consistent with the Academy's research on the evolution of the workplace.(23)

EEOC believes that a carefully developed and executed strategic management plan will integrate its Five-Point Plan, the PMA, and other administration and agency initiatives. The desired outcome is that the integration will result in a model workplace in which EEOC can effectively and efficiently accomplish its goals in an environment conducive to good employment practices.

As EEOC implements its plans, it should strive to create a culture of performance and a culture in which performance is managed. Key elements of this are a system that sets clear expectations, rewards top performers, and improves the performance of or disciplines poor performers. Anything less than this creates poor morale and a substandard work environment.

The first step in workforce evolution is to define the competencies required to produce the outcomes and products identified in the strategic plan. The changing outcomes and products mandated by introducing aggressive prevention strategies, mediation, information technology and similar initiatives also mandate a revised set of competencies. The Strategic Human Capital Plan must identify the competencies needed for mission-critical occupations and use these to select, train, promote, assess, and reward staff. In the short term, this will not be budget-neutral. EEOC will need to make substantial investments to identify the competencies, develop the recruitment sources, create a continuous learning environment, and establish the assessment programs and methodologies for staff, managers and leaders. For example, the EEOC will need to leverage training funds with such things as e-learning, web-based sharing of best practices, mentoring programs, tuition assistance, and strong support for employees willing to spend their own funds to enhance their skills.

As EEOC realigns work to do more electronically and reduce the number of physical locations, it will need to focus on how to reskill and realign staff. This will require human resources management systems that provide the flexibility to hire quickly and reallocate staff to respond to EEOC priorities. Staff realignments can be painful for the staff and the organization, and the Panel urges EEOC to retrain or assign to new locations as many talented staff as possible. Others may be able to continue service as telecommuters. Still others may choose to retire resulting in fewer directed reassignments. No matter how they work to achieve EEOC's mission, staff need to perform at their highest level of expertise to achieve the agency's strategic goals and outcomes. To the extent that a lack of clerical support inhibits this, the EEOC needs to adjust its staff distribution.

The Panel believes that a sound human capital management strategy reflects the following principles.

· Human capital strategies must be directly linked to organizational mission, goals, and objectives.
· A workforce planning process is essential to define core competencies for staff, identify current and upcoming skill gaps, and design specific approaches to fill them.
· Managers are provided flexible tools to recruit, retrain, and reward employees.
· Incentives are in place to achieve a "high-performance culture" and develop staff to contribute to it.
· High-performing employees are rewarded and those who do not perform well are counseled, retrained, or removed.
· There is a conscious effort to identify and develop talented staff for leadership positions.
· Workforce diversity is high on the list of goals to achieve and maintain, and is supported by any organizational change.

Success hinges on hiring and developing strong leaders, delegating decision making and program implementation to them, and holding them accountable for results. Currently, EEOC does not have results-based objectives, results-based performance measures in employees' annual plans, performance reports that tie to objectives, and a system that rewards outstanding performance or applies sanctions when performance is not acceptable. It also does not provide managers all the tools they need to be effective.

Given the breadth of the Panel's recommended restructuring, staff realignment is essential. However, before it begins realignment, the Commission needs to have its leadership structure in place and its comprehensive workforce planning well underway. These should be the Commission's the top three priorities as it develops its Strategic Human Capital Plan.

STAFF MANAGEMENT AND REALIGNMENT

Past budget shortfalls as well as some decisions related to management of Commission staffing and budget resources have led to some of EEOC's staffing constraints. In addition, given the breadth of changes EEOC needs to make in its organizational structure, there is likely to be a mismatch between some staff skills and/or locations. In addition, 23% of the agency's staff are in headquarters, and there were many comments throughout the study (from staff in headquarters and the field) that this was disproportionately high for an organization that serves most of its customers in the field.

Changing office structure and locations can create anxiety among staff, who are quite naturally concerned with relocating families and maintaining ties within their present community. As EEOC makes a thorough assessment of where permanent office facilities are and what locations could be adequately served with mobile units, it should position itself to deal with the impacts these decisions will have on the workforce. EEOC has a large number of staff close to retirement, and some offices that might be closed are very close to others. This should lessen the need for directed reassignments. In addition, the enhanced use of telework may enable EEOC to retain most talented staff, though their workplace and methods may change.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC:

· Assess agency position descriptions to determine such things as which are current, which need to be redesigned to reflect new work methods, whether existing career ladders are appropriate, and whether positions accurately distinguish supervision from production.

· Seek approval from the Office of Personnel Management for a targeted early-out retirement option for staff in those headquarters and field offices that will be downsized.

· Design and implement a cost-effective career transition center.

· Work in partnership with EEOC's unions as the agency makes decisions to realign staff work locations.

Workforce Management

A key element of the workforce planning process will be to review current positions in terms of their relation to mission, skills they require, and whether they are in the appropriate geographic locations. Agencies that have most effectively realigned work or integrated technology most successfully have often worked with their unions, such as the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) and its partnership with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).

The 2001 Workforce Analysis notes that the agency is hampered in workforce restructuring by limited funds for training and relocation, and union resistance to relocation, reduction in grade, or reduction in positions required to do the work. In talking to field and headquarters staff, they saw staffing constraints brought on by budget shortages, especially not being permitted to backfill for any vacancies, as a major problem. Forty-eight (33%) of the 146 individuals or groups interviewed or who responded to the survey cited staffing shortages. Thirty-eight were in the field and ten were in headquarters.

EEOC offices have engaged in workforce management. For example, each district reports to OFP on its staff levels twice per month. In January 2000, the District Director's Council submitted the report of the "Field Task Force on Staffing." It recommended an adequate staffing pattern that would allow districts to meet CEP, GPRA and related performance goals. They suggested that staffing losses below the approved pattern would lead to adjustments to performance expectations. The report had a number of specific workload assumptions, such as one mediator per 1,000 charges an office received, each investigator would handle approximately 87 private sector charge receipts, and an office would have one attorney for each 500 charge receipts. The Directors believed that the overall report recommendations would lead to an equitable balance across functions within an office and across the agency.

For most of FY 2000, EEOC was under a hiring freeze, which the agency indicated was because it received an increase in funds of only 0.7% when more than 4% was needed to maintain staffing levels carried into FY 2000. In the agency's FY 2001 appropriation (approved in December 2000), OMB raised the FTE level from 2,839 to 3,055, consistent with EEOC's request. In early 2001, OFP received authorization to hire 26 investigators in offices that had had the most serious gaps between staffing and charge receipts, and the agency issued a national vacancy announcement. Positions were largely filled in spring 2001.

In May 2001, which was prior to establishing the FY 2002 hiring freeze, each EEOC office received authorized staffing levels. Some were lower than FY 1999 levels, and field offices were expected to maintain past performance levels. At that point, each office was to be allowed to maintain its staffing level by being allowed to replace staff who left, unless there was a budget impact or the replacement was within then-current limitations on hiring at certain grade levels. The exceptions to automatically replacing staff were: staffing a position where the grade level would be higher than that of the prior incumbent; detail of non-SES employees to SES positions and details within the SES; reclassification resulting in upgrade; increases in part-time work schedules; or filling positions at GS-15 and above. EEOC entered into an interagency agreement with OPM to expedite postings and prepare certificates for a variety of specialized positions, and to maintain open registers for investigators.

The efforts to work through the processes outlined in May 2001 ended with the hiring freeze imposed in August 2001. When budget estimates were being prepared the long-term budget implications of some staffing decisions had not been fully considered, and this led to shortfall projections. For example, at the end of FY 2001, before hiring and promoting several hundred staff, EEOC staff in the Office of Finance determined that there were funds in the FY 2001 budget to fund the promotion costs. However, there was no analysis of the impact this would have on FY 2002 and beyond. As a result, the average salary (not including benefits) has risen from $58,900 in FY 2000 to $61,500 in FY 2001 to an estimate of $66,400 in FY 2002. It may rise as high as $68,300 in FY 2003.

The rise from $58,900 to $68,300 in current dollars in four years is an increase of 16%. EEOC's budget has remained fairly stable. It has effectively decreased in real dollars because the agency had underestimated the costs of FY 2002 promotions ($1.5 million in the budget but $2.5 million was spent), had to absorb $1.9 million in FY 2002 as the agency share of the FY 2002 salary increase, and had its historical attrition rate of 10 attritions per pay period dropped to 4.5 per pay period after September 11, 2001. It has stayed at or near that level ever since. These substantially higher compensation and benefits costs had to be absorbed, and EEOC appears to have done this primarily by restricting hiring.

IRS and NTEU Cooperation

Congress mandated changes to IRS' structure and functions through the Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, and IRS management asked NTEU to work with it to implement these change. IRS proposed having eleven Design Teams staffed by subject-matter experts and NTEU representatives, with an IRS manager in charge of each Design Team. The teams met for six to eight months to benchmark other organizations and develop alternatives. They presented these to the IRS Executive Review Board (ERB), which was comprised of the IRS Commissioner, IRS executives, and the NTEU president and vice-president.

The role of the ERB was to ensure all issues were identified and resolved and that proposed design alternatives made sense. The Design Teams would then further vet their alternatives with other IRS staff who knew the particular lines of business or functions. The teams would then return to the ERB for final approval. Once a Design Team's report was approved, their work was finished.

IRS then set up a new team to look at its global structure. Teams were comprised of bargaining unit employees and managers. They worked out the detailed restructuring issues and briefed internal stakeholders. When the latter were satisfied, the team briefed the Transition Board with all the details. Once this step was completed, the proposal went to the IRS Commissioner for final approval. When the Commissioner approved a proposal, the IRS business unit could begin implementation.

IRS staff believe that what made all this work was the broad consultation with stakeholders and the IRS commitment that no one would lose their job. The process was to move all employees with the primary sets of new skills into new jobs. Others were then assigned as work warranted, based on their skills.

Each employee received a letter explaining their new assignment. Employees could agree and be reassigned. If they disagreed, they could ask for review, and submit a statement of reasons about why their reassignment should be changed. If the Transition Review Board agreed with the employee, then the assignment was changed. If the Board disagreed, the employee could either accept the assignment or appeal the decision through the grievance process. IRS staff believe that the reason few employees appealed was because the Transition Team spent considerable time working out the assignments.

Panel Discussion: Staff Management and Realignment

The EEOC budget is essentially a salaries and expense budget. That means that short-term cost savings can largely be achieved only through freezes on hiring and promotions, or through reduction in contract costs. In EEOC, the major contracts are for FEPAs and TEROs, and are thus not an option for major cuts without affecting these programs. Thus, while the Academy Panel does not wish to imply that well-performing employees should not be promoted or that EEOC should stop all hiring until potential budget shortfalls are addressed, these are understandable strategies. As the Commission knows from experience, the inflexibility generated by these methods can affect operations. However, this inflexibility is less drastic than reductions-in-force (RIFs) and immediate office closings.

However, the extent of its budget constraints will likely mean that EEOC will need to close some locations and find new ways to make its services more accessible to the public through alternate service delivery methods, such as electronic charge-filing, a centralized National Call Center, mobile offices, and teleworkers. The Chair has said repeatedly that she wants to avoid a RIF, and that is a commendable goal. To achieve this goal efficiently, EEOC needs to be prepared to substantially retrain a number of staff and work closely with its unions to ensure that any needed employee relocation decisions are made in ways that meet organization needs but also accommodate employee needs as often as possible.

It does appear that the current CFO and director of the Office of Human Resources have established sound projections for staffing costs and can apply these to related decisions. In addition, the implementation of IFMS and FPPS (software systems that improve the agency's ability to manage financial and human resources) will assist in better monitoring the impact of staffing decisions on budget. It is essential that EEOC ensure that its human resources decisions are adequately funded for the short and long term. This does not mean an increased layer of review for individual decisions. Once the agency knows its appropriations level, senior staff can decide how much of the appropriation to allocate to salary and benefits costs, considering the number of hires and separations throughout the year and any expected cost-of-living increase. This will permit the CFO to advise senior management on whether there are funds for promotions and hiring to replace those who leave the agency.

LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL

All EEOC executives, managers, and staff, with whom Academy staff interviewed were dedicated to eradicating employment discrimination, most even passionate about it. However, there is no well-understood model of what successful leadership looks like in the organization, nor is there an established approach to developing strong managers and effective leaders. This may be the primary reason Academy staff heard such varied opinions on the quality of current leadership.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC build a model of leadership that integrates achieving results, leveraging resources, maintaining accountability, and improving the organizational culture. Using this model, EEOC should:

· Create executive development activities for all senior executives and managers by partnering with other federal agencies for mobility assignments, developmental activities, and enhancement of leadership skills.

· Partner with whichever federal, academic, nonprofit, or for-profit entities can most effectively tailor leadership development training programs for all levels of EEOC staff.

· Hold all managers accountable for performance, reward those whose performance meets or exceeds expectations, and provide assistance or sanctions for those who fail to meet expectations.

· Design performance measures and metrics that support accountability and the full scope of management.

· Focus on inspiring, leading, motivating, and sustaining high-performing organizations and offices within the EEOC as well as managing staff resources and workload.

EEOC staff repeatedly singled out several field offices as having strong leadership and corresponding high performance, and Academy staff visited some of these offices. A number of factors that influenced this success were observed during the site visits, noted in analysis of office statistics, and provided in written surveys EEOC staff sent to the Academy. The factors included:

· Continual communication from the director and deputy to and from the staff; the staff felt included and knowledgeable of relevant issues
· Established performance goals for processing private sector charges and conducting mediation
· Consistent monitoring of performance through a range of office-developed tracking mechanisms and through individual performance discussions
· A positive working relationship between the regional attorney and district director and an open-door policy between attorneys and investigators
· Available tools for staff to do their work
· Encouragement to staff to play to their strengths-some investigators enjoyed doing outreach presentations, others liked to stick to research and interviews, and the differences were recognized as appropriate

This was in contrast to some other offices in which staff said they rarely saw top management, were resentful because some had to work harder to compensate for those who did not (and they thought management paid no attention to this), indicated that the district director and regional attorney were at regular loggerheads, or thought some managers treated staff disrespectfully. In a number of survey responses, staff said that EEOC's top leadership was aware of their office's problems and did nothing.

Both of these leadership "models" exist in the EEOC, and both are rewarded. A review of the ratings for SES-level executives shows that, through 2001, the majority were rated Outstanding even though the stated perception by many is a substantial variance in levels of performance. This changed with the SES ratings for FY 2002, but full data on the reduced number of outstanding ratings were not available as this report was completed.

Table 5-1
Overall Ratings for SES Staff

For a text description of Table 5-1, please click here

More important, agency staff interviewed did not view EEOC as a high-performing organization. Time and again, in individual and group interviews, agency employees characterized themselves and their agency as one that was "beleaguered," constantly short of resources, and unable to successfully confront performance issues to either reward those who were performing or assist or terminate those who were not performing.

EEOC staff provided examples of performance issues that managers wanted to address, but said they were unable to because of reasons including lack of knowledge of how to address the issues, a strong perception that the agency did not want to address these issues for fear of internal EEO complaints and subsequent congressional interest, an unwillingness on the part of managers to engage the issues, and lack of support from OHR and OLC. The perception among the agency staff is that poor performance is tolerated in enough cases to be a performance disincentive. Furthermore, there is also the perception that taking risks is not encouraged, recognized or rewarded. Whether the staff assessment is reality or perception, a sufficient number of employees believe this to warrant top management resolution. For the agency to become a high-performance organization, these practices and perceptions will need to change.

WORKFORCE PLANNING

EEOC does not yet have a workforce plan, but is working with outside consultants to develop one. Workforce planning provides the opportunity to link an organization's mission with its best resource, its staff. It is always important, but even more so now, as most federal agencies face substantial retirements in the next three to seven years. EEOC is no exception. Some other agencies have done a better job of preparing for these retirements or devising methods to reskill employees. While, for example, some basic investigative skills stay the same, the tools EEOC staff use to conduct them involve more Internet access and the data available grow more complex. Many staff have acquired more analytical and computer skills; others have found it difficult to do so. From discussions with staff, it appears EEOC also faces skill shortages in foreign languages and technology. When EEOC finishes its assessment of current and needed skills (termed a gap analysis) it will have a road map to designing approaches to fill the gap.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC expedite its workforce planning effort and link it to the planning and budget processes. This is a complex and long-term effort and the agency cannot wait until its completion to institute its components. The first components the Panel suggests be implemented are:

· Develop an inventory of the competencies required to perform mission-critical work such as investigation, litigation, mediation, analysis, outreach and prevention.

· Determine which of those staff who are eligible to retire plan to do so, the gaps this will create in individual offices, the size of the pool needed to replace those retiring from specific positions, and the level of training or outside hiring required to put people with the right skills in the areas most critical to mission fulfillment when they are needed.

· Prepare a comprehensive cost estimate for skill development needs so that EEOC can present an integrated strategy with cost implications to the Office of Management and Budget.

· Prepare Individual Development Plans for staff so that EEOC has better information on the skills that staff have and whether anticipated development efforts match staff aspirations and agency needs.

· Revise individual performance appraisal elements to reflect changes in roles and the linkage to achieving organizational performance goals.

· Develop the metrics for the revised performance elements.

Recent and Anticipated Workforce Changes

EEOC will use the Academy's draft Strategic Human Capital Plan to begin its more detailed workforce planning efforts. However, it did prepare a workforce analysis(24) in June 2001, to comply with an OMB requirement. In it, EEOC traced its 1996-2000 staffing levels and examined the movement of employees in and out of the organization for each year. As Table 5-2 shows, FY 1999 was an anomaly in that the agency hired a far larger number of staff (568) than it lost (193). However, in FY 2000, EEOC had a 10.3% separation rate. Early-out retirements were offered in FY 2000, but they were also offered in FY 1996, and the separation rate was only 6.5% that year. The reasons noted for the proportion of retirements in FY 2000 were not substantially different than other years (e.g., 23.6% left to take another federal position).

FYs 2001 and 2002 (for which EEOC provided data directly) show a continuation of the feast-or-famine staffing patterns. Table 5-2 shows more staff were hired than left the agency in FY 2001 (390 versus 232-a net 158 staff). The hiring freeze imposed in August 2001 (and discussed more in Chapter 6) meant that only 38 staff were hired in FY 2002, while 168 left, giving EEOC a net loss of 130 or 13%.

What Table 5-2 emphasizes is a workforce in flux, with a decrease of 130 staff in the past fiscal year. These data are consistent with comments that Academy staff heard during interviews with EEOC staff.

Table 5-2
Staffing Levels

In FY 2002, total staff in field offices dropped from 1,852 to 1,769 or 4%. The established ceiling is 1,947. Twelve offices stayed even, but Albuquerque lost 14% (from 28 to 24). Three offices lost 12% (Baltimore from 47 to 42, New York from 68 to 60, Little Rock from 25 to 23), and three lost 8 or 9% (Kansas City from 24 to 22, Nashville from 22 to 20, Oklahoma City from 22 to 20). Offices that increased staff did so by only one staff member.

Possibilities for Changes to the EEOC Skill Mix

Many EEOC staff in headquarters and the field noted that work has become more complex (such as medical issues associated with ADA cases) and staff had to have far more extensive technology skills than in the past. A number of staff cited the need for continually stronger analytical and writing skills. These comments were similar to EEOC's Workforce Analysis, which cited needs for enhanced skills in:

· Mediation
· On-site investigations
· Use of technology to manage the workload and research cases
· Sophisticated analyses for class and other specialty cases
· General automation skills as more EEO systems move from manual/paper processing
· Project management, architecture and systems design, security, capital asset planning in IT fields
· Bilingual capabilities to respond to diverse constituent groups
· Teambuilding

In the field, staff consistently mentioned the need for staff with more bilingual capabilities, noting that these varied by office location. In California and Seattle, there was a great need for some Asian languages, while in Texas and the Midwest the predominant need was for Spanish. EEOC uses OPM for bilingual recruitment, and would like that agency to be more aggressive in its recruiting.

EEOC's bilingual policies were negotiated with its unions. Those with bilingual position descriptions are required to use these skills and others may provide these services on a voluntary basis. OHR inventoried staff language abilities in the field and identified 40 individuals with bilingual position descriptions, in a total of 15 of the 51 field offices. All but one spoke Spanish, one spoke Cantonese. Seven of the 40 were in San Juan and six were in Denver. While a number of other staff have foreign language skills, OFP noted that skill levels vary. Also, since OPM provides no pay differentials for these skills, an office has to be careful not to overburden staff because they are bilingual. One EEOC district that Academy staff visited had several Spanish-speaking staff but some had recently left, meaning there was only one person who could assist Spanish-language charging parties. After the Academy visit, two new staff with Spanish skills were hired, but the office was still not up to the former complement.

EEOC is also placing added emphasis on mediation and outreach and prevention and consequently roles of staff have changed in some areas. For example, attorneys have become more involved as advisors to investigators and many have become more involved in mediation or outreach. These are examples of areas where strong internal training programs will be needed to bolster skills of existing staff.

Succession Planning is Essential

Recognizing that it faces a potential brain drain as members of the baby-boom generation begin to retire, EEOC asked OPM to develop its retirement projections.(25) OPM did this based on the retirement behavior of the entire federal workforce. Table 5-3, drawn from the June 2001 OPM report, shows that 40% of the EEOC workforce could retire between fiscal years 2001 and 2010.

Table 5-3
OPM Projections of EEOC Retirements by PATCO Category(26)
Fiscal Years 2001-2010

Table 5-4 breaks down these data further by looking at specific occupations. For direct mission work, there will be a larger proportion of retirees among investigators (41%) than attorneys (27%). These projections could reflect the fact that EEOC hired a number of attorneys in 1999, as it began to place them in area and local offices, and these would likely have been recent law school graduates.

Table 5-4
OPM Projections of EEOC Retirements for Selected Occupations
Fiscal Years 2001-2010

In examining different grade levels, OPM's projections show that there are a large number of GS-14 employees (427) in position to replace the 113 GS-15s in the 2000 workforce, and the GS-14s are projected to retire at a rate slightly below their representation in the workforce. However, GS-12s and GS-13s are projected to retire at a rate that exceeds their representation in the 2000 base. OPM concludes that EEOC's workload is more likely to be affected by the GS-12 and GS-13 retirements than by those at higher levels. The report did not offer projections for the SES employees.

These are aggregate numbers, and OPM does not analyze the relationship between retirement eligibility and age. That could be an important factor in predicting when people will retire. In addition, OPM suggested that there could be agency-specific data, such as projected retirements by district, that would show age and service distributions that could produce "demographic bubbles" of retirees at certain times.

Academy staff examined the detailed listing of retirement-eligible staff by office and noted there were concentrations of potential retirees in many locations. However, as with other federal organizations, there were also many people who had been eligible to retire for several years and were still on board. There were offices such as Atlanta that could lose 24 of 82 staff (29%) by 2004, Birmingham 17 of 67 (25%), Charlotte 11 of 43 (26%), Memphis 15 of 43 (35%), New Orleans 13 of 51 (25%), and Seattle 14 of 38 (37%). In headquarters, OHR could lose 11 staff, IT could lose 8, ORIP could lose 11, and OCFO 15.

In an organization with this level of anticipated turnover, a strong succession planning program is essential. However, EEOC does not yet have one. It an earlier report,(27) an Academy Panel identified six barriers to developing and preparing leaders in the public sector:

· Organizational culture
· Low priority given by senior officials
· Insufficient resources
· Inadequate rewards for initiative/risk
· Limited mobility
· Lack of role models

EEOC has a number of these barriers. There is no regular program to rotate staff to other locations, which would broaden perspectives throughout a career, and there are relatively limited resources to develop staff. More than not rewarding taking risks, some staff interviewed believed that there were disincentives. This is not an uncommon perspective in the federal government, and to diffuse it, top management has to reward staff regularly for developing a new approach or suggesting process changes.

The same Academy report also identified eight benchmark principles for managing succession and developing leaders:

1. Top organizational leaders are personally involved and deeply committed.
2. Succession management processes are relatively simple and flexible and are integrated with strategic plans to identify and develop leaders who meet evolving organizational needs.
3. Succession programs are owned by line managers, supported by HR staff, integrated into HR processes, and consistent with the organization's culture.
4. A pool of high-potential leaders is identified early and developed, rather than relying on a slate of replacements for current positions.
5. Leader competencies are identified and regularly reviewed and updated; candidates are assessed and developed against those competencies.
6. Reviews occur regularly to identify high-potential candidates and developmental measures and to assess progress, and they involved all levels of the organization.
7. Leader development uses three complementary means: varied job assignments, education/training, and self-development.
8. Senior leaders identify developmental goals for individuals and managers, expect them to achieve the goals, and hold them accountable.(28)

The EEOC hired the Wexford Group to develop its succession planning methodology, and the agency received a draft report in November 2002. Its recommendations are similar to the Academy Panel's, and the Commission has indicated it will incorporate these into its workforce planning effort.

Panel Discussion: Succession Planning is Essential

When EEOC begins the more detailed work to prepare a workforce plan, it should use a team of staff from headquarters and field offices, supported by human resources specialists, to lead the overall effort. Many agencies have used a decentralized approach where each major office has a role in defining its skills, skill gaps, and training needs. Before any group(s) meet, OHR should distribute samples of workforce planning models used in other federal agencies and up-to-date data on EEOC's current workforce and perceived skill gaps. The Commission could also conduct an on-line or traditional seminar to ensure that those involved in the workforce planning effort understand the basic principles of workforce planning and the process to identify the workforce needs. Appendix B, which summarizes Academy staff interviews and survey results, discusses some EEOC staff perceptions on skill gaps.

Given the start-and-stop nature of EEOC's recruiting and training, staff may not understand that workforce planning is not only an EEOC goal, but part of the administration's broader management agenda. The Chair's leadership is essential. If she names the members of the workforce planning efforts, publicly defines her expectations, and sets an ambitious timeframe, it will help EEOC move ahead quickly.

In addition, EEOC should develop true cost estimates for the many steps that will flow from the workforce plan and present the case for these funds to OMB as strongly as it has pushed to get funds for technology improvements. The agency must convince OMB and Congress that there is no choice but to develop EEOC's workforce to provide the best service to customers and eliminate discrimination in the workplace.

Example of other organizations' workforce planning efforts are at Appendix G.

LIMITED TRAINING FUNDS TO MEET SKILL NEEDS

EEOC's training budget has varied from substantial ($3.5 million for FY 1999 and $2.7 million in FY 2001) to modest ($745,347 in FY 2000 and $1.3 million for FY 2002). Such variations make it difficult to develop and sustain an effective program. The recent budget variations are simply continuations of the lack of consistent training, skill enhancement and staff development. Longtime senior staff said that there was training in the mid-1970s, a 1988 conference on full investigation, a one-week training on ADA in 1992, and training on mediation and new investigators in 1999. The fact that senior staff can provide such a short synopsis of EEOC's agencywide training is indicative of the ad hoc nature of training and the lack of a continuous learning philosophy buttressed by a systems approach to setting priorities and meeting staff training and development needs. Consequently, much of the return on investment, such as on the substantial funds spent to train new investigators and mediators in 1999, will be lost.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC develop:

· A multi-year training plan, anchored in the competencies required for mission-critical staff, that reflects an adequate, stable level of spending through a mix of on-site, e-training, and other methods, and use this plan as the basis for funding requests.

· A strong first-line supervisor and mid-level manager training program, so that individuals moving into these and into more senior leadership positions have the competencies they need to succeed.

· An expanded SES Candidate Development Program that leverages EEOC resources with those of other federal organizations for such things as mobility assignments or developmental activities.

Variations in Training Levels

Academy staff asked EEOC to provide data on the amount of the training budget and how it was allocated in FYs 1999-2001. Table 5-5 shows that field staff received between 81-93% of the budget, with the larger proportion in 2000, when there were far fewer funds. Field staff comprise 77% of EEOC's total staff.

Table 5-5
EEOC Training Funding and Staff Trained
Fiscal Years 1999-2001

Note: FY 2002 data are estimates.

The 4,200 FY 2001 "training instances" ranged from two-hour briefings to mission-related training of several days. OHR did not provide a breakdown on this figure or describe the courses.

There is generally no standard training for new hires, although in 1977 and 1999 there were central training classes for new hires, and there was a catch-up class in 2001 for those who missed the 1999 training. Most new hires are trained on the job, and there is no ongoing training cycle where, for example, every two or three years an investigator receives certain skills-based courses. Several field and headquarters staff noted that the average time to fully develop a new investigator was two years.

Staff were forceful in saying that training is inadequate, even in areas in which the Chair has stated specific priorities. Some noted that their offices did not let staff who were willing to pay for their own courses take leave when they needed to study or permit a flexible work schedule. OHR said that EEOC has no formal policy on supporting staff decisions to pursue education on their own, and indicated that some managers do allow flexible work hours. Also, there is no policy on providing tuition assistance, but the director of Human Resources has recommended establishing one and requested funding for it in the FY 2003 budget.

The lack of training was reflected in the interviews and responses to the Academy's mailed surveys. When asked if they had adequate tools to do their work, 45 of 146 respondents said that training was inadequate. As with other questions, they were not asked specifically about training, but listed examples in an open-ended format. Training was the most frequently mentioned subject that respondents believed the human capital plan should address.

Because of the lack of training funds, OFP developed a Negotiation Skills class with OGC and they presented it together. They also did Advanced Skills Training for investigators, which deals with case development. Some field legal units order Department of Justice (DOJ) videos and show them and lead discussion. Enforcement staff develop peer training and present it or arrange for colleagues in other agencies to conduct informal training. Some offices Academy staff visited had brown-bag lunches among attorneys and investigators to discuss case development. The OPM requirements for supervisor training are met with local training that districts develop.

For nearly ten years EEOC did not have an SES Candidate Development Program, but it reestablished the program in 2001 with its six field participants. For that program, members of the Executive Review Board acted as mentors to the six candidates. In 2002, EEOC selected four additional participants, also all from the field, for a second program.

EEOC is pilot testing e-learning through its new online Employee Development Center. The catalog of courses include off-the-shelf software such as basic or more complex office software, interviewing techniques, and supervisory skills. After consulting with their supervisors, employees are allowed up to four hours per pay period to take work-related sources.

Possibilities for Partnering

Through its Management Development Centers in Shephardstown, West Virginia and Denver, Colorado and the Federal Executive Institute in Charlottesville, Virginia, OPM provides a wide variety of classes for supervisors, managers and executives at relatively reasonable prices. OPM is also willing to work directly with individual agencies to tailor its basic courses to agency-specific needs if there is a sufficient volume of participants to justify the expense.

The most recent addition to continuous learning services OPM offers is the listing of computer-based training that is being made available through the Department of Transportation website, Federal GoLearn. The government on-line learning center is a governmentwide resource that supports development of the federal workforce through simplified and one-stop access to high quality e-Training products and services. The creation of this center is the first phase of the PMA e-Training Initiative and will continue to grow with the addition of products and services that meet the common needs of the workforce. It is designed as a virtual campus that houses free training courses and knowledge resources in each of its rooms. Several free courses in topics such as sexual harassment, project management, Microsoft Office skills, and personal development are already available through this site.

It may also be possible for EEOC senior staff to participate in other agencies' management development classes on a tuition reimbursement basis, or in exchange for having some of their staff attend an EEOC-sponsored event. There are universities throughout the country that have programs in leadership development for public officials or government organization and management. These are not academic courses, but are geared to practitioners.

Panel Discussion: Limited Training Funds to Meet Skill Needs

The problems EEOC faces to create a climate where employee growth is encouraged are similar to those faced by other public sector organizations, which are inclined to measure learning in terms of how many training courses are provided, and are constrained by budget availability. It is important for EEOC to demonstrate that agency management perceives learning in a broader context-namely a continuous learning environment within the organization itself. Even when the agency does provide training, the lack of a strategic human capital plan linked directly to the overall agency strategic plan suggests that it is difficult for the agency to know whether its training dollar allocation provided the best possible return on the investment.

Many federal agencies with a core group of mission professionals have extensive training programs. While their programs would not meet EEOC's needs, the approach they have taken to developing them could provide a framework for designing and marketing to OMB a comprehensive, mission-based development program. Every other federal, law enforcement organization has such a program, and Congress has traditionally funded them reasonably well. While EEOC's staff may not carry guns or require physical fitness training, their enforcement responsibilities to charging parties and respondents, in the private and federal sector, are as important as are those who investigate more traditional legal infractions.

As EEOC pursues its training programs, it could explore whether other law enforcement agencies have investigation training courses Commission staff could attend, or whether its attorneys could attend the Department of Justice trial attorney/litigation skills seminar. While these might not be 100% related to EEOC's needs, it would enable staff to receive such training while EEOC designs its own programs and secures more stable training funds. One EEOC field office, for example, has an agreement with the FBI to provide investigative skills training to its investigators.

Training does not stop with technical skills, whether for enforcement, mediation, or outreach/prevention. There is not is a comprehensive, visible program to identify which top-performing mid-level managers can translate their technical skills to broader management and leadership abilities, and ensure that they receive the kind of internal and external training needed to assume top leadership positions. Thus far, the SES Candidate Development Program has involved only field staff. While there are more senior leadership positions in the field at this point, it is difficult to grasp that there is no need to develop anyone in headquarters for an SES position.

As EEOC has more telework employees, it will need a broad mix of training delivery methods. To develop a strategic framework for training design and a range of specific development options, EEOC will have to evolve from the apparent culture of poverty that it now associates with staff development. It should develop a comprehensive approach, define expected results, and outline the impacts of not training staff well. It should then push OMB to approve added funds to ensure that staff perform at the highest levels.

STAFF AWARDS AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS

EEOC has had an inconsistent employee rewards program, which sends a message to staff that there are only a very few among them who should be recognized for outstanding performance. Also, there were literally dozens of EEOC staff who said that the Commission's employee evaluation system did not appropriately identify employees with performance problems and that it was difficult to remove them even when the problems were severe. At a time when skill needs are changing and resources are constrained, EEOC needs to create incentives for good work, recognize strong performers, and take action against poor performers.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC:

· Revamp the agency awards systems to ensure they meet the four key elements of effective reward design: performance requirements (financial, operational, customer satisfaction); talent needs (skills, experience, behaviors, employee preferences); cost and funding (affordability); and culture and branding (alignment with mission, vision, values).

· Revise the process for evaluating, counseling, and (if necessary) terminating poor performers to ensure that EEOC's cadre of staff includes those who are not only dedicated to its mission but demonstrate this through effective performance.

EEOC allocated no funds to its awards program in FYs 1999 and 2000, and in 2001 allocated $700,000, but only to the former Chair's awards program, which usually recognizes groups of staff. For the 2001 program, there were no published selection criteria, which led to a number of questions as to how award decisions were made. For 2002, funds and authority were with the headquarters office directors and district directors. Each office has a committee that approved Special Act Awards, designed to address performance, and office management decides the rest of the awards. An attorney who had served on the awards committee in one office that Academy staff visited described the process as a "good first step" but said that EEOC needs to do much more to recognize good employee performance, since this is an essential component of a good human capital program.

Though staff described the amount they could distribute for FY 2002 awards as "a pittance," they indicated that the new awards program is very flexible. Mangers can give cash (up to $500 in $50 increments), savings bonds, or time off. OFP said that field managers like the fact that they can look at the Chair's agenda and decide they want to reward staff, for example, for more work in outreach/prevention.

Often cited was that EEOC does not support managers in disciplining or firing poor performers. In its June 2001 Workforce Analysis submitted to OMB, EEOC noted that difficulty in removing poor performers impeded its ability to recruit and retain a high-quality, diverse workforce.

Every agency wrestles with this issue. However, though Academy staff hear about cumbersome employee removal processes at other agencies, the extent and forcefulness of the comments at EEOC were unusual. Forty-one surveys (28%), including a number that represented groups of interviewees, noted this, some quite emphatically. One RA noted that even if an office has established a good paper trail they are not supported in removing an employee. One HQ respondent said that EEOC should not only have a plan to replace and retain staff but one to be sure they retain only the effective performers. Several staff said that staff had to absorb work of poor performers or that if these individuals were replaced it would greatly reduce staffing problems. However, because of the current hiring freeze, there was sometimes added reticence to remove a staff member, because of the perception that someone operating at 50% efficiency was better than no one.

Other Agencies' Efforts to Focus on Performance

GAO reported that supervisors spend an average of five hours per week for each problem employee under their supervision. In a 1997 report, an Academy Panel examined flexibilities that would help federal agencies overcome barriers in federal human resources systems.(29) For dealing with problem employees, there were proposed solutions such as using alternative discipline programs (which focus on correction rather than punishment) and developing positive action contracts (which permit an employee to acknowledge areas that need improvement and participate in developing an improvement plan). The report gave examples of how other agencies had approached this, and the key to all of them was management commitment. In one example, employee grievances dropped 50% after implementing a positive action contract system.(30)

The Department of Defense Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project has a number of components, one of which is to better connect employee contributions to the mission and organizational outputs. It will take time to integrate this fully into the performance appraisal system, and as a demonstration program there are ways to more directly correlate pay to performance (such as broadbanding and pay adjustments).(31) However, three years worth of data have begun to show that linking pay to contributions does lead to retaining those with higher ratings and encouraging less-effective employees (who had lower ratings) to leave. For example, employees in the lowest contribution category voluntarily left (mostly to retirements) at a rate of 24% after the first year and 27% after the second. Attrition rates for the mid- and upper-level contributors were 9-11% each year.

Panel Discussion: Staff Awards and Performance Evaluation Systems

EEOC's award program is not sufficient to adequately reward people and serve as an incentive to continuous improvement. Conversely, the extensive comments on the inability to address issues of poor performance suggest that the agency needs to thoroughly reassess the processes for evaluating and counseling employees and providing additional skill-based and motivational training when needed. When disciplinary action is not used as it can be, it can lead to serious morale problems. These were reflected in the Academy staff's interviews and the survey submissions.

Essentially, EEOC needs to create a performance culture. This is not a simple or easy task. Components are:

· The strategic plan sets the goals and outcomes.
· These are translated to each executive and office through the organizational and individual performance plans, with timetables, metrics, and clearly stated outcome expectations.
· The performance of those organizations and individuals who exceed those expectations is identified, rewarded and celebrated very publicly.
· The performance of those who do not meet the expectations is identified, and the individuals receive coaching and counseling to improve. If they improve, the improvement is recognized and celebrated. If they do not, the individual is either reassigned to a position that more properly fits with his/her interests and capabilities, or the individual is asked to leave the organization.
· The leaving can be mutual agreement and assisted with coaching and counseling, administrative time to look for another job, etc. Leaving can also be through the adverse action process of termination.

There are also classes and training sessions about how to create a culture of performance, and EEOC can consider adding these to its on-line training offerings. Other actions the Commission can take include: the Chair making clear at every executive staff meeting her expectations of performance and focus on a particular program/initiative. This can then flow down through the agency executives as they do their own communications with staff.

The formal and the informal systems of the organization (program, financial, human capital) must coincide. Performance ratings have to reflect reality. Those who get awards and promotions have to actually be the outstanding staff.

ALIGNING SKILLS WITH RESPONSIBILITIES

The role of support staff changed with the advent of personal computers. In the past it was largely focused on document production. Now that many staff do much of their own data entry, support needs may be reduced, but this does not mean an organization wants its program and management staff doing routine administrative tasks on a regular basis. Throughout government, especially in high-cost cities, it has also become difficult to recruit and retain administrative support staff, who generally receive higher salaries in the private sector.

The Academy Panel recommends that EEOC:

· Determine, by office and function, the extent to which higher-grade employees are spending time on support-like functions, and consider, within the availability resources and work priorities, whether investment in additional support staff would be justified by a measurable increase in productivity.

· Provide adequate training and career development for administrative and support staff.

The 40% of the 186 respondents who cited the lack of administrative and support staff in EEOC mentioned such things as the need for receptionists, a duty that some senior staff sometimes shared with investigators as a form of moral support. Most staff do all their own clerical work. This was particularly vexing to a number of attorneys who said their work was very paper intensive, especially as they were preparing for trials. Fifty percent of those in litigation cited the need for more clerical support. It is important to note that there was no specific survey question on this, these were responses to open-ended questions about additional tools needed or what the strategic human capital plan should address.

EEOC provided data on the number of staff in clerical series, which include office automation assistants, clerk typists, secretaries, and legal clerks/assistants. This is shown in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6
Numbers of Staff in Clerical Series
1998-2002

The drop of 40 support staff in one year in such a small organization may illustrate the breadth of comments about the lack of clerical support. In one office, the director acknowledged the difficulty of filling clerical positions and said it might be more appropriate to fill the majority of these positions with temporary staff, since permanent staff did not tend to stay. Another thought that they should recruit for temporary positions and convert these staff to permanent slots when there had been time to assess the temporary staff member's skills.

It appears that part of the current shortage may have come about less through the agency wide hiring freeze than because of a past senior manager's perception that clerical positions should not be filled because all staff had personal computers. This policy no longer is in force. Among the examples of support staff duties that other staff gave which, if performed by support staff, would permit investigators, attorneys and others to focus on their principal duties were:

· Answering the phone, providing basic information, and taking messages
· Serving as office receptionist (which can be a rotational duty)
· Arranging scheduling, such as for intake interviews, mediation sessions, and outreach presentations
· Entering CDS data (which is on a separate computer, not the PCs)
· Scheduling travel
· Securing and scheduling meeting space in the office or elsewhere
· Pulling and copying documents for FOIA requests
· Copying documents for court cases
· Arranging contract services for large copy jobs
· Learning office software well to help other staff with more technical aspects of spreadsheet and document development and formatting

Several support and administrative staff responded to the survey, and they and others mentioned the need for support staff training in skills needed for their own work and in the EEOC mission and responsibilities. Often they are the first contact for the public, and they want to be helpful. One longtime administrative staff member noted that if the charge data system were accessible from every PC that support staff could let callers know the status of cases, which is what many callers want to know, and that would prevent a number of calls from being transferred to investigators.

Private-sector firms have begun to focus more on training for administrative staff, with the perspective that good training programs pay off in improved productivity and employee retention. Companies such as Booz, Allen Hamilton, Inc. permit administrative staff to take any of their 150 on-line classes as long as they can support a connection between course content and how it will improve job performance.(32)

Panel Discussion: Aligning Skills with Responsibilities

There has been what is termed "the professionalization of the clerical staff and the clericalization of the professional staff," according to the International Institute of Administrative Professionals, which ascribes this condition to the advent of personal computers. PCs help everyone become more productive, and have essentially obviated the need for the typing pools of old. However, administrative staff perform a wide range of other responsibilities. It is one thing for non-clerical staff to make a few copies or address an envelope as needed, but quite another to do bulk copying or prepare 20 documents for mailing.

EEOC's approach to assessing the potential inefficiencies resulting from inadequate clerical support should be based on an analysis of productivity. Adding clerical staff may not be the right approach if it results in lowered productivity. Therefore, the Commission should structure an approach that makes the measured change in productivity the key factor in deciding whether to realign staff around this issue. As noted previously, the Commission should also support this staff with adequate training.

* * *

The Draft Strategic Human Capital Plan is at Appendix H.

__________________

23. National Academy of Public Administration, The Transforming Power of Information Technology: Making the Federal Government and Employer of Choice for IT Employees, (August 2001) and The Case for Transforming Public-Sector Human Resources Management (July 2000), Washington, DC.(return to text)
24. EEOC, Workforce Analysis for the President's Restructuring Initiative, OMB Bulletin No. 01-07, June 2001.(return to text)
25. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Retirement Projections 2001 through 2010, June 21, 2001.(return to text)
26. The PATCO categories are professional, administrative, technical, clerical and other. At EEOC, the following series were in each: professional (905); administrative (201, 260, 301, 334, 340, 343, 950, 1810); technical (335, 986, 1802); clerical (303, 318, 326). Attorneys are in series 905 and investigators are in 1810. There were no "other" series in the projections.(return to text)
27. National Academy of Public Administration, Managing Succession and Developing Leadership: Growing the Next Generation of Public Service Leaders, Washington, DC, August 1997, p. xvi.(return to text)
28. ibid, p. xvii.(return to text)
29. National Academy of Public Administration, Innovations and Flexibilities: Overcoming HR System Barriers, August 1997, Washington, DC, pp. 69-74.(return to text)
30. Ibid., p. 71. The reference is to the program operated by the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Port Hueneme, CA.(return to text)
31. Cubic Applications, Inc., Baseline Implementation Report: DOD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Report, prepared for OSD/AcqDemo, Alexandria, VA, August 2000. Additional information is at the Demo website, www.acq.osd.mil/acqdemo/new_site/default.html.
Martin, Anya, "Training," Office Pro, the publication of the International Association of Administrative Professionals, October 2002, p. 6.(return to text)
32. National Academy of Public Administration, The Field Directorate of the Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, July 2002, pp 35-34.(return to text)

To continue to Chapter 6, please click here