ML19248C589

Transcript of 790614 Briefing in Washington,Dc by Ofc of Project Mgt on Senior Executive Svc Performance Appraisal Sys.Pp 1-45

ML19248C589
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/14/1979
From:	Bradford P, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
References
REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7907030407
Download: ML19248C589 (46)

Text

• .

'DE PfauC COCUST.NT :.y -

NUCLE AR REGUL ATO RY COMMISSION s

IN THE MATTER OF:

PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING BY 0.P.M.

STAFF ON S.E.S.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

(

(

Place -

Washingten, D.

C.

Date.

Thursday, 14 June 1979 Pcges 1 - 45 b

llv ') f

$9,P;m.7,f

.5 J

.n 11

. i.cecn.:

gg d;j {~30 / M* d U. i,q

,ff (:c:) w.n :o W

i U,;;

ACE. FEDER.G. REPORTERS, INC.

OfficialReponers

.iat Ner+h Cecitcl Street

' ") O 9 Oh9 Wesningten, D.C. 2CC01 L U '-

NATICNWlDE F 'VERAGE DAILY I ?

77176Mf7

1 t

lR 5359' 2:1 DISCLAIMER This is sn'-nofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Thursday, 14 June 1979 in the Commissions 's offices at 1717 H S treet, N. W.,

Washington, D.

C.

The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.

The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.

Expressions of opinion in this transcript de not necessarily reflect final determi. nations or beliefs.

No pleading or other paper T.ay be filed with the Cc==ission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement er argument concained herein, except as the Ccmnission may authcrize.

282 0:0

2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l

1t 1

l l

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2l l

3'

(

PUBLIC MEETING i

s_

l 3RIEFING SY 0.P.M.

STAFF ON 5

I S.E.S.

FERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM 6i 7

I i

l Room 1130 8,

1717 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

j 9 !

i Thursday, 14 June 1979; 10 i

i The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m.

11 i

l BEFORE.

12 :

l DR. JOSEPH M.

HENDRIE, Chairman 13 !

l RICHARD T.

KENNEDY, Commissioner i

i 14 '

i j

PETER A.

BRADFORD, Commissioner 15 1 l

JOEN :. an ARNE, Commissione.

1,6' ALSO PRESENT:

'I b MESSRS. GOLDMAN, WARHAM, SFAPAR, STOISER, GCSSICE la l

l I9 I i

20 t

21 '

e no M'I 46 t

i 23 !

I 24 i

i

? Feceral Aeoor+ers, Inc. i 25 i

4 282 01I

3 C,R 5359 SM:jwb l

l v~

\\

\\

~

l

_? _R O C

_E._E _D _I N _G _S i

i 2j (9:50 a.m.)

i 3'

CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:

If we could come to order, i

i 4i please.

I think we will go ahead.

We have apparently a i

5 busload of the stafr circling the landing area but haven't I

l 6;

been able to alight on the ground, and assorted Commissioners j

4 6

7 are here, there, and the other place, and I guess my own 8i time here this morning will be 'imited to about 45 minutes, i

9, I'm sorry to say.

i 10 Our subject is a briefing on the SES Performance j

II :

Appraisal System, and we look forward to hearing more about 12 the SES system.

It is really a subject that we will discuss 1

13 in assorted aspects and in detail as time goes on.

It's a i

s' l

14 l major new system for senior staff of the agency, and I 15 l expect it will be several years before we all becin to i

16 fully understand all of the neanings and proce 'ures and 17 '

aspects of the Senior Executive Service.

us started.

la,

Lee, why don't you go ahead and get I

19 MR. GCSSICK:

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

20 I guess, just to start with, the action up on the i

21 '

Hill yesterd'v may not bode too well for the whole program --

4 22 P that is, as far as the inducement to join up; the pay raise

~

22 j action will keep things, you know, at the present cap.

a

,, i CHAIRMAN HENDRII:

Well, I look forwa_.d once e.K ed er at Reporters, Inc. j 25 1 acain to that ceriod in federal cersonnel colicy when 2b2 Ol c

i!

4 1-2 jwb l

i I

t I

i I;

everybody except Cabinet officers and the President make r,l the same salary.

You know, I think in a democratic society

^

i i

'l

~.

it's a great system; everybody makes the same.

Never mind 4

what you do.

I 5!

(Laughter.)

6 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

You know, we were like that i

7 !

down here in, what,

'72,

'73?

Only this time I would really 3

like to see the compaction go all the way down maybe to 9

GS-12, or something like that.

10 (Laughter.)

i li t j

CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:

Really be an egalitarian i

12 l society.

13 I-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Well, I guess.-- I can't 14 let that pass.

i 15 '

(Laughter.)

[

1,6' l

COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:

As long as the pay is i

17' adequate, 1 guess I can't get too upset.

lo l u

MR. GOSSICK:

As a part of the process of

~

19 i j!

implementing the SES, of course you're well aware of the

'O.

fact that we do have a major chore ahead of us in putting i

21 l

in performance appraisal s"2 stems.

,, oI h

At any rate, I will le: Mr. Goldman 66 2'

introduce cur speaker who is here this =crning from the 24 5

Offic e of Personnel Management, to give us an insicht and

? rederai Repor ers, Inc.

25,

words on this particular part of the program.

^1^

9 ^ )

c0c Ui3

~

I

.a 1-3 jwb i

i i

l Pete, why don't you go ahead.

i I

2 MR. GOLDMAN:

Thi rao rning, Mr.

E.

C. Wakham, i

3 who is currently -- he moves around so fast that his title 4

is not certain from day to day -- he currently is Special 5

Assistant To Sam Phillips, who is Guy Campbell's special I

I assistant, and Acting Director for Executive Development 6

7 Sally Greenberg's shop.

l l

l 8i He was t'te -- he headed up the Interagency Task I

l 9

Force responsible for management training and performance i

10 i standards development, which is part of this performance 11 appraisal system.

i 12 He is going to provide approximately a 45-minute

[)

13 briefing in hopes that it vill generate discussion and 14 questions which he would prefer that you shoot at him as l

I 15 l they come to mind, rather than wait until the end.

16 After this is done for the top management, then 1

17, we intend to take people in each office and train them, and IS l then bring them back to train the people in their offices, 19 l so that we don't try to get the mass of managers and try to i

20 !

take them in three days and teach them something.

We think

.i 2l '

it's a better way of doing it.

h So without further ado, Mr.

E.

C. Wakham.

3

'i 23 p MR. WAKEAM:

Thank you, Pete.

i

.)

2d I do have a lot of cacers.

I cromise not to use eswerv seconers. inc. j 9C l them all.

1 282 014 1

w-

6 1-4 jwb i

1, Good morning, Mr. Chairmaa, members of the i

i l

l 2l Commission, thank you for inviting me.

I would like to j

i i

l 3

introduce a couple of other members of the OPM -- that i

means Office of Personnel Management -- staff.

I find it 4l 5

still hard to say " office of Personnel Management."

A 6,

couple of other members of the staf f who are here in the I

7 audience, one is Gary Statton who is wnat we call -- I guess 81 we call him an Account Executive for the Nuclear Regulatory I

9<

Commission's Senior Executive Service Account, from our 10 office.

And toward the back of the room is R.

D.

Ames.

II R.

D.

is our new Director of the Special Programs Consulting 12 j Services Division, and because performance appraisal is so e

13 much involved, and it is such a sensitive issue of high

/

la concern right now, their entiEe' consulting services operation I i

6 I

15 is devoted to and dedicated to performance appraisal.

l t

16 They are people who will -- who can provide 6

j,<

1 technical assistance to NRC, should you need it, should you 1

18 i want it, as you proceed.

4 i

l9 l CHAIRMA'4 HENDRIE:

Well, we welecme them here, I

l t

20,

as well as you, and I am sure we will need assistance scener I

21 cr later.

4 22 i MR. WAKHAM:

Thank you, m

u 23 j It's hard to know where to start, because N

2: a ordinarily when I'm in a situation like this, the closes:

..secer semnen. ir c. i:

,"c

~

thing I can remember to a situation like this is testimony J

fl 282 01b

'l

1-5 jwb 7

I before the Prince Georges County Council, and I'm never i

2l there except, when always on one side of the room, there l

3l are people who are saying " yea, yea, yea," and over here i

I i

4' they're saying " boo."

5 (L.:.ughter. )

6 i COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

You've got us 7

characterized, i

i 8i (Laughter.)

I.

I 9l MR. WAKHAM:

I hope it doesn't turn out that 10 way.

I do wish we could have conducted this on a day II !

other than the day that news came out in The Post.

12 As I understand it, your purpose at this meeting

/'

13 is to learn a little bit more about performance appraisal

?

14 '

process.

And that is, what it is that we ' re talking i

i 15 about, and why we from OPM are so insistent that line 16 '

manacers and executives cet involved in tne perro : ance 1

I1 appraisal process when it seems to be an Office of i

16 l Administration type concern.

je What makes in differen: now, and hcw we see ir 7

20 l proceeding, and how we see it as being of greater value 21 when you, the senior management, do get involved.

22 l I sh uld share with you that I also have an 9

~

22,i agenda, really.

I hope to enlist your suppor: for the i

94 i

" :t people here in the NRC and the Offisa of Adninistration, e-Focerat Aeoorters, Inc. '

SC!

and your very careful and considered involvement with the 6

282 016 il

8 1-6 jwb I

l I

i l

1 development of the performance appraisal system that they i

2 have been at work on and continue to work on, and I hope it l

l t

3 will result in your very cireful consideration of the j

4, materials they develop and give them good comments about the I

i 5'

kinds of changes you need in it.

i i

6!,

I have never worked with NRC before, so I can't a

t 7'

speak very much for NRC particularly.

But I have met and l

8I worked with representatives of a lot of other science-based 9

agencies.

10 I do believe that, give.'

the new law, the new 11 '

SES law, you will have to build a performance appraisal system i

i 12 :

that meets your needs, or your SES, your Senior Executive 1

I 13 Service, won ' t work.

14,

I also believe that our government generally is i

l 1

15 ;

not as effective and efficient as it could be.

It's easy i.

16 l for all of us to believe that, but we keep getting it said t'

i 17 '

to us by members of the public, as well.

And for the last 18 couple of carapaigns, it's been a campaign issue about i

19 whether cur government is as effective and efficient as it 20 can be.

f 21 ?

Most of the people, as I anderstand it, who are o

Ja 22,

c c = c. l a i n i n c. about the effectiveness and e:_:_1clency c:_ cur ll gcVernment, though, are not complaining about their Postmen, 22,!

i 24 '

and they are not ccmplaining about the Social Security

• S ceral A eoorters, Iric.

?

25.'

caseworker that they meet, and they're not conplaining about 1

4 282 01/

I

1-7 jwb 9

\\

I i

1, the Forest Ranger, ur the Park Service Ranger that they meet.

I 2j One Presidential canda..cate a couple or campaagrs ago put it 3 !

very suscincely when he talked about the " pointy headed 4

bureaucrats in Washington," where he saw the insensitivity 5;

was with us, the uanagers -- not necessarily the 6;

Presidentially appointed manager, but somewhere in that range i

7 below that, perhaps, the army of civil servants.

I 8

I think that we didn' t deserve -- we don't I

i 9,

deserve that pasting.

I think as individual managers we 10 ;

are good.

I do believe that for a long time, however, our 11 system -- and that's just the way President Carter 12 characterized it when he ran -- he characterized us as. good, ia 13 cap able, dedicated managers and executives, but victims of 14 ;

a system that really wouldn't let us do and manage the way l

15,

we wanted and needed to manage.

l l

16 :

I think he's quite right.

And that story about i

17' the old f armer who didn' t want to hear about crop rotation.

13 When the county agent told him about it, he said, " Don't l

je worry; don't bother me about new ways to do it, because a

1 20 h I'm not farming as well new as I know how to farm."

21 Well, there is something to that.

In our case, 22 y however, we haven 't been permitted, I think, by our system

,-l to manage as well as we know how to manage.

24 We have had excellent reasons for not managing

? Gederal Recoriers. Inc.1 25 j our human resources.

The deck has been stacked, 1 think, 4

s?

282 013

1-8 jwb 10 ll against any manager who wanted to manage professionally.

i 2i Now while NRC hasn't been subject to all of those t

3 civ;l service rules and regulations that many other parts 4

of the agencies -- I think I could probably make a pretty i

I 5'

good case that some of the Civil Service restrictions have l

6 had a chilling effect on agencies like NRC.

7 Most federal managers and executives -- and I l

t 8'

think this may help me make that same point in a different 9i way -- most federal managers and executives are not just i

10 managers and executives only.

And I thi.nk that certainly 11 is true more in science-based agencies than it is in tne 12,

general agencies such as, for example, perhaps GSA.

1 13 But we have more agencies where most of our 14 executives anc managers are rirst scientists, or first 15 senior professicnals, or senior specialists in something, I

t I

a 16 !

and second managers.

And the2 are managers because they 17 have to be managers to get done what has to get done.

j 1

1 13 j But they didn't start out to be managers.

Our 1 =-

My impressions is, again, senior scientists are respectec.

20 cur senior scientists are respected as senior scientists.

1 2I

'l It's as managers that they are not respected.

i 1

22 1 The new emphasis on performance appraisal in n

d.

23 5 government will, we hcpe, help to bring about scce adjus:nen:

in the quality of management, to raise

""n-

'evel of quality e-Feceral A ecorters, Inc.

Cf manage =ent a the point where it at least approxi=ates g

282 019 3

f i

11 1-9 jwb l'

the quality of special sts that we have.

And won't t

2; require us, I believe, to change the managers we have; it 3

will dust recuire us -- those managers, to begin to operate 4

with systems that they control so that they can operate 5

and manage as prc fessionally as they know how to manage.

6!

I should make a disclaimer here, I think.

My i

I 7

views don ' t always -- I don ' t always checx them out to see 3!

whe ther, at anv. c.iven point in time, thev. represent an 1

9!

official coliev. statement.

I can assure v.ou that they 10 won't run counter to any policy statement, but I'm not sure II whether they -- a policy statement has been published that 12 runs exactly along that line.

I won't say anything 13 inconsistent with policy, however.

s I4 In the 19 6 0 s, I was involved in helping l

l 15 departments and agencies in government install planning, e

t 16 1 programming and budgeting systems.

"PPES" is what it was 1

i l,' ilI called, and I exnect a coodiv number of ceccle here u

I3 -

recognize those terms or those set of initials.

19 There was an immediate and very pressing need 20 '

behind tne critical cemand on the part or une eresident to i

21 install PPES government-wide.

There were many agencies

,, o "l

as incenceivable as it may sound new --

in government 23 there were many agencies in government that had planning a

i shops set up, and they developed their program plans in

,. Federal Reporters. Inc. !

-c j

'~?

one clace in the ac.encv., and they developed their budget in g

Il f

f LUL ll C U

'l

~

12 1-10 jwb 7

1 t

I i

II another place in the agency, generally on different cycles.

2 And at no time was any decisionmaker ever -- did a decision-3 maker have in front of him or her the program plans of the l

\\

l 4

agency and the financial resources of the agency at the same i

S time.

i I

l 6'

Richt now, as I look back on it, I think it's i

~

7 impossible to run an agency that way; and yet, ;he fact is 8,

that we did exist and work that way for a long period of I

9l time.

I 10 I have learned a lot.

I think all of us learned j

1 11 '

a lot in trying to implement PPBS at the time.

One thing i

12 that we learned is there was a lot going on in the Federal 13 Gove rnment that we didn ' t know about.

'; )

14 l We started with a charter from the then Budget f,

Bureau.

The Budget Bureau assumed that it had not been 15 l 16 '

required, and therefore agencies were not doing it, because 17 1 these things didn't come up together.

t 13.

And so I remember probably my most embarrassing l

n mcment aas when I met with the General Manager, and with the 19 '

20 Board of Governors and senior staf f of the Tennessee Valley 1

21 '

Authority at Huntsville, Alabama, where they had called a 22 meetinc to brief them on what they now had to do with fl 22 respect to PPBS.

I 24 1 And I found out this was scheduled to be a two-3.;eerai aeooners, inc.

"J day meeting, because this PPBS was so different and so 2 Q L.'i it')1

\\ll a

13 1-11 j,wb l

1 involved, and it took about an hour and a half to find out o

that they already knew, that they were already doing 3l everything that we were trying to encourage agencies to do.

4 The trouble is, I didn ' t know that, 'and they 5

i didn't knew that, before we scheduled that naeting.

And i

6' we ended up wasting a lot of time.

t 7!

l We did cancel the meeting afterwards.

But to 8

that departments and agencies now are not appraising suggest i

9i performance would be tantamount to saying that they weren ' t 10 then doing things to bring their financial resources 11 l management and their program planning together.

12 The reason I bring up tha example about PPBS _.

'~ ;

13 because I see performance appraisal as being somewhat 1.1 analagous.

I hope that sometime four, five, six, or seven I

i 15 years in the future, maybe ten years, we will be able to j

l 16 !

look back and say:

It's inconceivabla to me that a Federal i

17 '

Government Agency, or any large organization, could manage

,l 13 ]

if they only have their financial resources and their 19 3

program plans, and they are not -- and human resource a

20 l nanagement is not related to that.

I

$1' But the fact of the T.atter is, for all these 22

.- Oney years we have been managing our human resources as 1:

'3 !!

were scmething entirely different and separate from program ql 9 4 44 i

• redef 31 Reoorters, Inc !

olans, and from financial resources in many, many agencies

,i, H

'S [,'

around government and under a dif ferent set of rules.

1y q <i <n 1.

3

-V 1 7 1,

L V f.

U u f.

a

14 1-12 jwb i

i I

i I!

We have made progress with PPBS.

Most agencies, i

l 2

even the ones who were not managing their financial resources 3-anf their program plans at the same time.

We made progress 4

therr in bringing about an integration of management.

That's I

5; what I hope that we can do here, as sell.

6; The best way -- a way of talking about performance I

7!

appraisal and how it relates to getting human resources I

f 3'

management involved in financial and program resources l

1 9 1 management I think is to take about two or three minutes 10 on management theo ry, cer se, not more than that, I think.

i I

11 ;

We're a long way behind management -heory in the Federal i

l 12,

Government.

Early management theory made a very strong l

~

13 ;

distinction between " managers" and " workers.," "the manager" l

14 '

and "the managed," and it came down to this:

The managers 15,

knew everything, and the workers didn't know much of anything.

16 :

And the managers applied the principlas of

,d 1

17 j scientific inquiry, and decided the best way to do everything, r

15 and they decided where it should be done, what should be the i

19 conditions of work, and exactly in what order things were 20 going ec be done, and the workers did what they were told.

i 1

21 J, Scw that may have represented the real world a

l 22 d lanc time ago.

I scmehow doubt that it did.

But it certainly h

n

,a, pl doesn't r e e. r e s e - -

-"a real woric. :ocav., carticulari.v in q

service-oriented or government agencies where the top 2 F *2tf 86 AeDorters, t ric.

managers cannot r.new the cetails, or how to do what the U

a c8.ac Ug3 r y c

O

15 1-13 jwb e-1 1

professional and the middle-level managers have to do.

b-2 2

In the mid '50s was probably the first introductionI I

i 0;

when Peter Drucker coined the word " Management by Objectives."

i 4

He and Dou';1.as McGreggor were writing at about the same 5

time, and suggesting that people had to be involved in the l

I, 6

goals the-they were going to work towards.

People had to 1

i 71 be committed to the goals, and the world is complicated enough I

i 3{

so that people had to themselves be involved in devising and i

9 designing their own goals.

10 But the Civil Service laws stayed pretty much I

II '

the way they were, and they didn't allow that to happen.

i I

12 l And now it's my hope that Civil Service Reform Act will allow 13 us to break out of that mold that represented the old s

14 management th'.1 king, and app __ much more of what we know 15 ;

about how to create the climate where ef fective racacemen -

l 1

16 I can take place.

17!

Right now we are in a period where every agency 13 can look at itself and devise the kind cf system that seems

?

I9 to apply to it.

The theory is that agencies will do it.

-a1 They will do -- design systems that meet their needs, and 2I i they will be different for each agency.

1 0

-n,l MR. GCSSICK:

Excuse me.

Was that a deliberatelv H

23 tho ught-out solution?

I guess it doesn't immediately follow

'l in my mind that just because there are different agencies, 74 T Feder 6 Reporters, Irtc..

25 that we necessarily need a Octally different system.

Could ll u

'l e

28n2 U2o 4

16 2-14 jwb I

i 1I there not have been an accroach toward at least some i

2 common, you know, baseline system, with perhaps provision 3l for slight adjustment here and there?

l l

4 We have everyone out now, ever/ agency, in'ren t ing i

5, their system from scratch, and it seems like a very, you 6-know, needless duplication of effcrt.

t 7l MR. WAKHAM:

It may be.

We did start with the l

I 8l presumption that the Civil Service Commission that had been t

9 the very stringent rulemaking body,'would delegate to l

I t

10,

departments and agencies, because most departments and l

11 '

agencies are big enough :o run their own separate systems, i

12 and that if they do it themselves they will know that is I

13 '

workable for them.

(;

s 14 i

So, yes, I would say that that tendency to I

15 '

delegate away from the central personne. agency was i

i 16,

deliberate.

17 Performance appraisal is not -- please turn on 13,

the slide number two, please.

19 (Slide.)

a 20 I Where we are, then, is:

Performance appraisal I

21 is not a new ccncept.

It has been used extensively in i

i 22 '

public and private sectors, and in the private sec:Or in i

23!!

major companies.

24 The,crivate sector has been more rc

".y to adapt,

? Fedef at R e~2rters, I nc. i and more ready to experiment with gy8 c u c a-iprmpgge appraisal and 25 c

I

, - l a.

3wb

./

1 I

i l

changes in it than we have, because they haven't operated

)

l 2:

ur: der cuite so many laws as car cersonnel sy tem has.

I 3l But in the Fcderal Government, it's taken on a l

I 1

4l new significance for us, because of ClIA, and that gives 5i you more reason to have concern with it.

i l

6!,

Would you put on number three, please?

i Slice.

I I

6i The Performance acoraisal svstem will be used --

r i

i 9

I don't think I'll tell v.ou now things you don' t know, but t

i i

10 ;

decisicns on retention, transfer, removal of members of the l

Il !

Senior Executive Service.

Performance appraisal, the i

12 l outcome of that information, or that information -- or the i

13 ouccome of the system will have some effect on these

.)

14 decisions, and it will be the main base of decisior.s with i

15 l respect to granting performance awards and merit pay.

And 16,

should v.ou adopt it for your merit pay ceoc. le, merit pav.

l '/

increases, performance awards, and RAKS (? ) in the SES.

1 18 '

It will be used also to help you decide who to i

19 train, wnc to promote, who to reward, and it will help you 20 identify an acceptable performarce, we hope, at an early 2 '.

stage and remedy it and take come action.

22 If you've been with the gover ment for anyt. ing 23 a more than a few months, you know, that the performance 1

3".

appraisal process that we have been working under hasn't

,.:.eero acoor-ers. inc. ;l or tnose unings-tnev.'re not achieving basic cone any

~

1 282 026

2-16 jwb 18 l

I l

l l

I!

purposes.

And we've had -- invented administrative i

2!

office system, but it does not help you identify job l

3 l1 i

requirements at expected levels of performance.

It does 4ll not, the ones we have had in the past, help you establish i

l 5'

any system of accountability so that we know who is 6'

responsible for doing a job, and who is doing a job, and who I

l 7'

is not doing a job.

I 8

So it doesn't provide a sound base for making l

9l decisions about people.

I l

10 j Please put up number four, please.

l 1

11 l (Slide.)

5 12 '

In

.a next few minutes -- that's essentially I

13 what we want to cover.

What's in it for you 2 line managers j

( )

s.

14 if you become involved in performance appraisal?

And what 1

i i

l 15 are the advantages for ycu as line managers if you do that i

1 16,

we117 l

i 17 h Also, what are some of the things that you can

'l j o-expect to result 1:.. you, as tine managers, con't involve I9 yourself and operat' to build and to operate your performance 20 ac. o. raisal system?

I 21 l There are five areas where I believe the i

22!,

organization can gain significanr improvements as a result 23 of imple=enting a well thought out and well planned system.

Slide, please.

J ceral Recor*ers, INC.

?

e

• C (Slide.)

il 282 U27 t

t e.

m

• 2-17 jwb 19 t

i l

i I

Those are better implementation of organi:anional t,

l 2

policies and coals.

And with respect to that one -- the l

4 3

top one there -- better implementation of organizationel l

I 4(

policies and goals, your performance appraisal system and 5

your process of appraising per:ormance or your executives I

6 should help to ensure that you're organi ed to achieve what i

I.

7, you're in business for.

i i

8' I have another visual I think that will help I

9 l'

to illustrate that point better.

Would you put up number i

10 six?

i II (Slide.)

l 12 !

The traditional management theory suc. ges ts,

13 within government all of our organizations were planned

.\\

14 !

and departmental goals were worked out of legislati'on and l,

15 Presidential policies and arpropriations.

The assumption i

16 '

is:

We develep, at une head of the agency, a mission that 1,/ q is broken dcwn, and it's generally by function.

That is, 13 '

under the mission there is this function, and that function, 19 and anc:her function.

20 '

And within those functions, each has organizational i

21 !

goals, budgets, and work plans.

And under ib.ac, there are a

22 !

delegations of authority and f uncticnal statements for each organization within the organization.

And feeding directly J

24 out of that, you go directly dcwn to the base o f -- the

..=,cers a.ac rws. i nc.,

4.

• C enat per:ormance is presumanly. cased on, and case 20cument, It p,

1. 9 4,

p.h

/

l i

L I-L

2-18 jwb 4

20 l

I I

1 that is an incividual employee position description.

So t

2[

that scientifically, using the scientific nethod approach i

3:

to management, you start with a mission, and we -- those i

i I

4l who know-that is, the managers -- break it down into I,

S' functions, and subfunctions, and sub-subfunctions, and l

i

\\

l i

6 finally it gets down to the point where there is a position

'(

7 description.

8 Now the theory benind that is that as an i

i i

9 individual, at any point in that chain, I don't have to j

i i

1 10 '

be committed to the goal.

All I have to do is do exactly i

i l

ll what's in a position description.

And if I do exactly what's i

12 in my position description and you do exactly what's in your 1

I 13 position description, and we all do that, then somehow it

(

)

s 14 will add up to the mission of the agency.

15 That has been found wanting, because those things i

l 16 can't be kept up-to-date that much.

What we are adding, a

17 jl then, is one other piece.

We are not going to get rid of 1

13 I position descriptions -- well, for SES that's not a 19 problem -- but for the bulk of the agencies, we ' re not going 20 to get rid of those things; but we are suggesting that it's 21 -

also useful to look at the output recuirements of the I

22,

position.

I 23 j Cnce you get people on board -- while the 24 position description and so on was useful for recruiting i

e.F M eral Reporters, Irc.

at' anc

's ase:u_ :or classi:v,in t, ear,.,cos -- anc.,ve n.

tnen, 1

282 029

2-19 jwb 21 4

I i

I i

1{

never been to a place where the position descriptions are i

i 2

current, and I've never been to a olace where the i

i 3l organization problems are not current -- they always are --

4 and it's useful to add into this process some consultation 5

with the individual job incumbent about what are the output I

i t

i 6

requirements of your jcb?

What are the expectations?

And I

I i

7!

how do we break down your job into what it should contribute?

I 8,

Will you put on number five, please?

I 9:

(Slide.)

I 10 That should give us an improved system of 11,

accountability which, I suggast, has been one of our i

l 12 !

important problems in the Federal Government.

We are 13 perceived as being " buck-passers," as not knowing who is

(

14 responsible for what; having two or three people responsible 15 for scnething, and no one responsible for something else.

i 16 If we can clarify the output requirements of i

17 ]

organizations in the first instance, and individuals in the la second instance, and in what we call -- or call them " job 19 '

elements" -- if we can clarify those and then hold people 20 accountable for what they say they are willing to centribute a,

21.

through a performance appraisal system, we will have 1

1h 22 created a better system of accountability of dealing with 23 3 what we should be dcing and what we have just completed 4-

.coing.

s.;ecerai Aeoorters. lec. y 25 '

Improved planning and budgeting -- and anytime we 282 U10

2-20 jwb 22 I

I cet a better picture of the goals and cb ectives of the I

1 t

2' I

organization in relation to the performance of the 1

3' individual organizational units and components, and in t

i 4

I relation to the individuai employees and exet ives, both j

5 planning and budgeting are going to be improved.

i I

Now this is not to suggest that having --

I 7!

installing performance appraisal and beginning to appraise 8-executives' performance in terms of the results expected 9I is going to make your system of planning and budgeting any I

lo i different, but it should make them more reliable.

1 Il i Our fourth point is:

Sound, better personnel i

1 12 1 decisions.

There are two concerns that you as executives i

s 13 l have, I think, in the area of personnel decisions.

One is 1

I 14

\\

\\

to provide equitable treatment for employees, vour 1

i 15 l executives, and your managers, and your employees alike, 16 '

both for morale and productivitv. reascns, and maintain your

'l 17 !

imac.e as a fair e=c.lov.er.

13 '

Another is to help you and your supporting 17 managers to make and justify a variety of personnel acticas.

20 '

Now perscnnel acticns in the federal service have always

I 71 required documentation, and they will continue to require a

,, n documentation.

But wit.

-formance appraisal system in

,, s bw I clace trovidine v.ou scund data, v.cu will be able to shcw 24 the icb-relatedness of the actions you take and the process

-rederal A e cr'ert, in.

i

• C 6.

Can form the basis of properly 'ustifv.ing actions both in J

2e 82 U21 e.

n e

il

23 2-21 jwb t

1, explanations to employees, and in appeal and grievance cases.

i I

i I

2, The granting of bonus or denying of bonus to your managers i

3 in SES; or, should you apply this to your merit pay group, l

i 4l making merit pay decisions for your GS-13s, ~14s, and -15s, j

i i

5' will be one of the most sensitive new areas that you or t

6 SES executives face.

7l Besides the purely monetary considerations involved, l

8' there are ego problems involved.

I just think about the I

i 9

executive who gets no bonus, while a peer gets a $10,000 i

I 10 1 bonus, and I think you can see how essential it is to have i

i i

11 -

a performance-related base for explaining that difference.

I t

12

Performance appraisal system and good performance I

i 13 '

data won't relieve you of having to explain those decisions, l

14 but it will give you a basis for doing it.

j 15 The final one -- and probabl'1 the most important

)

16 one -- of the reasons for your personal involvement in the 17 :i design of your performance appraisal system for SES is 1_ 'l a

l improved communication.

It may be the most important.

i j',

Up and down the line, the assur. prion of most generally accepted management theory is that creativity is

,n l

21 l widespread throughout the working world, and most of us want i

to contribute.

Most of us want to do a good jcb.

But most e,

-,t

,ow we,re doing.

of us neer. -aaccacx acout n

24 The big cc= plaint that one hears wandering around amre a.acr ers. inc.

"i

he Feceral Government is -- and you hear it from executives

,e c d' J, U 3 2,

• = -

2-22 jwb 24 I

I.

l r

i I

i i

I just as frequently as you hear it : rom :1rst-11ne i

2' supervisors and workers -- is that thev don't tell me how l

i l

i 3l I'm doing.

l 4

Now we have been in some places where it is l

l l

1 5l clear that.oeo.cle do tell fciks how they are doing, and when i

t i

I 6l they find out how thev are doinc tney wish thev hadn't heard.

7 But it is a lc. -standing complaint, particularly among I

8' executives, that they do not cet c.erformance feedback.

l e

i 1

9l COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:

Is it an equivalent concern i

10 that they aren't sufficiently clearly told in the beginning 11

" hat's expected of them?

12,

MR. WAKHAM:

Quite so.

And that's a companion f

l l

t.

13 concern that we hear.,"They don't tell me what I'm expected i

I 14 !

to do, and they don't tell me hcw I'm doing."

l, d

15 !

The properly used --

l 16 MR. GOLDMAN:

Would these top executives who are 17 l going to have to be raters or reviewers and sc on, can you, 13 having locked at the functional statements for the 19 organica:icn -- One of the offic directors' type thing --

20 can you give them an idea of the difficulty involved in 21 ;

trying tc develcp, say, "a" performance standard, or pull cut 22.i what is a critical element?

Because this is the thing that II 22 I think they're going to face, and have trcuble facing.

N FR. WAKHAM:

I can try.

There are several ways, es ce,ei semrters. inc. ;

-e5 4-Pete, to break down the jcb -- an executive's jcb, or r) Q '-)

f i:

L O f-k

'3

2-23 jwb 25 I

i c

s 1

I 1!

anyone's job.

You can break down a job in terms of:

What l

2!

are the activities that you carry out?

And that's what's t

t 3

written in your position description, and we want you to do l

I t

I t

41 this, we want rou to do that, an(. do that, and do the full j

l i

l 5

thing.

i i

6 Now when vou do what you find yourself measuring 7l is how well does he do that thing?

How well does he do l

l a'

that thing?

How well does he do that thing?

And wondering, l,

6 9;

sometimes, what does it all add up to?

Because it's not t

I

~.

10 'i necessarily true that doing that, that, and that, in thi.c

{

11 given year with the problems in the agency this year, will f

I i

12 ',

" add up to vnat we wanted it to add up to.

13 A way that I suggest that you might go is to think l

14 in terms of breaking down the job into elements that I

I 15 l, represent outputs that you expect from that person's l

l 16 '

organization, and outputs that you expect from that person 17 J individually.

And of course those two things are in the law, 1,

la l except it doesnt say " outputs," it says " elements or 19 factors" in the law.

20 Now my general suggestien is to think in terms 21 o f those as being " outputs, " that meaningful appraisal of t

22 l effectiveness starts with identification of major output 1

22,

areas, or result areas, of the job in advance.

An "c u:put" 2'

being something that is observable, and it's a measuracle 1

? decerat A eoorters, t ric. 'i a

23 result.

It describes results that are measurable and 1

lO C fl k

LUL UJO

2-24 jwb 26 i

l l

l t

I observable, and therefore Jocumentable.

It describes 2i results that are obtainable within the authority of the i

3{

position -- and that's a very important factor.

And it --

l 4

the results are related to or derived from the overall 5

mission of the organization and it's compatable with and i

6I suppcrtive of results of other organizat ional components.

7 If you break down the jo'.,e in those terms, you 8

still have lots of choices about now to break down the job, l

9i because every executive is expected to produce scores of 1

i 10 l different results, and is engaged in scores of L.lferent i

II !

activities.

i 12 l (At 10:3L a.m.,

Commissioner Bradford left.)

13 MR. WAKHAM:

And the number of so-called 14 l

"different elements" that you break the job down into, it's l

15 entirely up to your agency.

And if your agency doesn't set i

16 rules about how many thev'll be, it will be entirely uo.

u n.

r' '!

to you as the boss of that subordinata.

But if you break IS !

them dcwn into 25, or 30, or 40 different elements, then it's o

1*

pretty clear that most of those e ements won't be "make c.-

v break" elements.

Most of those things won't be things that 2I you would have to remove the person frcm the position for 1

9 22 n they couldn't do them.

l aw 1

24 f.f ederal R eDortes, IrtC.

6.E S

o

)

J' f

4. O c UJ i

ll

CR 5359 ru

v..~e r X u u s s l

L, w

e t-3&4

{

i 1

nte 1 I

MR. WACKHAM:

Let me cive vou an examcle of a wav a l

I, I

i i

n

,3 managerial job can be broken down.

I did look at seme position '

' !l l

3' descriptions and some informatien about your organization, and t I

t 4

it acpears to me that a natural breakdown here is to first i

i I

I 5'

separate the managerial cart of the jcb from the technical t

i I

6 job.

l i

Secondly, with the technical part of the job, the j

7; i

I l

person is resconsible for advice.

For example, I don't know i

8 l

whether he's here, but the director of the Division of Project 9

l jo ;

Manager.ent or the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Reactor i

t li '

Regulation, he't one of those we locked at.

1 1

MR. GOS SICK:

He's not here.

l 12 ;

u I

MR. WACKHAM:

Well, we'll talk about his job.

.i 13 p l

4 l (Whereupon, at 10

32 a.m.,

Chairman Hendrie left the '

t recm. )

15 l 1

16 !

MR. GCSSICK:

He's leavina this Fridav, so he can't i

1,, '

remove any constraint from you.

i

r. c (Laughter.)

19 MR. WACKHAM:

Well, to me it locked like, well, tha

,0.,

s'cb is brcken down already.

There are three divisicns under che Director Of the Division of Proj ect Management.

That 21 jcb is -- one of those is cuality assurance and operations; i.

i one is standardization and advanced reactors; another one is

..q 24 i light water reactors.

,..:.eere aeoonen, ine. a

.c 1, I 1 coked at first the lic.ht water reac:crs branches 4

1. )

,. h T

• 1 s

L

nte. 2 28 I

r l

\\

l ;'

and there's lots of information about what the cecc.le do who i

h 2j are in tne light water reactor branches.

But when you add it 3

up, what comes out of there is formal reviews and reccmmenda-l 4

tions about a certain given area, recc=mendations on some I

I 5,

specific things -- safety of operating reactors -- recommenda-6' tions on license amendment requests, recc=mendations on -- or i

j 7l license amendment acclications, and recommendations with l

i i

S respect to safety reviews on construction permits, recommenda-9' tions on construction permit applications and operating permit i

.I 32-BU 10,

apolications.

i II !

That set of branches, it appears to me, is in the I

I l

12 business of providing advice.

Advice is not measurable or i

i 13 ;

countable; you know, t'

ee advices are better than two advices, '!

l i

t.

I 14 and five advices are better than one.

But it is observable.

i I

I 15 l It is observable, and scientists knew what good sciencetis, 16 l and ceccle in your business knew what gcod reccmmendations 17i are.

Judgments can be made on that with respect to both 12 timeliness and quality of advice.

g a

l 19 Cut af the : >ndardica:icn and advanced reac:crs --

1 1

20 ; I read it.

It locks as if what ccmes cut of the:v is cclice i

21 ! develcpment, program plans for standardization.

And :'.m nc:

i 22 : sure whether _ nose are reccmmendations for program plans that f

1 22 the Ccmmissatn would ultimacely approve er whether those are 24 issued directly from there.

I just couldn't tell by my reading.

s

T Federal Repor+,rs, Inc.

And standcrf plant design reccamendations.

And alsc, there's 1

a e

UL al

\\

r.te 3 1

I l

29

,ll a i "7ch that provides recommendations on accanced reactor

~

ope-iti.g license applications.

There too, it seems to me l

that what we're talking about is again advice and recommenda-1 I

e 4'

tions, wnich is what I think most of the scientists that I l

S l have related to, they are comfortable with having their I

i 6,

product reviewed by other knowledgeable and ccmpetent people.

I 7'

And they are also comfortable with havine. to iustif7 the l

I t

3l recommendations that they've prepared.

I i

I i

9' In the quality assurance and operations division, i

l 1

10 I found much of the same thing; more advice and, however, l.

I 11 l perhaps a little bit more relationship to the financial l

i i

12 '

qualifications and reviews.

And scme of their advice, I-I 13 understand, would take the form of pure testimony before the j

s i

14 !

Commission and informal papers on providing recommendations i

i 15 l on financial qualifications of applicants.

i i

16 !

All of these, then, in that particular area seem i

1,/.

co me impossible to quantify and yet easy to observe by 1

13,

qualified observers; hard to make jucgments about what is gccd M

and what is less gced and wha: ?.s superic: and what is unsatis-q l

2C !

factory, but no harder to make judgments abcut that than 1:

l 21 has ever been.

And we have always been in a situation of i

2.'l making such judgments.

23 ;

Assuming now the performance appraisal syster will i

R d 'h provide us a formal mechanisr for recording such Judgments, a Feceral R eporters. Irc. j o-'{

'O' I see it as a natural cutgrowth of prcbably what ycu are already i

94 9

( "s\\' (d L

L

,I

5.te. 4 I-30 i,

I 1

doing.

The -- how shall I sav i t -- if we lav those technical i

2; comcetencies aside and go to management, I think that there i

I 3

are five or six things that you can do and I recommend you I

3:

1. .ich t think about doing in breaking down the managerial part t

I l

5; of your job.

l 4

I I

• k4s acencv.

6 Onei I note that almost everybodv 4-l l

7l has a lot of peer relationships.

So I would tend to think i,

I i

g; that it might be useful for you to think in terms of coworker 9;

effectiveness.

When you think of, what is the managerial 1

1 4

f to ';

cart of our job, one o.ossible element that vou might look at l

I I

l h

11 i is what has to come from me as an output to make my coworker',

l

\\

i i

i 12 or my peers effective.

j i

13 Now, a way to get at that, of course, is to ask 14,

those peers, what do you need from me, when do you need it, I

and in what cuality or condition mus*

be.

Now, along that i

15 i

16 !

same like, you could, for those of you who are executives, 17 say, if I'n going to think in terms of one element of my jcb beinc. ccwcrker er peer effectiveness, couldn't jou also say aL 19 j that ancther element of my jcb is subordinate effectiveness.

20 l (Whereupon, at 10:35 a...,

Commissicner Ahearne 21lleft the 2002-)

e MR. WACKEAM:

Ncw, what has to come from me as an

~~

q 23 individual executive to help my subordinates be more effec:17e 24 in their ;chs?

There must be 15 or 20 differen: things cha:

sJeceral Reco**ers, lec.

25,

ycu as an executive have to do or ought to do cr want to dc

n

't

/

L U f.

1 m.te 5 31 J

I 1,

with your subordinates to help them become more effective.

I e '1 One might be that vou have reached acreement with them on I

I I

3, what ycu expect of them and what they were willing to ec=mi*

t l

4; to.

That's one thing you might do to help them become more i

i f

l 5l' effective.

That is, operate a performance appraisal system i

6 6

with them.

P 7!

Secondly, you might counsel with them.

j 1

i a;

Thirdly, you coach tnem, if there's a differerce l'

9!

between coachina and counseling.

i 10 l Fourthly, you make recommendations about their pay.

i i

11 Fifth, you make recc=mendaticns about how to j

i 12 reassign them and so on, all of these things that we're i

13 talking about that one does.

l 14 But all of your relationships -- and of course, vou l

1 I

15 l assign work to them.

All of your relationships with your I

i 16 i subordinates are things that have to come fren you, to help 17 them be more effective in their jobs.

You can sort of group

'l la under one major subordinate effectiveness area.

Ther you can t

19 se cbjectives within them.

i

'l

,)

20,

You can have several objectives:

I will -- I will 1

I 21,

reach performance agreements with all of my subordinates by 22 l X date that satisfies both me and my boss and my subordinates.

22 '

I will do the -- I will counsel this persen and that persen 24 on this kind of problem by X date, and I'll make sure that g

asee.r.i a ccor..n. i nc. i 25 '

that's done.

n

-}

IL L

.I

ntc6 l

32 i

1 I

gl You can set objectives on that if you lt7 it out thatl i

Il 2

way and probably submit that to your boss and get concurrence I

3 that, yes, this is a major output area of mine, and yes, these i

i I

i 4 !

are reasonable objectives.and it's f air for me to be helc 5i accountable for those things.

t i

6 A third one is -- let me group this one.

I don't j

I i

1 7'

knew quite how to say this, but all of you have obviously so i

I 3

many inter-relationships that I suspect it's a little hard to i

I 9i keep the system going; that there are sc =any places where i

lo !

things can fall between the cracks that all of you have, I 1

l 11 '

suscect, sort of system responsibilities, where vou mic.ht i

i I

11,

want to think in terms of the system responsibilities which l

i I

t 13 1 you have.

i a

f J

i l

14 l And a major output area, then, for all of you as I

t l

15 !

exes

.ves is what must I do to just keep the system going.

i 16 New that includes, I think -- that could include, I think, 17 getting the blasted budget work done on ti.me and in the right 1a-1 format.

It cculd include things as simple as that, but thincs 1

19l that, if ycu don't do it, the system breaks down.

It could i

20 l include also the relationships with tr

.ntracting pecple i

e1 !

and doing all of that contracting right and in acccrdance a

22 a with law and sc cn.

It could include relationships w;;h a

u.. a.

deren other places, and all those are cutputs that are re _ ired i

i r

24 of jou that you can set objectives en and sbculd be held 3 Federal Asocr+ers, Inc. 'I, 23 accountable fcr.

a a

I

<l s e L

L l

mte-7 I

33 l

Ii i

i i

i i

l' But I think vou crobably wouldn't want to go through 1

2 h your job and say, well, now, I have to relate to the contracting I

3{

people, so I have to make that an element of my job, and I i

i i

i 4-have to work with the personnel oecole, so I have to make that I

i l

5, an element.

I 6!

All of those can be grouped in some reasonable way i

7, to have to do with the system and keeping the system going l

(

l a

legally and ethically, fairly and so on.

I 9

Looking at the documents that I was provided, I also I

l 10 l'

got the imcression that there is a lot of temcorarv. assignmentsi l

11,

and project work.

Am I right?

l l

12 MR. GCSSICK:

Followinc Three Mile Island, you are l.

i l

13 '

dead right.

i 1

14 (Laughter.)

i I

15 !

Although that's not the only reason.

j i

16 '

MR. WAKEAM:

Well, I could have speculated that 17 about Three Mile Island for sure.

But it is not unusual, even n

is ]

in organizaticns as staid as the Office ci Personnel Management

.I 19 and the G=neral Services Administraticn, that every manager i

20 l in the course of a year is going to get two, ?.h r e e, fcur, five, 21,

six ca cr scecial c.ro>4ects.

And at the becinninc of a ceriod 4

a 22 of time that manager dcesn't know what these special projects 23 '

are going to be, and the manager's hoss dcesn't know what 24 j they're going to be.

And : are is no way tney ca.n say, well,

'* Jeder31 A fDCf'f f1. INC.

25.(

durinc the next ace.raisal c.eriod vo are c.oinc. to c.e: this, 282 042 1

ii

ate 8 l

a4 that and the other special croject.

l 1

J 2l And yet, it is critical to that manager's performance 1

3; that when those special project assignments come up they are l

I 4'

done and they are done well.

It may or may not have to do f

with working with their own subordinates.

It may have to do l

0, I

i I

with working someplace different ard some job different.

But 6

1 1

7{

they wouldn't be special projects unless they were important.

l i

i And almost every manager gets them.

l 8,

i 4

f f

9l It seems to me that you could Just say success in i

10 specia] projects, and then whatever those special projects I

i 11 '

turned out to be, just knowing in advance of the year that i

1, v.ou were c.oine. to get some of them and you make sure that l

l you are rating and appraising your suhordinates with respect 13 i

14 to this assessment of special projects.

i Jad a final one that I think is important -- I'n 15,

l 16 sure there are others, but a final one I think is important i

is what has to come from you as an executive to make you as 17,

a-superiors effective.

I think it's cuite effective for you, U

d as supericrs, to set up as a general categcry what you are 19 l.

20 l willine to be held accountable for, and what I will dc anf 21 what I will be held accountable for with respect to making

'l my superiors effective.

e.,. i; o

23 j So I have just abcut covered subcrdinates and peers i

q and I think supericrs.

Those may be harder to specify in mFecera A ecorters, Inc. 'ij 25 1 advance so that the boss knows enactly what they are.

But I i

n 28?

04-3 1

a

ne.9 I

j 35 l

j think it's fair for you, in your meetings with your subordinates, l

i 2 l and for you when you're in your meetings with your superiors, I

3, to have to address that question, particularly in an orcanica-l tion that seems as fluid and uses project management to the l

4 I

5i extent that I think NRC does.

l I,

6' There are others that you may wish to break out i

8 l

7; separately.

Obviously there are things -- you have one, j

i I,

8 courtesy to the public.

If you wish to break that out sepa-l l

9 rately or you wish to have that as something else, it's still iO going to be important that it be in there semehow.

Affirmative l

I 11 i action, whether it's a subpart of some other element or whether t 12 it'q a separate element all its own, it still has to be in s

I 13 there somehow.

14 There are scme of these -- and in yours, I'm not i

l sure how.

I think it's something you want to take into account.

15,

I 16 '

When you are setting up your job elements, obviously, you have I

17 ;

to be setting up jcb elements that you can measure er observe.

i la The question is, though, how T.any levels of performance can 1; j there possibly be in scme things.

Ycu knew, we have to have h

.I l scme levels of performance to distinguish a superior executive 20 I, frcm a fully successful executive, from a marginal successful

,1 22 ; executive, for an unsuccessful one.

And I think prehably 1

23 ' you'll need to have at least those fcur levels in the perfer-

.f 24 ; mance appraisal system.

..;,ce, i m emnen, inc. l 25,

Eut there are some of these factors thac ycu will d

282 U44

36 ate ' 10 1l be assessing and that you will be assessed on, that it just t

o. '

doesn't make sense, cerhaos, to have all four levels.

You 1

3!

either do it or you don't do it.

j t

1 I

4l I would sug3est that you think about which ones of 5

those, which ones fall into that category, and sort of set those off to the side and reach an agreemen t fairly early 6i t

l l

7; with your subordinates that it's either done or not done, or i

i we don't knew how to distinguish between superior and adequate,j 3

i.

9' but inadequate is -- well, if you set those off to the sde l

i 10,[

and don't spend too much time, I guess, trying to manufacture 1

11 ;

differen es that you won't be able to document, I think it i

i i

i 12 :

will be helpful to you as you go through the process.

I i

l i

13 I'm trying to think of other little pieces or it.

i i

la,

A critical element -- I want to say scmething about that, but l

l 15 not terribly much, because critical element, as I understand i

t I

16,

it and as we have defined it in policy, is whatever you define 33 17 ;

it as.

13 Once you break that jcb into elements -- and I

,1 ll 19 '

recc= mend v.cu break the.m down into outr.ut-criented elements.

20,

But once you break them dcwn into elements, then you decide i

9.1 ;> what's critical.

If this element of the ich is so impcr:anc

.1 i

22j that we won' t be able to tclerate someone who dcesn't do ic o

B 23]

satisfactcrily in the jcb -- and that doesn't mern firing l,

24 ;

people necessarily.

It could mean redesigning the job or esecerei neacmrs. inc.

could mean transferring pecple and so on.

It could c.ean d'

l i

3 1

282 045 l

nte 11,

I 37 i

i l

1 a lot of things besides firing people.

j l,

2, But if it's so important, then you wouldn't want a l

i 3[

person continuing if the job if they didn't do it satisfactorily.

I i

Then that's a critical element.

4 If you end up with a very high-level executive and 5 t i

i I

6 !

you break the job down into three or four pieces, that's all j

t i

7 the elements you break the job down into, it's a pretty good gi bet, I'd say, Ehat all three or four of those are going to i

i 1

9' be critical.

i 10 If you break the job down into 40 pieces, it's I

li t highly unlikely that all 40 of those are going to ce critical.

I i

12 !

MR. GOLDMAN:

Are you suggesting that in appraisals, l

I i

13 that you trv to stick just to critical elements and_not trv l

s I

i 14 to go further than that?

I I

i 15 MR. WAKHAM:

The law recuires you deal with critical [

l.

I 16 '

e lemen ts.

But I suggest that for oav. ourposes and for bonus t

17 purposes, you are certainly going to want to deal with more i

1

3 than just critical elements, because critical elements is kidd 19 '

of on the negative side -- what would you remove sc=etedy for?

a 20 l But the critical elements may not be the only thing 21 that distinguish between a superior and a fully successful i

1 22 }

executive.

Maybe those noncritical elements would be important, I

i 33,

too.

So I really wculd sugges that you deal in terms of the 24 total job, instead of just bits and pieces of it.

But the

ascerai aeoorms, inc.,

25 1 critical ones are the ones you have to specify in advance.

n 282 046

38 l

i te.12 l

i This must be done.

You can't keep the person in that. job 1l, i

2!

structured just that way.

l t

I f

3-COMMISSIONER F.ENNEDY:

You're not suggesting that i

I I

4 in aco. raising c.erformance against critical elements, that it's i

I 5

a go or no-go proposition only?

In fact, I should think even l

6i in the critical element question, there is a variation in how I

i I

t 7;

well it is done.

That it is done, yes; it's net done, out.

f I

I I

8 But if it's done, ves.

I i

9 MR. WAKHAM:

But there would be a variation above j

10 that.

l 11 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Some people do it extra-l 6

i l

~

12 ordinarily well and sc=e people do it in a sort of passin,g i

l 13 grade.

j 14 MR. WAKHAM:

Yes.

I think you are quite right.

i i

1

[

15 l If they don't do it at least satisfactorily and if it's i

l 16 '!

critical, then you have a decision to make.

Whether you t

17 redesign the jch, give that work to somebody else, or a

18 l whether you re=cve the person, whatever ycu do, you have a i

19 i cecision to make.

20 Performance standard.

A performance standard is 21 a' what it is.

It's a yardstick.

And ycu have a good performance o

a 22 g standard when it T.easures your jcb element, whatever tha job f

1 23 n element is, in terms of quality and/or quantity and/c:

i cineliness, cost efr_ectiveness, :ne er:ect cocainen er 24 !

m.cerm are.,s. me. j e

25 a achieved, or the canner of the performance, the way it was 282 047

c.te 13'*

39 i

i done and so on.

And if it measures on as many of those as 1

i t

l' 2'

cossible -- I've been in some scientific ac.encies where.cecc.le o

3 are saying what they're trying to do is put a number on l

l l

4 everything.

So you know, if I give advice three times then i

i Sj I'm better than if I gave it only two times, which is -- they l

)

1 6!

reccgnize as patently absurd, but that's what they're hearing i

7 someone say.

l l

8, If you measure on those things that are reasonable j

f 9l and possible, including: when it's appropriate, quantity; I

i 10 !

when it's apo. roc.riate, c.ualitv; when it's appropriate, cost i

1 t

i 11 l effectiveness; and timeliness and the effect cbtained, then i

t 12 )

that will be enough.

Those things are documentable and you 1,

I I

13 '

and the boss or you and your subordinates can agree to it.

i s

14 But it makes no sense to think in terms of having i

15 to measure how many times you gave advice.

i I

i i

16 i Now, it does make some sense in this respect and I 17!

think it's fair to do this.

If I am the principal adviscr i

il is !

to X person, it's part of my role to recognize when that persen i

t 19 :1 needs advice on my subj ect area.

So whether I recognize the

- l.

20.!

situation when advice frcn me is warranted would be the l

21 i extent to which I do recognize such situations, wculd be an d

22 j appropriate thing to measure.

I i

11 23 l And if the organization has problers five times 1

-i during the year that can be traced back to my failure to 24 '

me.cere seconeri, ine..;

25 M reccenire that I should have advised, er the fact is advice n

i

,I F

282 048 c

.te 14 l

40 l

l l

i l

i 1

from me is needed and I didn't offer it, I think that my boss i

2' has reasons to question whether my advice-giving function is i

i 3!

being carried cut appropriately.

i 4 !

Secondly, if 1 am giving advice, if I constantly I

i 5

give advice ' hat nobody accepts, I think I have reason to l

l 6,

question whether my advice-giving function is being carried l

i i

7, out appropriately.

The extent to which people accept my l

i 8;

recommendation can give me some clues.

l t

l 1

9; Now, thirdly, there's another way to measure a i

l i

10 ;

recommendation and advice-giving function, and that is the l

i l

11,

extent to which, when thev. accept av. recommendations, it i

12 causes foulups.

And if four or five times a year I do give I

13 advice and it is accepted and it does cause foulups, I think I

la i I'm getting some feedback.

And that's an appropriate way for i

i i

15 !

me to measure my own acvice-civinc runction.

I think it's kind of an ae.rceriate way, tco, for v.ou to consider, and so 16 t c

6 17 '

degrees of accomplishment can be estimated.

13 i And by the way, you can't count hcw many major i

19 fculups were directiv. due to av. advice.

And degrees Of i

20 acccmplishment have to be -- if you have a gcod performance i

standard, it will be useful to have two or three, if ycu can 21 3 l

22l get them, degrees of accceplishment -- what is outstanding, 1

23 '

what is fully satisfacecry, what is minimal.

24 1 That's harder, I think, for ycu.

But I think you're NJecerat R eporters, Inc.

25.

coine. to need some of it to be able cc distinguish between a

'f ry ff

[

i.

ate 1.5 -

l 41 l

t l

1l, the ranks that you want to award SES --

I

,l j

i 2l MR. SHAPAR:

I think you ' re sugges ting the number i

!3' of advices you use are not totally irrelevant.

I think you i

r i

I I

4I could make an argument that if you have an energetic manager, i

I i

i 5l and recognizing there are an infinite number of problems in 6,

the agency, he's going to work harder and reach down to solve i

i 7;

problems, and therefore gives advice based en the problems he l

8i works on.

I think it's a measurement of energy, how do you 9ll manage at that point.

10 MR. WAKHAM:

I think it is a measure of energy, yes, I

11 !

if the person is energetic.

I can't help but agree.

It's I

i l

12 !

just that if we apply a number to the advice-giving function I

/

i i

L 13 like the number of times a person gave advice, if we apply I

14 that to the advice-giving function and say all managers here i

15,

have to be judged on that, I think what you get, you probably l

16 get more unfairness.

And this is purely a personal opinion.

17 '

First of all, it would be hard to count.

Ycu would 13 have to set up a very difficult cc=puting system cc count l9 j how many times these managers gave advice and whether ycu' re i

i 20 l going to count formal advice or informal advice, and se on.

21 Sc I wonder, ycu knew, on a generalized basis whether it would l

,,uj be valuable.

o 1

23 1 COMMISSIONER KENNECY:

See, what Ecward is concerned il I

abcut, as One of our senior at crneys, is whether he's going "T Etcff al A fDorters, Inc.

SC Oc be able to c^"--

'"a "" "er of times he advises us, and rr qco cdJ U,, a J f

w.

7 t e ley

• 4.,

t, i

1 i

that would be very high.

l l

2 (Laughter.)

3 Or whether he's going to count the number of timts l

4l we take that advice.

That's going to be somewhat icwer.

l 1

5, (Laughter.)

I i

l l

6:,

Or whether he's coinc. to let us decide sc=ething I

i 7l about the quality.

l 3j (Laughter.)

i l

9:

I'm not going to comment about that.

i i

1 10 '

MR. SHAPAR:

I think the most difficult thing is to l

1 i

11 '

distinguish the responsibility from the foulups.

i 1

I 12 l (Laughter.)

i 6

r 13 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

We understool that part of i

f b

14 this lecture verv. well.

15 MR. WAKHAM:

With respect to the cperating attorney, 16 !

I think a measure of timeliness may substitute, you kncw, hcw i

I 17 ;

manv. davs of turnaround time en the averac.e, may substitute I

18h for a number, say, they gave advice this time or that time.

il 17 1 But with respect to the =anager Of attcrneys, maybe we're a

4 20 :

talking abcut something fcr operating atterneys and the i

1 21, manager of the attornev.s is c.oinc. to be "cdged on how well 22 '

that manager helps his subcrdinates to be effective.

22 y'l The last thing, the time frame, is a necessary part t

U 24 of a performance standard.

The assumption is that we're

sJecerat Aeoorters, Inc. i 23 ;

talking about a Vear.

But on "CCS iobs ycu may decide te

+

1 282 051 I

43 mte' 1T.'

1, l!

talk about a longer time frame than that, or at least sc=e r

2 interim result with respect to very critical, long -term issues. '

i 3l Some iaterim progress reports would be reflected in the i,

4' performance appraisal, rather than waiting for the ultimate 1

5 results of everything.

f I

6' That's one that causes many scientists prcolems, l

l l

7l' the researchers in NIH, and I think probably they have more j

3 difficulties erceiving how thev can use a performance appraisal e

9 system cerhans than NRC.

But the NIH researcher who does not 10 'l knew whether the experiment will succeed or fail, and believes II he or she has succeeded or f ailed without regard to whether I

i 12 !

the experiment succeeds or fails does -~ and knows thnt they I

13 are embarked on,a long-range project that they are involved,

i 14,

in 'cith a lot of other people, and thev mav or may not ever l

q l

i 15 I ce able to claim incividual responsiollity :cr ciscovering i

16 !

the ultimate cure for different cr special kinds of cancer --

17 yet they still believe they are doing good science, and they 13 can convince their peers that they arc.

I9 ]

These are the pecple who have the =cs: difficulty

'O I with putting a time frame on -- we're going to measure, we're d

2: !

going to provide feedback to ycu cn your performance on an 1

22 j annual basis.

It's an ll-year er 40-year problem.

3I Still and all, if vcu're c.oinc. tc measure, if v.cu're Ih going to assess, there has to be a time frame around which

.a.cers aeooners. inc. '

,e '

' ' vcu assess.

Scw, hcw one assesses.G >a: -researcher and whether

-h Itbi 1

L. U t Ua L.

I 44 ate 18..

I i

I' l

it's in the judement of his or her peers, which mostly it 2

turns out to be, and I think quite apprcpriately, or whether 3l it's on some other factors that that researcher and the r

i 4!

superior make up and agree to doesn't really m.atter.

But the i

i 5

time frame does matter, so that they both know what period of 6

time and what wet of outputs thev're talking < out.

=ecause l

I i

7:

the time frame needs to be specified before the period, anc I

i 8,

then how many reviews and when thay.iare likely to be, durinc.

9' the period they're going to be, and the end of the period 10 l needs not come as a surprise either to th? reviewer or the l

f 11 1 reviewee.

I I

I 12 l I've covered a lot of different things, some that l

t

)

13 3 are relevant, I think, to just management in general, some 14 that you may find more or less relevant to NRC.

i IS I I want to comment, if I can, if you think my 16 cccments would be helpful, in response to your questions cr I7 !

your comments.

Please let me do so.

13 MR. GCSSICK:

Any questions?

1 ^7 (No response.)

i 20 MR. BLACK:

I have just one.

Does OPM have a l

21 j recc=mendation on the most effective way to begin the process?

I

,"]

Should it ccme frcm the top dcwn?

Or is there any particular l

23 b o

- better than another?

cr.e wav ma.

MR. WAKHAX:

Well, at CPM we're doing it frcr the

'T Feder. Aepor'ers, Inc, t 25 j tcp dcwn.

Our recuirements cut Oc departments and agencies 1.

282 053

ete 1T.,

45 l

I i

l ill are really Ocp-down requirements.

We require that your SES l

l I

I 2'

performance appraisal system be done and in place long before l

3 we require your merit pay performance appraisal system to be l

4 in place.

5!

Now, in your case, SES applies to you.

But all other I

I 6:

agencies have to respond to both.

But thev have to get us the ;

i l

7!

SES one first.

We do -- we are operating as it we believe I

i 8,

the tcp-down approach is right and the = cst appropriate l

9' approach.

I I

10 l l

l (Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m.,

Commissioner Bradford i

II !

entered the room.)

12 l COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:

Mr. Wakham, we appreciate l

I your coming, and also the time of yodr colleagues who came l

13 Id.

with you.

I can assure you that we have had a good beginning. !

l I3 '

We are dedicated to getting this job done and done right, l

16 because we know full well that without an effective initiation 1,' '

cf this program it's going to be a very cceplex and difficult I3 1 program to live with indeed.

And if we do it right, we also l9 think that the are benefi-, to us and therefore to the I

f 20 country are going to be substantial.

So we will be calling On you and ycur cclieagues i

e2 l'

frequtntly during the coming days, a

• 3.i MR. WAKHAM:

Thank ycu.

I hopo we can be helpful, e

.-t o

C n.u_v._e _c e.- ~...r u..

.e.r...v. r.D v.

.se,

. e._ _e._o, m

o

~~.

t.;ecerai Recor e t. Inc. l

-4 (Whereupen, at 11:03 a.m.,

the hearing was adjourned.)

n (T ho' P

r)

/

c c

s i

)