attracting the next generation of federal leaders · pdf file... attracting the next...

Taking the Helm: Attracting the Next Generation of Federal Leaders Copyright 2010 by the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation. All Rights Reserved. The contents may not be extracted, copied, reproduced, or distributed in any form without the written consent of the Senior Executives Association and Avue Technologies Corporation.

0 | P a g e

Taking the Helm Attracting the Next Generation of Federal Leaders


1 | P a g e

Senior Executives Association

SEA is a non-profit, non-partisan professional association that has

served as the voice of the career federal executive corps since

1980. SEA’s mission is to improve the efficiency, effectiveness,

and productivity of the federal government; to advance the

professionalism and advocate the interests of career federal

executives; and to enhance public recognition of their

accomplishments. For additional information about SEA, visit

www.seniorexecs.org.


Professional Development League

The Senior Executives Association Professional Development

League is a non-profit, educational organization that is committed

to advancing the professionalism of career federal executives

through the sponsorship of training, recognition activities, and

research.

Avue Technologies Corporation

Avue – where revolutionary ideas meet up with deep Federal

expertise to support the best leadership, results, and

management practices in human capital. That’s why Avue is the

Operating System of the Insourcing Revolution – the movement to

restore open and effective government services delivered by

dedicated Federal employees. Our “Native Federal” fully-hosted

management platform enables collaboration that results in faster,

more effective, and better informed decisions by Federal

managers and employees, and connects millions of job candidates

directly with each other and the Federal community. Learn more

about Avue Technologies at www.avuetech.com.

®

http://www.avuetech.com/


2 | P a g e



Prepared under the direction of Carol Bonosaro, President

Project Director: K. Scott Derrick, Director of Professional Development

The following individuals made key contributions to this report:

Avue Technologies Corporation

Doris Brown, Director of Affiliate Relations

Monica Fritts, Senior Business Analyst

Shirley Stargel, Business Intelligence Analyst

For additional information about this report, please contact:

Deej Lundgren

Director of Communications


202-927-7000

Email: [email protected]


3 | P a g e

Taking the Helm

Attracting the Next Generation

of Federal Leaders

Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9

Key Findings..................................................................................................................... 12

Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 44

Appendix I – Methodology ............................................................................................... 50

Appendix II – Result Tables for Government-wide Survey of GS-14/15 Employees ........... 54

Appendix III – Result Tables for Chief Human Capital Officers Council Questionnaire ...... 64

Appendix IV – Demographic Cross-Analysis Tables for Survey of GS-14/15 Employees .... 70


4 | P a g e

“SES positions hold no allure for me.

The negatives (political implications,

lack of clear authority to take action,

dealing with Congress) far outweigh

any positive benefits of serving in the

SES.”

-GS-14 Survey Respondent

“Although the opportunity to contribute

more fully to the mission of my agency as

an SES member is very attractive, the

total lack of work/life balance will keep

me from applying for any SES candidate

development program while I have

children at home.”


he United States is facing daunting

challenges spanning almost every facet

of the federal establishment. To address

these serious challenges, the nation needs a

capable and determined group of senior civil

servants to help implement critical initiatives.

Over 30 years ago, Congress created the Senior

Executive Service (SES) to be a new corps of

career executives charged with managing the

federal government. Almost 20 years ago,

Congress created two additional senior-level

career positions, which are collectively often

referred to as Senior Professional positions:

Scientific/Professional (ST) positions, which involve the performance of high-level research and development in the physical, biological, medical, or

engineering sciences, or a closely-related field, and

Senior Level (SL) positions, which do not involve significant supervisory duties nor scientific research yet are still high level, such as a high-level special assistant or a senior attorney in a highly-specialized field.

These SES and Senior Professional positions are

all classified above the General Schedule (GS)-

15 level in the federal government, and

individuals in these senior-level positions are

considered top career professionals in the civil

service.

Given the myriad of jobs and the substantial

responsibilities exercised by the SES and Senior

Professionals, these approximately 8,000 men

and women are critical to a high-performing

T

Executive Summary

“From my vantage point, the slight

increase in pay is more than off-set by

all of the SES ‘detractors,’ many of

which were asked about in this survey.”


“I've learned more about ST/SL

positions from this survey than I've ever

heard from my organization's

management.”



5 | P a g e

government. These senior-level career officials

are key to implementing the administration’s

management agenda and are an essential link

between the administration and agency

activities such as rulemaking, implementation,

enforcement, and operations. To address the

numerous complex challenges that the nation

faces, the federal government must have a

highly-qualified cadre of current and

prospective future leaders for these senior

positions. About 90 percent of federal

executives will be eligible for retirement over

the next 10 years, and the percentage of federal

executives currently eligible for retirement has

reached 50 percent of the corps in some

agencies. Unresolved challenges in attracting

the best and the brightest to these positions

would leave a serious leadership vacuum at the

top of the civil service.

In recent years, the Senior Executives

Association (SEA) has heard numerous concerns

about a declining interest by GS-14 and GS-15

employees in serving in senior career positions

in the federal government. In 2006, SEA

conducted a survey of the SES and issued an

associated report with regard to the new pay

and performance management system. The

report, “Lost in Translation,” revealed that 47

percent of all executives responding reported

that the new SES pay and performance

management system had had either a negative

effect or a very negative effect on the interest

of their GS-14/15 employees in becoming a

member of the SES. In 2008, the U.S. Office of

Personnel Management’s (OPM) survey of SES

members reported that less than 50 percent of

executives believed SES pay and benefits were

helpful in attracting and retaining high-quality

senior executives. Evidence continues to build

to support this view. Thus, the government

risks not attracting the best and the brightest to

the senior-level positions that will be vacated.

To fully understand the significance of this

issue, SEA determined that more specific data,

not simply anecdotes, were needed from GS-14

and GS-15 employees from across the federal

government.

This is why SEA developed and conducted, in

partnership with Avue Technologies

Corporation, an online survey to collect

information on the views and interests of

federal employees in GS-14 and GS-15 positions

(and their equivalents) related to applying for

and serving in senior career positions in the

federal government. In July 2009, SEA issued an

open call for GS-14/15 employees and their

equivalents across the federal government to

respond to the online survey. Survey questions

solicited information on respondents’ views and

interests concerning career SES and Senior

Professional positions as well as their job

satisfaction, personal work and professional

development experiences, future employment

plans, and demographic information. SEA

received a total of 11,798 responses to the

survey, including over 3,700 narrative

comments.

Review of the survey data showed that the

demographic profile of the GS-14/15

respondents was similar to the overall

government-wide workforce of GS-14s and GS-

15s, though some federal agencies were better

represented than others among the survey

respondents. Although the results of the survey

Executive Summary


6 | P a g e

are not representative of all GS-14 and GS-15

employees and their equivalents in the federal

government because the survey was not a

random sample, the survey results are

nonetheless instructive for identifying

challenges and possible solutions for ensuring

that the federal government is able to maintain

an outstanding cadre of federal career

executives.

In addition to the government-wide survey of

GS-14 and 15 employees and their equivalents,

SEA administered a related questionnaire to

members of the federal Chief Human Capital

Officers (CHCO) Council, which advises and

coordinates activities of federal agencies on

human resources matters. The questionnaire

was opened in July 2009 for CHCO Council

members to respond, and the questionnaire

remained open through the fall to allow

sufficient time for the CHCOs to respond. The

questionnaire asked members of the CHCO

Council for their views about the quality of

applicants for career SES and Senior

Professional positions, potential challenges in

hiring and retaining employees for such

positions as well as various attractors and

detractors to serving in these positions. SEA

received responses from 17 of the 24 Council

members who were asked to respond to the

questionnaire.

On the basis of a review and analysis of the GS-

14/15 survey results, SEA identified the

following key findings:

Finding 1: The most significant attractors for considering an SES or Senior Professional position are the ability to contribute more to

the mission of the agency, greater opportunity for creativity and innovation, the honor of serving at the highest level, and increased responsibility and authority.

Finding 2: The most significant detractors for considering an SES or Senior Professional position are the potential negative impact on the balance of work and family responsibilities, the possibility of being reassigned or transferred geographically, and the complexity of the application process.

Finding 3: Although pay was not a top attractor or detractor among survey responses, numerous narrative comments by survey respondents expressed that the difference in pay between a GS-14/15 position and an SES or Senior Professional position is often not commensurate with the increased workload, responsibility, and risk.

Finding 4: A majority of the survey respondents said they are interested in becoming a member of the SES or a Senior Professional and have confidence in their ability to serve in one of these positions. However, a much smaller percentage of respondents said they received supervisor encouragement to follow one of these career paths.

Finding 5: Despite respondents’ stated interest in serving in SES and Senior Professional positions, less than 50 percent of respondents said that the attractors to serving in these positions outweigh the detractors to serving in the positions.

Finding 6: A large number of respondents (83%) are generally satisfied with their current job, but a much smaller percentage of respondents (39%) are satisfied with the opportunity to get a better job in their organization.

Finding 7: A large number of respondents have not attended an executive education

Executive Summary


7 | P a g e

or SES candidate development program. Narrative comments in the survey responses indicate this is mainly due to budget constraints, lack of agency support, workload demands, mobility issues, poor quality of programs, or a combination of these factors.

Finding 8: Many respondents said they lack clear and accessible information about SES and Senior Professional positions, including the differences between these positions and those under the General Schedule, about developmental opportunities for these positions, and about ways to position oneself to apply for and succeed in these positions.

Finding 9: Some differences were found in responses based on self-reported gender, ethnicity, and race and national origin of survey respondents.

Overall, the CHCOs responding to the CHCO

Council questionnaire rated the attractors to

serving in SES and Senior Professional positions

very similarly to the respondents to the GS-

14/15 survey. Key differences in how the GS

14/15 and CHCO respondents rated the

detractors are shown in figure 1.

To strengthen the SES and SL/ST systems in the

federal government and to help resolve

concerns expressed in the survey of prospective

federal leaders and managers, SEA recommends

the following.

Recommendation 1: OPM and agencies should emphasize the positive aspects of serving in SES and Senior Professional positions as expressed by survey respondents in order to attract and recruit highly qualified candidates to senior career positions. In addition, making improvements in the operation of the executive corps itself would make the corps more appealing to potential applicants, as well as serving to retain current executives.

Recommendation 2: Agencies should establish and communicate clear and consistent performance expectations for SES and SL/ST employees that encompass meeting the agency’s mission while also recognizing the importance of maintaining a healthy work-life balance.

Detractor Source

% Very great extent

and great extent

Being reassigned or transferred geographically* GS-14/15 survey respondents 43.50%

CHCO respondents 20.00%

Potential negative impact on balance of work and

family responsibilities

GS-14/15 survey respondents 43.20%


Complexity of the application process GS-14/15 survey respondents 37.10%


Executive Summary

Figure 1

Comparison GS-14/15 and CHCO Responses to Selected Detractors for Considering

SES or Senior Professional Positions

*GS-14/15 respondents with potential interest in Senior Professional positions were not asked about this detractor. When considered separately,

both groups of GS-14/15 respondents (i.e., interest in SES vs. Senior Professional positions) rated work/life balance as the top detractor.


8 | P a g e

Recommendation 3: OPM should annually report data on the number of involuntary geographic transfers under the SES mobility provision, which could demonstrate to potential candidates that such a reassignment may be less likely to occur than they might assume.

Recommendation 4: OPM and agencies should simplify the job application process for SES and SL/ST positions while maintaining important safeguards against politicization and acceptance of unqualified candidates, including the continued use of OPM Qualifications Review Boards (QRBs) for SES positions.

Recommendation 5: OPM and agencies should improve the selection process for SES positions to ensure that SES members have not only the technical skills to succeed in the job but also the interpersonal and executive skills necessary to communicate and lead people effectively.

Recommendation 6: OPM and agencies should develop additional mechanisms for interested and qualified GS-14/15 employees to obtain valuable developmental experiences, including within their current geographic areas rather than requiring these individuals to relocate for extended periods.

Recommendation 7: Congress, OPM, and agencies should make SES and Senior Professional positions more attractive to potential candidates by increasing the incentives for serving in these positions. Incentives should include: an assured annual increase for those

rated fully successful or better; inclusion of performance awards and

retention and recruitment allowances in retirement annuity calculations; and

an assured increase of at least 5 percent in salary for new career executives and senior-level officials.

Recommendation 8: Congress should de-link its pay from SES and Senior Professional pay to help eliminate the growing problem that permits some subordinates to earn more than Senior Executives.

Recommendation 9: OPM and agencies should increase their efforts to provide additional information to federal employees about SES and Senior Professional positions, including the differences between these positions and those under the General Schedule, developmental opportunities for these positions, and ways to position oneself to apply for and succeed in these positions.

Recommendation 10: OPM and agencies need to coordinate and strengthen actions to support diversity in the SES corps and other senior-level positions while upholding merit systems principles.

To help solve the many difficulties that our

nation now faces, it is imperative that the

federal government attract motivated and

capable individuals to SES and Senior

Professional positions. Addressing the issues

identified in this report will go a long way

toward building strong SES and SL/ST systems

that are attractive to the next generation of

federal leaders.

Executive Summary


9 | P a g e

Introduction

he United States is facing numerous

daunting challenges spanning virtually

every facet of the federal establishment.

These serious challenges include defense,

health care, the economy, the environment,

homeland security, the nation’s infrastructure,

energy, the long-term sustainability of our

social safety net programs, and the federal

debt. To address these serious challenges, the

Administration, Congress, and the American

people need a capable and determined group of

senior civil servants to help lead the way toward

the successful implementation of critical

initiatives.

The Senior Executive Service (SES) was

established as part of the Civil Service Reform

Act of 1978 and became effective on July 13,

1979. Prior to this reform legislation, senior

executives in the federal government were

classified at grades 16, 17 and 18 under the

General Schedule (GS) which were often

referred to as “supergrade” positions. Congress

created the SES to be a new corps of executives

selected for their leadership qualifications and

charged with managing the federal

government. The stated purpose of the SES was

to "ensure that the executive management of

the Government of the United States is

responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of

the nation and otherwise is of the highest

quality." Members of the SES serve in the key

positions just below the top Presidential

appointees and act as a link between these

appointees and the remainder of the federal

workforce, helping to ensure continuity across

administrations. Currently, there are about

7,000 career SES employees in the federal

government.

With passage of the Federal Employees Pay

Comparability Act in 1990, Congress created

two additional senior-level positions, which are

collectively often referred to as Senior

Professional positions and are considered top

career professional positions in the federal

government. Both Scientific/Professional (ST)

positions and Senior Level (SL) positions are

classifiable above the GS-15 level yet do not

meet the SES criteria for executive duties and

functions. ST positions involve the performance

of high-level research and development in the

physical, biological, medical, or engineering

sciences, or a closely-related field. SL positions

are senior-level career positions that do not

involve significant supervisory duties nor

scientific research, such as a high-level special

assistant or a senior attorney in a highly-

specialized field. Currently, there are about 900

Senior Professionals in the federal government.

Given the myriad of jobs and the substantial

responsibilities exercised by the SES and Senior

Professionals, these approximately 8,000 men

and women are critical to a high-performing

government and are key to implementing the

administration’s political and management

agenda. These senior career officials are an

absolutely essential link between the

administration and agency activities such as

rulemaking, implementation, enforcement, and

operations. The federal government needs to

have a highly-qualified cadre of current and

prospective future leaders for these senior

positions to address the numerous complex

T


10 | P a g e

challenges that the nation faces. About 90

percent of federal executives will be eligible for

retirement over the next 10 years; in some

agencies, the number of executives currently

eligible to retire has reached 50 percent of the

corps. Unresolved challenges in attracting the

best and the brightest would leave a serious

leadership vacuum at the top of the civil

service.

In recent years, the Senior Executives

Association (SEA) has heard numerous

anecdotal statements and concerns from its

members and others about a declining interest

by experienced and able GS-15 employees in

serving in senior career positions in the federal

government. In 2006, SEA conducted a survey

of the SES with regard to the new pay and

performance management system. SEA’s

report on the survey results, “Lost in

Translation,” revealed that 47 percent of all

executives responding reported that the new

SES pay and performance management system

had either a negative effect or a very negative

effect on the interest of their GS-14/15

employees in becoming members of the SES. In

2008, the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM) – the federal government’s human

resources agency—surveyed SES members and

reported that less than 50 percent of executives

believe SES pay and benefits are helpful in

attracting and retaining high-quality senior

executives. Evidence continues to build to

support this view. Thus, the federal

government risks not attracting the best and

the brightest to senior leadership positions that

will need to be filled. To fully understand the

significance of this issue, SEA determined that

more specific data, not simply anecdotes, were

needed from GS-14 and GS-15 employees from

across the federal government.

Given this situation, SEA, in partnership with

Avue Technologies Corporation (Avue), initiated

an effort of gathering additional information

related to ensuring that the federal government

is able to maintain an outstanding cadre of

career senior leaders. SEA developed and, with

technical assistance from Avue, conducted an

online survey to collect information on the

views and interests of federal employees in GS-

14 and GS-15 positions (and their equivalents)

related to applying for and serving in senior

career positions in the federal government. In

July 2009, SEA issued an open call for GS-14/15

employees and their equivalents throughout

the federal government to respond to the

online survey. Survey questions solicited

information on respondents’ views and

interests concerning career SES and Senior

Professional positions as well as their job

satisfaction, personal work and professional

development experiences, future employment

plans, and demographic information. The GS-

14/15 online survey was opened to respondents

for over 6 weeks beginning in mid-summer

2009. SEA received a total of 11,798 responses

to the survey, including over 3,700 narrative

comments.

Review of the survey data revealed that the

demographic profile of the GS-14/15

respondents was similar to the overall

workforce of GS-14s and GS-15s across the

federal government. Among the survey

respondents, some federal agencies were

better represented than others. Because the


11 | P a g e

survey was not a random sample, the results of

the survey may not be representative of all GS-

14 and GS-15 employees and their equivalents.

Nonetheless, the survey results are instructive

for identifying challenges and possible solutions

for ensuring that the federal government is able

to maintain an outstanding cadre of federal

career executives. (See appendix I for

additional information on the methodology for

the GS-14/15 survey.)



SEA surveyed members of the federal Chief

Human Capital Officers (CHCO) Council on

similar issues associated with attracting, hiring,

and retaining individuals for career SES and

Senior Professional positions. The CHCO

Council, which was established by the Chief

Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, advises and

coordinates the activities of federal agencies on

such matters as the modernization of human

resources systems, improved quality of human

resources information, and legislation affecting

human resources operations and organizations.

Specifically, SEA asked members of the CHCO

Council for their views about the quality of

applicants for career SES and Senior

Professional positions, potential challenges in

hiring and retaining employees for such

positions, as well as various attractors and

detractors to serving in these positions. The

questionnaire was opened in July 2009 for

CHCO Council members to respond, and the

questionnaire remained open through the fall

to allow sufficient time for the CHCOs to

respond. Seventeen of the 24 CHCO Council

members responded to the SEA questionnaire.

(See appendix I for additional information on

the methodology for the CHCO Council

questionnaire.)

The report that follows provides a summary of

the results of the GS-14/15 survey and the

CHCO Council questionnaire as well as

recommendations for how some of the

identified concerns can be resolved to create a

better system for senior career positions in the

federal government.


12 | P a g e

Key Findings

On the basis of our review and analysis of the

responses to the government-wide survey of

GS-14/15s and their equivalents in the federal

government, we have identified nine key

findings related to important issues surrounding

career SES and Senior Professional positions.

This section of the report shows data relevant

to each finding. For each finding, we also

include results from our questionnaire of CHCO

Council members, where relevant. In addition,

we include selected examples of narrative

comments we received from respondents to the

GS-14/15 survey. (For the survey results of

each question of the GS-14/15 survey and the

CHCO Council questionnaire, see appendices II

and III.)

Finding 1

The most significant attractors for considering

an SES or Senior Professional position are the

ability to contribute more to the mission of the

agency, greater opportunity for creativity and

innovation, the honor of serving at the highest

level, and increased responsibility and

authority.

Most jobs have positive factors that draw

people to consider serving in the position; these

positive factors are referred to as “attractors” in

this report. In the survey of GS-14/15

employees, respondents were asked directly

about the following 11 attractors to serving in

SES and/or Senior Professional positions:

Ability to contribute more to the mission of my agency

Increased responsibility and authority

Greater opportunity for creativity and innovation

The ability to interact at higher levels (e.g., with both political appointees and career executives)

The honor of serving at the highest career level

Increased pay

Ability to receive Presidential Rank Awards

Ability to receive other performance awards

Annual leave carryover: Up to 720 hours of annual leave can be carried over from year to year.

Sabbaticals: Up to 11 months for study or uncompensated work experience. (Not applicable to Senior Professional positions)

Last move home: Entitled to moving expenses upon retirement under certain circumstances if reassigned or transferred geographically. (Not applicable to Senior Professional positions)

As shown in figures 2 and 3, survey respondents

viewed the top attractors (i.e., highest positive

4 factors) to serving in SES and Senior

Professional positions as the ability to

contribute more to the mission of the agency,

greater opportunity for creativity and



authority. These positive factors highlight the

importance of growth, responsibility, and

achievement in attracting individuals to these

senior federal positions. Our review of the

narrative comments made by respondents to

the survey did not identify any additional key

attractors that were unrelated to the 11 factors

we directly addressed in the survey.


13 | P a g e

Respondents were asked “To what extent do each of the following factors make the SES or Senior

Professional position attractive to you?”

Figure 2 Figure 3

Ability to receive Presidential

Rank Awards

Ability to receive other performance

awards

Last move home

Sabbaticals

Annual leave carryover

Increased pay

The ability to interact at higher

levels


The honor of serving at the highest level

Greater opportunity for creativity and

innovation

Ability to contribute more to

the mission of agency

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Percentage of Respondents

GS-14/15 Responses for SES – Attractors

(Very great extent or great extent)

Top 4 SES

Attractors


Rank Awards

Ability to receive other performance

awards


The ability to interact

at higher levels

Increased pay

Increased responsibilityand authority

The honor of serving at thehighest level

Greater opportunity for creativity and

innovation

Ability to contribute more to

the mission of

agency

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


GS-14/15 Responses for Senior Professional – Attractors


Top 4 SL/ST

Attractors


14 | P a g e

In the separate questionnaire of members of the CHCO Council, CHCOs were asked about the extent to which these 11 factors make the career SES and Senior Professional positions attractive to prospective applicants for those positions. As shown in figures 4 and 5, the CHCO responses show that the significance of the top attractors closely mirrored the responses provided by respondents to the GS-

14/15 survey. The attractors rated more significant by the CHCOs include the ability to contribute more to the mission of the agency, greater opportunity for creativity and innovation, the honor of serving at the highest level, and increased responsibility and authority. As a group, the CHCOs who responded to the survey rated the ability to receive Presidential Rank Awards and other

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


CHCO Responses for SES - Attractors



Ability to contribute more to the mission of the agency


The ability to interact at higher levels



Increased pay

Ability to receive Presidential Rank Awards


Last move home

Sabbaticals: Up to 11 months for study or uncompensated work experience -0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


CHCO Responses for SL/ST - Attractors


Ability to contribute more to the mission of the agency


The ability to interact at higher levels




Increased pay

Increased pay


Ability to receivePresidential Rank Awards

Figure 5

Figure 4


15 | P a g e

performance awards as more significant attractors than sabbaticals and last move home. Conversely, the respondents to the GS-14/15 survey rated the ability to receive awards as the least significant of the 11 attractors.

The following are some selected comments provided by respondents to the GS-14/15 survey that address issues related to the attractors for considering SES or Senior Professional positions:

• “To me, selection to the ranks of SES is the pinnacle of public service, where you have a real opportunity to influence policy and programs.”

• “I believe that one of the biggest incentives for

SES service is the ability to impact agency

operations at the policy level. Working at the

supervisory level results in management of

programmatic aspects of the agency operations.

I would like to be able to make an impact on the

policy decisions that affect public health and

safety.”

• “I do think the responsibility, opportunities, etc

associated with being an SES are fantastic,

especially the opportunity to finally be far

enough up in the food chain to effect change,

develop your people, and make a difference.”

• “At this stage in my professional career and

personal development, the SES series would

provide the opportunity to serve in a capacity

where my strong leadership skills and influence

would create a positive change for the

department. I am committed to the goals and

mission of [my agency] especially at this time of

change and innovative leadership.”

• “It is an elite corps of managers who serve

selflessly for the good of the country in the most

demanding assignments. I would be honored

and proud to be a member.”

• “As a scientist, public health practitioner and

Hispanic woman, I strongly believe that I could

contribute to the mission of our Federal

Government to improve the health of individuals

in the United States and Abroad. I believe in the

mission of the federal government and its

establishment as a leader in many fields, in

particular health. I believe I will bring a set of

traits and tools, professional and personal, that

will be beneficial to any federal organization

that deals with matters of public health.”

• “I am seeking to rise to a position that I will

influence change and improve the process within

the agency. I understand that in our system of

checks and balances, no single person can

control change. But a person can build a

network that will build upon success to influence

the process for improvement.”

• “The opportunity to positively impact my

agency, and the government in general, is very

attractive. An SES or SL position provides the

chance to lead so as to improve the work of and

work environment for employees, and to build

good will towards my agency and the

government in general by the public at large,

both domestic and foreign.”


16 | P a g e

Finding 2

The most significant detractors for considering

an SES or Senior Professional position are the

potential negative impact on the balance of

work and family responsibilities, the possibility

of being reassigned or transferred

geographically, and the complexity of the

application process.

In addition to the positive aspects that make a

job attractive to prospective applicants, many

jobs also have negative factors that dissuade

people from considering the position, which are

referred to as “detractors” in this report. In the

survey of GS-14/15 employees, respondents

were asked directly about the following 11

detractors to serving in SES and/or Senior

Professional positions:

Complexity of the application process

Increased responsibility

Lack of sufficient authority to meet goals

Insufficient financial incentives

Ineffective SES or SL/ST performance management system

Potential negative impact on balance of work and family responsibilities

Increased interaction with political appointees

Being reassigned or transferred geographically (Generally not applicable to Senior Professional positions)

Lack of locality pay

Lack of an assured annual pay adjustment to reflect inflation

Increased job risk/loss of GS job rights (Not applicable to Senior Professional positions)

As shown in figures 6 and 7, respondents to the

GS-14/15 survey viewed the top detractor to

serving in SES and Senior Professional positions

as the potential negative impact on balance of

work and family responsibilities. As a whole,

GS-14/15 survey respondents in younger age

ranges were more likely to rate the potential

negative impact on the balance of work and

family responsibilities as unattractive. For

example, for those respondents with potential

interest in SES positions, 50 percent of those

under age 40 rated work/life balance as a

significant detractor vs. 41 percent of those

aged 50 and older. For those respondents with

potential interest in SL/ST positions, 49 percent

of those under age 40 rated the work/life

balance as significant detractor vs. 32 percent

of those aged 50 and older. Being reassigned or

transferred geographically and the complexity

of the application process were also top

detractors (i.e., over 1/3 of respondents rated

these as a detractor to a “great extent” or “very

great extent”).


17 | P a g e

Respondents were asked “To what extent do each of the following factors make the SES or a Senior

Professional position unattractive to you?”

Figure 6 Figure 7

Increasedresponsibility

Increased interaction

with political appointees

Ineffective SES performance management

system

Lack of sufficient authority to meet

goals

Insufficient financial

incentives


Lack of an assured annual pay adjustment

Increased job risk/loss

of GS job rights

Complexity of the application

process

Being reassigned or transferred geographically

Potential negative impact on balance of work & family

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


GS-14/15 Responses for SES – Detractors


Top SES Detractors



incentives

Ineffective SL/ST performance management

system

Increased interaction with

political

appointees

Lack of sufficient authority

to meet goals


Lack of an assured

annual pay

adjustment

Complexity of the

application

process

Potential negative impact

on balance of

work and family

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


GS-14/15 Responses for Senior Professional –

Detractors(Very great extent or great extent)

Top SL/ST Detractors


18 | P a g e

In the questionnaire of members of the CHCO

Council, the CHCOs were asked about the

extent to which these 11 factors are

unattractive to prospective applicants for SES

and Senior Professional positions. As shown in

figures 8 and 9, CHCOs who responded to the

questionnaire rated the complexity of the

application process as the most significant

detractor. The CHCOs rated as less significant

the potential negative impact on balance of

work and family and being reassigned or

transferred geographically. These results show

that GS-14/15 survey respondents had

somewhat different views than did CHCOs

regarding the most significant detractor to

applying for and serving in SES and Senior

Figure 9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%


CHCO Responses for SES - Detractors(Very great extent or great extent)

Negative impact on work/life balance

Lack of assured annual pay adjustment


Increased job risk/lossof GS job rights


Ineffective performance management system

Lack of sufficient authorty to meet goals

Increased interaction with political appointees



Being assigned or transferred geographically

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%


CHCO Responses for Senior Professional - Detractors(Very great extent or great extent)


Potenital negative impact on balance of work & family

Lack of assured annual pay adjustment



Ineffective performance management system

Lack of sufficient authorty to meet goals


Increased interaction with political appointees - 0%

Figure 8


19 | P a g e

Professional positions.

The questionnaire to members of the CHCO

Council also included several specific questions

related to the job application process for SES

and Senior Professional positions. Twelve of

the 17 CHCO Council members responding to

the questionnaire said that the amount of time

(speed) for the hiring process of SES and/or

Senior Professional positions was “about right.”

Five of the 17 CHCOs said that the hiring

process at their agency was “too slow” for SES

and/or Senior Professional positions. Three of

these 5 CHCOs said that this slowness was

related to problems in attracting a sufficient

number of qualified applicants, but only to a

limited or moderate extent. None of the CHCO

Council members responding to the

questionnaire said that the hiring process for

SES and/or Senior Professional positions was

“too fast.” Irrespective of their views, 14 of the

17 CHCOs responded that their department or

agency over the past 2 years had SES or Senior

Professional vacancies that remained unfilled

for more than 6 months.

The following are some selected comments

provided by respondents to the GS-14/15

survey that address issues related to detractors

for considering SES or Senior Professional

positions.

Work/Life Balance

• “Expectation to do more with less without a

balance with home/family is the most

unattractive attribute.”

• “If you are not an empty nest family, the SES

could put you into a situation in which you

would have to compromise your responsibilities

as a parent. There isn’t enough money in the

world to motivate me to make that leap.”

• “I have now worked at two different federal

government entities. At both the Senior

Executives that I worked under did not have any

time that they were truly off-duty. At some

point quality of life and control over your life

becomes more important than money and

position.”

• “I have really enjoyed many of my previous jobs,

and am happy in my current job, but I have to

think twice about applying for SES positions due

to the stress of the work/life balance.”

• “The biggest detractor which prevents me from

considering an SES position, which are available

and abundant in my agency, is the lack of a

flexible work schedule. With young children I

enjoy a very flexible work schedule including

limited telework hours. The flexibility of the SES

at my agency is considerably limited and does

not suit my family life.”

• “I believe serving as an SES would be a noble

vocation, but unfortunately an all-consuming

one. Challenges are great in life and certainly

hard work goes with added responsibility, but

there really is not much ‘work/life’ balance as an

SES (no matter how much its importance is

discussed). A typical example - an SES sent me

an e-mail at 11:27 PM. I responded at 7:00 AM

the next day and received a response to my

message by 7:15 AM. Something is wrong with

this leadership model.”

• “I have great respect for the SES Corps and

aspire to be a member of this elite Corps. Our

SES need more worklife balance if they are to

move the Federal government into a higher level

of sophistication. Many of them can't separate


20 | P a g e

work from family and consequently it is affecting

the way they lead their organizations.”

• “I have worked very hard in my government

career to have reached my current position.

While I am not afraid of increased responsibility,

enjoy challenges and LOVE being a manager, I

am not willing at this stage in my personal life to

sacrifice my family and personal life by taking a

job that will certainly require longer hours,

increased travel, etc… That being said - I have

been fortunate in my career to have worked

with a number of extremely professional

executives whose work interactions I have

cherished immensely.”

• “Right now with children at home and a long

commute, one of the biggest detractors for me

that was not specifically mentioned by the

survey is having an alternate work schedule.”

Relocation

• “Being an SES does not appeal to me due to the

forced re-assignment capability that is possible.”

• “Having to move is the #1 reason why I have not

applied or even considered SES. When I

attended [leadership training], nearly 80% of the

participants were not interested in SES for the

same reason. There are so many great leaders

out there who would make fantastic executives,

but won't apply because they don't want to

move their family or move from their family.

The effects of not being around when your

parents are elderly or missing out on so many

family activities cannot be measured in dollars

and cents.”

• “Biggest detractor is the uncertainty of being

moved upon change of administration. I see

many SESers pushed out after elections. That

just does not work for me.”

• “I think the current system of moving SES

executives does not recognize the modern

demographic of two income households, and is a

hold-over from earlier times when you had one

main career in a family. I also think that people

move at great financial disadvantage to

themselves on many occasions, and the

government is unrealistic about federal

employees being willing to do this. I love my job

and I love the mission of my agency, but I have

to also think about what is good for my family.”

• “The lack of assignment control for SES

personnel is undesirable. I have observed in the

past where SESs were forced to move cross-

country to undesirable locations often with the

intent to force the person into retirement.”

• “As long as relocation is a likely requirement for

an SES, I can't commit to it. I experienced a two

year separation from my spouse earlier in my

career and am not willing to do so again. My

decision not to pursue an SES position is based

entirely on making my family my first priority.”

• “Having to sign a mobility agreement while I still

have children in school and a husband who has a

job that is not easily transferrable is really the

only thing stopping me from pursuing an SES

position.”

• “I may apply for the SES program in the next

couple of years. I really don't like the mobility

required to participate in the SES program.”

• “I think the opportunity to serve in a position

would be both exciting & challenging. With that

being said, you essentially sign your life away

and can be dictated for reassignment with little

or no input.”


21 | P a g e

Application Process

• “Possibly more employees would apply for the

SES program if the application process was

simplified. It appears to be difficult finding the

time and energy to apply while daily working at

a high level of responsibility.”

• “The biggest deterrent to applying for an SES

position is the application and selection process.

The application form and the information that is

required to be submitted is daunting, to say the

least. In addition, the selection process is

protracted, and requires concurrence from

several entities, which takes a long time. I am

uncertain whether I am willing to go through the

process because of the difficulties that are

associated with it.”

• “I have heard that the application process is

horrendous and that our agency actually hires

consultants to ‘fix up’ the applications in order

that the applicants be approved for SES

positions.”

• “I am also profoundly frustrated by the

application process, I came into government as a

GS-15 from private industry; in the corporate

world even CEOs, COOs or Senior VPs just submit

a detailed resume. The government SES

application process is cumbersome and

discourages many GS-15s that I've spoken with

from applying.”

• “After having worked in the private sector for 15

years prior to coming to the government, the

application process to SES is ridiculously

complex. My experience prior to coming to the

government would easily qualify me for SES

positions, but financially and given the

questionable work-life balance in SES positions,

it doesn't seem worth the effort to apply or

move into such positions...especially when you

can be geographically moved at someone's

whim.”

• “I applied for two SES positions before and was a

finalist. The higher pay of the last couple years

makes it more attractive for me - the pay

differential really wasn't worth the miserable

writing exercise of applying, and may still not

be.”

• “I believe the biggest problem with applying for

SES positions is the length of time to complete

applications when there are multiple Technical

Qualifications that need to be addressed. The

amount of time that can be spent writing these

is significant and then you may never hear back

after you've applied.”

• “Many qualified candidates are deterred by the

daunting task of building the application as well

as the often extended timelines for selection and

notification.”

A review of the narrative comments made by

respondents to the GS-14/15 survey identified

some additional detractors, several of which are

closely related to the specific detractors that we

listed in the survey. For example, the challenge

of dealing with poor performers in the

workplace could easily be associated with the

“increased responsibility” detractor. Additional

detractors mentioned by respondents in the

narrative comments include:

Quality of current SES members

Selections not based on merit

Lack of time, money, and support for training and development

Below are selected comments from survey

respondents about these additional detractors.


22 | P a g e

Quality of current SES members

• “I am continually disappointed with the quality

of Senior Executives serving in my bureau. For

too many years, the most dynamic leaders in the

organization have served at the GS-15 level, and

none of these dynamic leaders has advanced

into the SES in this organization. Instead, the

Department and bureau leadership continually

selects lesser qualified and less talented

candidates from outside the organization to fill

vacant SES slots.”

• “Have worked directly for career SES members

for nearly 20-years, and have consistently been

disappointed in their competency, capability and

willingness to make difficult decisions, and to

take opposing views forward for consideration.”

• “Although service at this level is attractive, the

realities I see every day dissuade me from

working towards a position at this level.

Frankly, I see little quality work at the SES level,

and much quality political maneuvering (which,

in the end, contributes little to long term mission

success). It is true the monetary rewards of SES

positions are limited, but I am more concerned

by what from my perspective is a limited

opportunity to do quality work.”

• “After 40 plus years with [my agency] I find

myself disappointed with the caliber of some of

the executives that I work for. Far too many

seem to be too cautious on the one hand. That

is, they are afraid to make any type of bold

decision that has any type of associated risk.

And on the other hand, many seem to make ego-

based decisions. I imagine them thinking ‘How

will I look to others if I make this decision,’

rather than ‘How can I make this a better

Agency’.”

• “I am unimpressed with the quality of SES

managers with whom I work. I do not have

exposure to the full environment of their job, but

these people hopefully do not represent the best

in government. It is discouraging after 30 plus

years to feel disillusioned with government

service - when several times during my career I

aspired to higher levels only to change my mind

based primarily on the poor performance of the

of people populating the leadership ranks.”

• “The majority of the SES's I have encountered

are excellent technical people, many with

advanced degrees, who concentrate on the

technical side of business and unfortunately lack

interest and/or ability in the critical functions of

managing people.”

• “Despite the respect and personal regard I have

for many current and former Senior Executives,

too many fail to inspire or lead, and even fewer

exhibit any meaningful innovative ideas or

abilities.”

Selections not based on merit

• “From my perspective, several of those in the

SES attained that status based on who they

know, rather than on their particular merits,

accomplishments, and/or expertise (or lack

thereof).”

• “Candidates for SES schools SEEM TO BE hand-

picked and members of the 'good old boy'

network. As an outsider looking in, I've seen

personnel who are well connected and have high

level mentors selected for SES positions. I

question the 'ability and experience’ of some

whom I've known personally who have been

selected for SES positions. Bottom-line, seems

like a beauty contest.”


23 | P a g e

• “I have applied for a number of SES positions

over the years and have found the process to be

frustrating at best, and often demeaning. I

would be interested in an SES position if there

was some assurance that selection was based on

knowledge, experience, and skills, rather than on

favoritism. Unfortunately, the selection process

in this agency in the past has been based on

individual preferences and wired for specific

individuals.”

• “While I respect those that have attained the

level of SES, I do not believe that they are the

best to get things done. It's not what you know,

it's who you know.”

• “I'm not that impressed with SES selections in

my agency. Selection is more related to ‘who

you know,’ rather than upon capability. Only a

few SES positions in my agency are filled by

competent, capable individuals.”

Lack of time, money and support for training & development

• “Despite working directly for career SES

members most of my Government career, and

being told I am SES caliber, none of my SES

supervisors have supported my attending SES

candidate programs, citing mission needs that

precluded my absence.”

• “Agency based programs to promote SES

candidate development do not work, and are

implemented sporadically at best. I was rated

#1 candidate by my agency in the application

process for SES candidate development school

only to find the program cancelled. I cannot

think of any SES's within our agency that have

completed a candidate development program.”

• “As my agency does not have its own CDP, I have

found it difficult to learn about such programs to

which I may be invited to apply.”

• “During the bulk of my career at the GS-14 level,

my supervisor discouraged my requests for

additional education, stating that he needed me

to be there to work issues as the functional

expert. That included paying for college courses

at the Master's level. He supported these areas

for those folks he did not believe would provide

him with the needed operational support. In

essence, it was his way of getting them out of

the office. At this late date, I believe it would

not be in either my or my agency's best interest

to pursue additional education. Yet to be in the

SES, it is probably mandated.”


24 | P a g e

Finding 3

Although pay was not a top attractor or

detractor among survey responses, numerous

narrative comments by survey respondents

expressed that the difference in pay between a

GS-14/15 position and an SES or Senior

Professional position is often not

commensurate with the increased workload,

responsibility, and risk.

As discussed under findings 1 and 2, pay was

not a top attractor or detractor for the

respondents to the GS-14/15 survey. For

calendar year 2010, the minimum pay level for

SES and Senior Professional positions is

$119,554, and the maximum is $179,700 in

agencies with a performance appraisal system

certified by OPM as meeting certain

requirements. For those agencies not certified,

the maximum pay level for SES and Senior

Professional positions is $165,300.

As shown in figure 10, a large majority of

respondents to the GS-14/15 survey (app. 95%)

reported a salary (base pay plus locality pay)

that ranged between $100,000 and $159,999.

In addition, many respondents also received a

rating-based cash award and/or an

accomplishment-based cash award (see figures

11 and 12). Although pay was not a top

attractor or detractor among the survey

responses, numerous narrative comments by

GS-14/15 respondents distinctly expressed the

opinion that the differential in pay between a

GS-14/15 position to an SES or Senior

71.5%

23.2%

5.3%

68.0%

27.0%

5.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No No Answer

Did you receive a rating-based cash award (i.e., based directly on your rating of record) for your most recent

performance appraisal period?

SES SL/ST

45.8% 50.6%

3.6%

44.0%52.0%

4.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No No Answer

Have you received an accomplishment-based cash award (i.e., not based directly on your rating of record)

within the past 12 months?

SES SL/ST

0.2%3.1%

26.3%28.6%

23.7%

16.3%

1.8%0.4%3.8%

27.3%32.1%

21.9%

13.0%

1.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Less than$85,000

$85,000 to$99,999

$100,000 to$114,999

$115,000 to$129,999

$130,000 to144,999

$145,000 to159,999

$160,000and above

My current salary (base pay plus locality pay) is:

SES SL/ST

Figure 10

Figure 11 Figure 12


25 | P a g e

Professional position is not often

commensurate with the increased workload,

responsibility, and risk associated with serving

in an SES or Senior Professional position.

Analysis of the GS-14/15 survey data also

showed that respondents with higher annual

salaries were more likely to rate “insufficient

financial incentives” as a strong detractor to

serving in SES or Senior Professional positions.

As shown in figure 13, for those respondents

who expressed possible interest in an SES

position, only about one-eighth (12.6%) of

respondents earning less than $115,000 per

year stated that insufficient financial incentives

was a strong detractor to considering an SES

position. On the other hand, almost one-third

(32.1%) of respondents earning $145,000 or

more per year stated that insufficient financial

incentives was a strong detractor to considering

an SES position.

In the CHCO Council member questionnaire, 7

(41%) of the 17 CHCOs responded that they

attribute – to a great or very great extent – an

increasing overlap with GS pay and SES and

Senior Professional pay as contributing to

difficulty in attracting qualified candidates to

SES and Senior Professional positions. Also, 9 of

the 17 CHCOs responded that their agency had

special pay authorities to provide financial

incentives above standard pay for GS-15s

and/or SES. These pay authorities include

incentive pay for individuals with critical skill

sets and bonus authority for limited-term SES

positions.

12.6%

16.7%

21.6%

32.1%

12.3% 13.3%15.6%

17.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Less than $115,000 $115,000 to $129,999 $130,000 to $144,999 $145,000 and above

Percentage of Respondents Who Stated That Insufficient Financial Incentives was a Strong Detractor (very great extent or great extent)

SES SL/ST

Figure 13


26 | P a g e



survey that address issues related to pay for SES

or Senior Professional positions

• “Increased responsibilities of SES positions do

not carry with it a sufficiently increased

financial benefit.”

• “The salary difference between SES and GS is

not enough to make it worthwhile to go

through the process of applying.”

• “The level of responsibility for SES and Senior

Professional positions versus the pay is not

fair, i.e., pay and benefits are too low in

comparison with the private sector.”

• “Becoming a SES is not fiscally attractive to

me. There should be a greater disparity

between GS-15 step 10 salary and the salary

of a SES.”

• “Becoming an SES is a whole lot more

responsibility for not a whole lot more money.

I would clearly do it because I think that I

could accomplish more at that level than I can

now.”

• “A person who had an SES position in our

office told the office director that he wanted

to go back to a GS-15 job because the SES

didn’t really pay more and it wasn’t worth the

stress.”

• “Being at the GS-15 equivalent level presently

and looking forward, the prestige,

opportunities and responsibilities associated

with the SES do not appear as significant

enough inducements given the relative

additional compensation.”

• “From my vantage point, the slight increase in

pay is more than off-set by all of the SES

‘detractors,’ many of which were asked about

in this survey.”

• “For me, time is more important than money,

which is to say that I would be reserved about

accepting an SES position even if the

monetary rewards were much greater than

they are.”

• “As a GS-14, the pay differential to SES is not

enough to justify the increased opportunity.

I’m concerned that in the future as the gap

between SES pay and GS-14/15 pay closes,

most people will choose to stay in the GS-

series.”

• “I believe that the SES are severely underpaid

for their level of responsibility.”

• “The SES cadre is a great group of talented

people who spend endless hours hunting for

money, doing strategic planning, fending off

budget assaults, and attending meetings. For

the differences in salary, why would I subject

myself to that pain?”


27 | P a g e

Finding 4

A majority of the survey respondents said they

are interested in becoming a member of the

SES or a Senior Professional and have

confidence in their ability to serve in one of

these positions. However, a much smaller

percentage of respondents said they received

supervisor encouragement to follow one of

these career paths.

As is illustrated in figures 14 and 15, most

respondents to the GS-14/15 survey said that

they were interested in becoming an SES or

78.7%

58.3%

36.4%

15.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I would be astrong candidate

for an SES position

I am interestedin becoming

an SES member

My supervisorhas told me I

would be a goodcandidate for an

SES position

My supervisorhas encouragedme to apply forSES vacancies

Confidence, Interest, and Supervisor Support for SES Positions(Strongly agree and agree)

Figure 14

Figure 15

70.1%61.2%

20.8%12.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

I would be astrong candidate

for an SL/ST position

I am interestedin becoming a

memberof the SL/ST

My supervisorhas told me I

would be a goodcandidate for an

SL/ST position

My supervisorhas encouragedme to apply for SL/ST vacancies

Confidence, Interest, and Supervisor Support for SL/ST Positions(Strongly agree and agree)


28 | P a g e

SL/ST employee and believe they would be

strong candidates. Despite this, only a small

percentage of respondents said that they

received encouragement from their supervisor

to move toward one of these positions (also

illustrated in figures 14 and 15). Analysis of

survey results showed that respondents with

fewer years of service expressed greater

interest in serving as an SES member or Senior

Professional. For example, more than 70

percent of respondents with 10 years or less of

federal service either strongly agreed or agreed

that they were interested in becoming a

member of the SES or in becoming a Senior

Professional. On the other hand, only 50

percent of respondents with more than 20

years of federal service expressed the same

level of interest.

Analysis of the GS-14/15 survey data showed

similar results based on respondents’ time in

grade and age. For those respondents with 3

years or less in their current grade, 63 percent

either strongly agreed or agreed that they were

interested in becoming a member of the SES or

a Senior Professional. Only 49 percent of

respondents with 11 or more years in their

current grade felt the same. A similar gap in

interest existed based on the age of survey

respondents. More than 68 percent of

respondents under 40 years of age either

strongly agreed or agreed that they were

interested in becoming a member of the SES or

a Senior Professional while only 54 percent of

respondents age 50 and older showed the same

level of interest.

Responses to the CHCO questionnaire generally

show that the quality of applicants for career

SES and Senior Professional positions is high

(over the past 2 years) and the quality of

applicants has increased or stayed the same

(over the past 4 years). Specifically, 71 percent

of CHCO respondents stated that the quality of

applicants was very high or high over the past 2

years, and 74 percent stated that the quality of

applicants has increased or stayed the same

over the past 4 years. In addition, respondents

to the CHCO questionnaire rated the level of

interest of high-quality GS-15 or equivalent

employees as relatively high. Specifically, 52

percent of CHCO respondents state that the

level of interest of high-quality applicants is

very high or high. However, several CHCOs

noted a lack of information (e.g., via employee

surveys, interviews, focus groups) to assist them

in determining a more specific level of interest

of GS-15 employees or equivalents in applying

for or accepting career SES and Senior




survey that address issues related to their

perceived ability to serve in SES or Senior

Professional positions as well as their views on

the level of support provided by their agencies

in preparing for SES or Senior Professional

positions.

• “Serving in the SES or Senior Professional

positions is a great opportunity for me to excel

in my career and contribute to others as a leader

within my agency. I am very competent and

dedicated in my work. I want to be successful

for myself and others, which in the end leads to

the agency’s success overall.”


29 | P a g e

• “From what I have observed thus far, my agency

does little to prepare or encourage most GS-14s

and 15s, especially high-performing transfers

from other agencies, to develop the skills for and

apply for SES.”

• “I get strong messages from my chain of

command that I need to greatly discount further

self-development and education in favor of

spending all of my time attending to current

duties (note: I got an outstanding rating last

period and am recognized as a top performer);

e.g., I was told I could not apply for the SES

Candidate Development Program the last time it

was offered. This unwillingness to support

further development is very discouraging.”

• “The employees in the office where I work are

not afforded the opportunity to participate in

developmental programs such as this. The

current manager will not allow this training or

much of any other unless it is to maintain a

certification.”

• “Could there be a performance metric for SESers

that specifically encourages them to support SES

career development? In my office, my boss

really doesn't have an incentive to encourage or

support me to pursue a SES job because were he

to lose me, a huge portion of his portfolio (i.e.,

the work I do) is now endangered. He is not able

to see the potential benefit to his office in

supporting my advancement to SES.”

• Unlike SES'ers I worked with during my previous

years in government service, no SES'er is now

serving as my mentor or even offering any word

of encouragement or praise for any job well

done--even jobs that earn recognition for other

individuals on my teams. “

• “The most significant detractor to my interest in

pursuing an SES position is the lack of role

models in my agency. I have met several whose

work ethic I greatly respect, but they themselves

seem frustrated in their jobs and they are too

busy to give priority to mentoring those who

might come after them.”

• “Despite working directly for career SES

members most of my Government career, and

being told I am SES caliber, none of my SES

supervisors have supported my attending SES

candidate programs, citing mission needs

precluded my absence.”

• “During the bulk of my career at the GS-14 level,

my supervisor discouraged my requests for

additional education, stating that he needed me

to be there to work issues as the functional

expert.”

• “There is no encouragement for professional

development in my work group. I recently went

to my first professional training in over four

years.”


30 | P a g e

Finding 5

Despite respondents’ stated interest in serving

in SES and Senior Professional positions, less

than 50 percent of respondents said that the

attractors to serving in these positions

outweigh the detractors to serving in the

positions.

In addition to asking GS-14/15 survey

respondents for their views related to specific

attractors and detractors to serving in SES and

Senior Professional positions, we also asked

respondents to consider attractors and

detractors as a whole and weigh them against

each other. As shown in figure 16, slightly less

than 50 percent of respondents said that the

attractors to serving SES and Senior Professional

positions outweigh the detractors to serving in

these positions. More specifically, for survey

respondents who expressed potential interest

in SES positions, 49.9 percent said that

attractors outweigh detractors, while 34.4

percent said that detractors outweigh

attractors. For survey respondents who

expressed potential interest in Senior

Professional positions, 49.3 percent said that

attractors outweigh detractors, while 26.8

percent said that detractors outweigh

attractors.

24.1%25.8%

13.7%

16.4%18.0%

2.1%

19.1%

30.2%

14.9%14.0%

12.8%

9.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Attractors greatly outweigh detractors

Attractors slightly outweigh detractors

Attractors and detractors even out

Detractors slightly outweigh attractors

Detractors greatly outweigh attractors

No Basis to Judge

Responses to the Question: "In your opinion, how do the attractors to serving in the SES or a Senior Professional position compare to the detractors to serving in the SES or a Senior Professional position?"

SES SL/ST

Figure 16


31 | P a g e

In the questionnaire for the CHCO Council

members, we also asked their views about the

attractors and detractors of SES and Senior

Professional positions as a whole and asked

them to weigh them against each other. In

contrast to the GS-14/15 survey respondents, a

larger percentage of CHCOs stated that the

attractors to serving in SES positions

outweighed the detractors. Nine of the 15

CHCOs responding to the question (or 60%) said

that attractors to serving in SES positions

“greatly outweigh” or “slightly outweigh” the

detractors to serving those positions. Seven of

the 14 CHCOs responding to the question (or

50%) said that the attractors to serving in Senior

Professional positions “greatly outweigh” or

“slightly outweigh” the detractors to serving in

those positions.



survey that address issues related to weighing

attractors and detractors to serving in SES or

Senior Professional positions.

• “SES positions hold no allure for me. The

negatives (political implications, lack of clear

authority to take action, dealing with Congress)

far out weigh any positive benefits of serving in

the SES.”

• “After seeing high performing SES supervisors

demoted and insulted by political appointees, I

have no interest in serving in an SES position.

The benefits attendant to such a post do not

outweigh the indignity of being treated as a

partisan football. I worked in the private sector

before entering government service and I have

never seen executives or managers treated with

such an appalling lack of respect.”

• “I am currently a GS-15 step 8. The increase in

salary to take an SES position does not outweigh

the commitment of late hours and weekend

availability that would be expected of an SES.”

• “Frankly, the additional authority, responsibility,

requirement to deal with professional

politicians, and sheer aggravation far outweigh

the meager pay differential between GS-15 and

SES positions. The only possible reasons any GS-

15 would want an SES position are likely tied to

the desire for power and/or having one's ego

stroked.”

• “From my personal experience holding

somewhat similar senior level positions, the

advantages of an ST appointment clearly

outweigh the disadvantages when compared to

a GS appointment.”

• “I could see myself going after a SES position.

However, the negatives of SES service greatly

outweigh the benefits. Primarily I see strong

negatives in the inability to hire and fire staff,

and thus see so many of the SES I work with

have to deal with ineffective workers and related

personnel issues that they complain a lot to me

about, and use as one reason to discourage me

from becoming SES. I also note the

management and personnel headaches are not

worth the very small increase (after taxes) in

salary between GS 15-10 and SES service.”

• “It is clear to me that detractors far outweigh

attractors in applying for an SES position. The

key trade-off is compensation versus increased

responsibility and work load. The compensation

increase would have to be considerably better

than it is now for me to be interested.”


32 | P a g e

• “My observation of the SES positions within my

bureau and in many instances across the agency

is that the level of work, stress, bureaucracy, etc.

one has to deal with outweighs the benefits of

the position. Family involvement would

definitely diminish as well. My current

aspiration is to get a GS-15 job--although several

of those positions have many of the same issues

as SES positions.”

• “SES looks like the potential for a pay cut from

my current GS 15-9. My current bonus is not

guaranteed but highly likely, whereas the SES

bonus is at the discretion of people who have

proven themselves capricious and vindictive.

Moreover the application process is

cumbersome, although it would not be a

significant deterrent if the SES position were

worth obtaining. The prestige is a minor plus

factor, but not worth a potential pay cut.

Finally, the post-employment restrictions are a

minor factor weighing against applying for an

SES position.”

• “The bottom line for me - I am a GS-15, Step 10.

My salary is higher than some SES employees

and the limited financial gains of an SES or

Senior Professional position do not outweigh the

personal inconvenience of relocating, heavy

travel, and long hours that are usually required

to be successful in SES positions.”

• “There is not much incentive to pursue SES or

SL/ST positions in this agency. The relatively

small financial gain isn't worth the loss of

personal time or the increase in political

maneuvering required. To make matters worse,

the SES managers in this agency, with a few

exceptions, are poor role models for those of us

looking up from below. Instead of mentoring

lower level managers, they are busy in-fighting

and protecting their own turf. Why should I

pursue that world of endless meetings and back-

biting when I can accomplish more on a daily

basis as a high step GS-14?”


33 | P a g e

Finding 6

A large number of respondents (83%) are

generally satisfied with their current job, but a

much smaller percentage of respondents (39%)

are satisfied with the opportunity to get a

better job in their organization.

As shown in figure 17, a large number of GS-

14/15 respondents (84.2% of respondents with

potential interest in SES positions and 79.2% of

respondents with potential interest in SL/ST

positions) said they are satisfied with their

current job, but a much smaller percentage

(40.8% of SES respondents and 29.6% of SL/ST

respondents) said they were satisfied with the

opportunity to get a better job in their current

organization. When comparing these results to

those from the 2008 Federal Human Capital

Survey conducted by OPM, it should be noted

that 68 percent of employees across the federal

government said that they were satisfied with

their present job while 39 percent of employees

from across the government said that they were

satisfied with their opportunity to get a better

job in their current organization. In its report

on the 2008 survey, OPM reported that

responses to comparable questions asked of

private sector employees showed that 70

percent were satisfied with their present job

and 49 percent were satisfied with their

opportunity to get a better job in their

organization. (The questionnaire to members

of the CHCO Council did not directly ask about

GS-14/15 employees’ satisfaction with their

current jobs or the opportunity to get a better

job in their organizations.)

84.2%

40.8%

79.2%

29.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Considering everything,how satisfied are you

with your job?

How satisfied are you withyour opportunity to get a

better job in your organization?

Job Satisfaction and Opportunity(Strongly agree and agree)

SES SL/ST

Figure 17


34 | P a g e



survey that address issues related to job

satisfaction and the opportunity to get a better

job in their organization.

• “Sometimes I am interested in a SES position,

but I really like my current job.”

• “My personal philosophy is that, as long as I am

fulfilled in my work, able to make a meaningful

contribution to our mission and am sufficiently

compensated for what I do (regardless of the

grade), that's how I define job satisfaction. If

that means staying a happy GS-14 or advancing

to a GS-15 but no further, I can live with that.”

• “I have no knowledge of these programs or any

opportunities; however, I am very happy in what

I currently do for the agency.”

• “At the GS-15 level, I'm able to focus on getting

real work done that I believe is making a true

difference in national security and in the overall

value of my agency to the taxpayer. Interaction

with field personnel on resolving significant

problems, and the ability to see projects thru to

completion equates to job satisfaction. At the

SES level there are significant distractions, and

tremendous stress associated with having to

constantly justify what you are doing for reasons

that are often more political than factual.”

• “As I am a very new Supervisor, I would be

interested in learning more about the SES and

Senior Professional positions. This looks like an

opportunity for me that I was previously

unaware of.”

• “I feel that I make a difference in my

organization in my current position. I have great

job satisfaction and enjoy working in my

organization. The SES's that I have contact with

are great, but I feel that they are not treated

very well at all.”

• “Despite exceptionally strong educational

credentials, extensive cross-functional

experience, etc., there is still no opportunity to

be considered for selection by the broader

agency to either SES or SES-readiness programs

without endorsement by one’s own functional

executives. That can create an almost

insurmountable barrier if those executives don’t

know or work directly with a field applicant or

have a non-business reason for denying

support.”

• “There are many barriers to entering the SES

positions and little mysteries that seem to serve

no purpose other than to discourage the very

employees the government claims it is looking

for. I have been rated Outstanding in my

performance appraisals since joining the

government but cannot determine a viable way

to move up in the federal government.”

• “My management has actually discouraged me

from applying for the candidate programs,

though I have expressed interest. That is the #1

reason why I am considering leaving the Federal

Government: I am ambitious to move up, and I

feel stuck in my current position.”


35 | P a g e

Finding 7

A large number of respondents have not

attended an executive education or SES

candidate development program. Narrative

comments in the survey responses indicate

that this is mainly due to budget constraints,

lack of agency support, workload demands,

mobility issues, poor quality of programs, or a

combination of these factors.

A number of federal agencies provide

opportunities for various employees to attend

executive education programs, such as those

offered by OPM’s Federal Executive Institute in

Charlottesville, Virginia, and Harvard’s Kennedy

School of Government in Cambridge,

Massachusetts. These types of executive

education programs allow current and aspiring

federal executives to experience an intensive

development curriculum in a residential

learning environment. In addition, federal

agencies may also establish and implement

their own SES Candidate Development

Programs (CDP), which are usually 12- to 18-

month developmental programs that prepare

agency-selected high potentials for executive-

level positions in federal agencies. In both 2005

and 2008, OPM sponsored a Federal CDP to

help federal agencies meet their succession

planning goals and contribute to the

government's effort to create a high-quality SES

leadership corps.

As shown in figure 18, about 70 percent of GS-

14/15 survey respondents did not apply to their

88.9%

95.2%

68.1%

96.5%

82.7%

92.8%96.9%

72.3%

96.1%

82.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Have you attended an executiveeducation program in residence,

such as the Federal Executive Institute or the Harvard Kennedy

School?

Have you completed an SESCandidate Development Program

sponsored by your agency or by theU.S. Office of Personnel

Management?

Did you apply to themost recent SES Candidate

Development Program at your agency?

Did you apply to theSES Federal CandidateDevelopment Program

sponsored by the U.S. Officeof Personnel Management in July

2005?

Did you apply to lastyear’s SES Federal Candidate

Development Programsponsored by the U.S. Officeof Personnel Management?

Education and Development(% of negative responses)

SES SL/ST

Figure 18


36 | P a g e

agency’s most recent CDP, and a large

percentage of respondents had not applied to

OPM’s Federal CDP in 2005 and 2008. A large

percentage of respondents also reported that

they had not attended an executive program in

residence or completed an SES CDP. Analysis of

the survey results shows that those

respondents who had attended an executive

education program or who had completed a

CDP were more likely to have positive feelings

about their abilities, opportunities, and support

from their supervisors. These respondents

were also more likely to express positive views

about the attractors to SES and Senior


The CHCOs responding to the CHCO Council

questionnaire stated that by and large the

quality of applicants for their respective

agency’s SES candidate development programs

has been high over the past 4 years.

Specifically, 10 of the 17 CHCOs responded that

their department or agency had accepted

participants into an agency-sponsored SES CDP

within the past 4 years, and 7 CHCOs responded

that the quality of applicants for the SES CDPs

was “high” or “very high.”



survey that address issues related to executive

education and professional development in

preparing for SES or Senior Professional

positions.

• “As my agency does not have its own CDP, I have

found it difficult to learn about such programs to

which I may be invited to apply.”

• “I am interested in becoming a member of the

SES. Unfortunately, my agency does not have

the funding to send candidates to Executive

Leadership training or SES development training.

With that in mind, I will probably have to

transfer to another federal agency with more

advancement opportunities.”

• “I was interested in attending training, but was

discouraged by management due to lack of in-

house resources to cover during my absence.”

• “I developed an Individual Development Plan

(IDP), but ostensibly the agency's training

budget will not allow full implementation of my

plan.”

• “I am interested in the SES programs but all

development programs are Washington based;

since I am in the field, options are limited. I was

considered for an SES development program

several years ago but there was no funding.

Since I was not based in DC, no one took my

interest very seriously and there was always the

question of budget. We don't have it...so sorry

about that.”

• “I've never been approached about mentoring,

career counseling, possibilities of SES candidacy

or training, etc. I am too swamped with day-to-

day responsibilities to think about the possibility

of taking time off for SES-related training.”

• “It appears difficult to complete SES Candidate

programs if you are not DC based. A recent

program required the candidate to take 8

months of university classes at a DC based

university. I fully recognize that the candidate

program requires rotations, etc. which I am

willing to do. However, having a requirement

for a DC based set of university classes (without


37 | P a g e

apparent facility for distance learning) was

sufficient to cause me to not apply.”

• “[My agency] offered a SES development

program but we in the field were not allowed to

apply. The reason is that it was viewed as too

expensive (required 25-50K). If these type of

things were centrally funded, it would be easier

for those of us in the field where funding is an

issue.”

• “I do not currently have the flexibility to move

and this prevents me from applying for the SES

development training courses. I would very

much like to participate in this level of training.”

• “The 4-week SES programs in Charlottesville are

hard to take advantage of if you are a working

mother or person with a disability.”

• “Leaving my family for 4-6 weeks at a time for a

CDP requirement is unrealistic.”

• “Feel that SES Candidacy Program is designed to

unfairly favor those who are single or place

career ahead of family -- having to be able to

move anywhere is the biggest drawback to the

program -- I would never consider the program

because of this.”

• “It is my impression from seeing SES candidates

that the SES development programs require

frequent relocations over the course of several

years to provide experience in different

positions. Frequent long relocations are not

desirable for me because I do not wish to be

apart from my family for long periods.”

• “The SES Candidate Development Program

application process I completed was very

cumbersome and did not provide for

communication in understanding of what was

needed or expected in the application. After

spending 40 plus hours on the application

process and not being able to receive feedback

when not selected during the screening process

was so discouraging that I did not apply when

the program was re-advertised.”


38 | P a g e

Finding 8

Many respondents said they lack clear and

accessible information about SES and Senior

Professional positions, including the

differences between these positions and those

under the General Schedule, about

developmental opportunities for these

positions, and about ways to position oneself

to apply for and succeed in these positions.

Having accessible and understandable

information about SES and Senior Professional

positions is crucial for ensuring that prospective

applicants for these positions are fully aware of

all the aspects of applying for and serving in the

positions. Access to relevant information in a

user-friendly format will help current federal

employees and aspiring executives and

managers to thoroughly understand the

benefits, rewards, risks, and challenges of the

positions when considering their career options.

Without this information, the federal

government is missing an opportunity to explain

the job application process and recruit high-

potential job applicants from the future

generation.

Numerous respondents to the GS-14/15 survey

said that they lack clear and accessible

information about SES and Senior Professional

positions, including the differences between

these positions and those under the General

Schedule, developmental opportunities for

these positions, and ways to position oneself to

apply for and succeed in these positions. Figure

19 illustrates the lack of information and

understanding of the SES and Senior

Professional career path and personnel

systems. Analysis of the GS-14/15 survey

42%

25%

64%

53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Understanding of SES or Senior ProfessionalCareer Path and Personnel System

(Strongly disagree and disagree)

SES SL/ST

The career path that could lead to an

SES or SL/ST position is clear to me

I understand the differences between

the SES or SL/ST personnel system and

the General Schedule

Figure 19

I understand the differences between

the SES or SL/ST personnel system and

the General Schedule


39 | P a g e

results shows that the less time in grade, the

less likely the respondents were to understand

the differences between the GS and SES

systems. For example, 58 percent of

respondents with 3 years or less in grade said

that they understood the differences in the two

systems to a great or very great extent versus

76 percent of respondents with 11 years or

more in grade. (The questionnaire to members

of the CHCO Council did not directly ask about

GS-14/15 employees’ general knowledge of SES

and SL/ST positions or about the availability of

information concerning such positions.)



survey that address issues related to the lack of

information about applying for and serving in

SES or Senior Professional positions.

• “I don’t see much information about the SES or

Senior Professional positions posted anywhere. I

would recommend making this information

readily available to government employees,

public, etc. so that the government can attract

and retain as many talented individuals as

possible.”

• “I do not feel that I’ve gotten any direction on

how best to prepare myself for consideration for

an SES position.”

• “There is significant lack of knowledge at field

sites about how to become an SES. I did all of

the research on my own with no help from the

organization.”

• “I am unaware of how to pursue this career

track. I will have to ask more questions of my

supervisors, but it would also help if more

information were readily available.”

• “I do not know whether it is a phenomenon

particular to my department, or my bureau, or

my office, but although I have been a civil

servant for 17 years and a GS-14 for four, I have

heard almost nothing about the SES.”

• “Although I have been with my agency for over

30 years and have recently finished a Candidate

Development Program, some of the perks noted

in this survey are the first time I am hearing

about them. I will certainly explore them further

now, but I guess some advertising of the benefits

would not hurt to attract more interest in the

program. Give people the facts.”

• “I have been told by several supervisors that I

should consider the SES. But, after almost nine

years in the agency, I am under the impression

that information about the SES is a closely

guarded secret.”

• “There should be more information available

about Senior Professional positions and how to

get them. There does not seem to be a clear,

easy path for people who want to remain in a

technical area and move up in the hierarchy to

do so.”

• “Information regarding these positions is

lacking. Although invitations to apply for

training appear from time to time, we never

really know what these positions are all about.”

• “In the over 20 years I’ve worked here, I have

never been provided with information on SES or

senior professional positions, nor have I been

given information on any of the training

opportunities mentioned in this survey.”

• “I haven’t even heard of SL and ST positions

before taking this survey, a sad commentary on


40 | P a g e

the importance of career development

information dissemination in my organization.”

• “Thanks for allowing me to take part in this

survey. Sometimes in the field we do not always

receive information that can help us expand our

knowledge-base or career path.”

• “I never hear managers in my organization talk

about how one could become a GS-15 or get into

an SES program.”

• “I've learned more about ST/SL positions from

this survey than I've ever heard from my

organization's management.”


41 | P a g e

Finding 9

Some differences were found in responses

based on self-reported gender, ethnicity, and

race and national origin of survey respondents.

High-performing organizations provide both

accountability and fairness for all employees,

ensuring that the workforce is inclusive and

draws on the strengths of employees at all

levels and of all backgrounds. Such

organizations create and maintain a positive

work environment where the similarities and

differences of individual employees are valued,

so that all can maximize their potential and

contribute to strategic goals and objectives.

These organizations usually cultivate a work

environment that enables and motivates

employees to contribute to continuous learning

and improvement as well as mission

accomplishment.

The survey of GS-14/15 employees asked

respondents to provide demographic

information on a range of self-identified

variables, including gender, ethnicity, and race

and national origin. To determine if any

differences existed in how respondents replied

based on various demographic variables, we

completed additional analysis of the survey

data. Figures 20, 21, and 22 show overall

response percentages by self-reported gender,

ethnicity, and race and national origin for the

following categories: Views and Interests

(includes strongly agree and agree), Attractors

(includes very great extent and great extent),

Detractors (includes very great extent and great

extent) and Attractors Outweigh Detractors

(includes very great extent and great extent).

Additional details on these responses can be

found in appendix IV. (The questionnaire to

members of the CHCO Council did not include

questions about potential differences across

various demographic variables.)

Gender Career path

interest Female Male

No

Answer All

Views and Interests-Percent positive SES 51.7% 52.6% 47.3% 52.8%

SL/ST 41.5% 40.7% 35.7% 40.9%

Attractors-Percent positive SES 50.8% 47.6% 40.8% 48.8%

SL/ST 46.2% 42.9% 36.5% 44.0%

Detractors-Percent negative SES 27.0% 24.1% 26.0% 25.4%

SL/ST 25.5% 20.8% 20.1% 22.6%

Attractors outweigh detractors SES 38.9% 37.1% 40.2% 37.9%

SL/ST 46.3% 52.0% 38.1% 49.3%

Figure 20

Comparison of Overall Responses to Selected Questions, By Gender


42 | P a g e

Ethnicity Career path

interest

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Views and Interests-Percent positive SES 57.7% 52.8% 50.8% 52.8%

SL/ST 44.2% 40.6% 42.0% 40.9%

Attractors-Percent positive SES 53.0% 45.5% 44.7% 45.8%

SL/ST 50.3% 43.3% 46.6% 44.0%

Detractors-Percent negative SES 25.7% 25.0% 27.3% 25.4%

SL/ST 23.4% 22.5% 22.9% 22.6%

Attractors outweigh detractors SES 58.1% 50.2% 44.6% 49.9%

SL/ST 55.6% 49.3% 48.2% 49.3%

Race and National Origin Career path

interest

American

Indian or

Alaska

Native

Asian

Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

Views and Interests-Percent positive SES 58.5% 53.5% 58.7% 55.5% 52.0% 50.7% 52.8%

SL/ST 46.3% 50.0% 48.9% 43.3% 39.1% 40.6% 40.9%

Attractors-Percent positive SES 47.1% 53.7% 55.4% 49.7% 44.3% 42.7% 45.8%

SL/ST 52.2% 53.9% 52.4% 47.0% 41.8% 43.7% 44.0%

Detractors-Percent negative SES 21.7% 25.6% 24.3% 25.1% 25.3% 27.3% 25.4%

SL/ST 15.6% 24.0% 26.9% 27.0% 22.0% 23.0% 22.6%

Attractors outweigh detractors SES 61.7% 60.7% 60.5% 55.4% 48.4% 43.7% 49.9%

SL/ST 52.6% 59.7% 55.3% 43.3% 47.9% 48.8% 49.3%

Figure 21

Comparison of Overall Responses to Selected Questions, By Ethnicity

Figure 22

Comparison of Overall Responses to Selected Questions, By Race and National Origin

Note: Any category of race and national origin representing less than one half of one percent of all respondents is not included in this table.


43 | P a g e



survey that address issues related to diversity

and serving in SES or Senior Professional

positions.

• “Agency SES candidate programs are not transparent. There is very little agency accountability in selection in promoting goals of diversity—not just in terms of race or ethnicity but also in terms of professional and intellectual diversity. This lack of diversity limits the ability of potential candidates who have broad skills.”

• “I believe that my chances of selection to the SES are minimal because I am a white male. I believe that selection for the SES should be based on merit, but it is not, and this deeply offends me.”

• “Why are there so few Hispanic SES in the federal government at a time when Hispanics are thriving in the private sector? Hispanics are underrepresented in all aspects of employment in the federal government…not just in the SES ranks.”

• “As a white male, I’ve been told repeatedly over the years that I would have little or no chance of being selected for the SES candidate program.”

• “I would like to see more emphasis in leadership initiatives to recruit minorities into SES positions. There appears to be a glass ceiling within the federal government for minority individuals going beyond the GS-15.”

• “I feel that non-white junior employees are not given equal opportunities early in their careers to demonstrate leadership and this makes them less competitive for future senior positions.”

• “I strongly encourage the recruitment of people with severe/targeted disabilities in the SES as you would any other minority group. Disabilities affect people from all walks of life. However, we

are doing a poor job of hiring, advancing, and retaining people with severe disabilities in our Federal workforce.”

• “I applied to the SES development program in my agency and made it to the interview process. The two interviewers (white males) did not treat me courteously and my sense was that my management experience in the private sector was a negative, not a positive, in their view.

• “It’s clear that my agency prefers male veterans; women are discriminated against, overtly and subtly, on a recurring basis. Women are seen as good worker bees, but too emotional and not particularly serious candidates for promotion.”

• “Our agency has made it clear that older white males, no matter how outstanding you may be rated or the number of awards you receive, are not being encouraged to file for advancement at the senior ranks.”

• “I would definitely love to have the opportunity to serve my country at such a higher level and feel like I am contributing something to society. Unfortunately, these positions are only given to Caucasian men and women even though some minority people are qualified.”

• “Most of the current SES candidates in my agency are in their 30s. Older employees are not encouraged to apply for SES development programs.”

• “Many barriers still exist for women and minorities when it comes to selection into the SES. OPM does little or nothing in the way of monitoring or enforcing the merit systems principles, relying on agencies to police themselves.”

• “I would like to see more mentorship for minorities, especially African American males. I have been with my agency for 22 years and not once has anyone approached me about mentorship or my interest in becoming an SES.”


44 | P a g e

Recommendations

On the basis of review and analysis of the

results of the government-wide GS-14/15

survey and the CHCO questionnaire, SEA

recommends the following to strengthen the

career SES and SL/ST systems in the federal

government and to help resolve concerns

expressed in the survey of prospective federal

leaders and managers.

Recommendation 1: OPM and agencies should

emphasize the positive aspects of serving in

SES and Senior Professional positions as

expressed by survey respondents in order to

attract and recruit highly qualified candidates

to senior career positions. In addition, making

improvements in the operation of the

executive corps itself would make the corps

more appealing to potential applicants, as well

as serving to retain current executives. More

than one-third of the current SES will likely

retire in the next 5 years, so agencies need to

use effective means for recruiting high-quality

candidates for critical career executive and

senior-level positions. Agencies should be more

proactive in seeking out senior talent by

highlighting the positive facets of serving in SES

and Senior Professional positions, including the

ability to contribute more to the mission of the

agency, greater opportunity for creativity and



authority. In addition, improving service in the

executive corps itself could help to advance the

professional lives of current SES members. For

example, placing high-performing career

executives in key positions that are now

reserved almost exclusively for political

appointees will reinforce the attractors to

serving in SES positions as well as help to ensure

continuity in leadership and expertise during

the transition from one administration to

another.

Recommendation 2: Agencies should establish

and communicate clear and consistent

performance expectations for SES and SL/ST

employees that encompass meeting the

agency’s mission while also recognizing the

importance of maintaining a healthy work-life

balance. According to the Best Places to Work

in the Federal Government – a ranking of

federal agencies based on employees’ views

about job satisfaction and commitment –

effective leadership is the main driver of

employee satisfaction and commitment. In

addition, OPM’s government-wide Federal

Human Capital Survey – the biennial survey of

the federal workforce which serves as the

foundation of the Best Places rankings –

reported a significant decrease in satisfaction

with supervisor support for work-life balance.

As agencies strive to retain and attract top

performers for SES and SL/ST positions,

agencies must focus on building effective

leadership that achieves results while fostering

an environment that values work-life balance.

To help in this regard, agencies should publish

on their internal websites their SES

Performance Management Plans and any other

information describing the approach for

determining SES salaries and adjustments,

including specifics on the connection to job

performance.


45 | P a g e

Recommendation 3: OPM should annually

report data on the number of involuntary

geographic transfers under the SES mobility

provision, which could demonstrate to

potential candidates that such a reassignment

may be less likely to occur than they might

assume. Involuntary transfers do not appear to

occur in large numbers across the SES corps.

Still, potential candidates for senior positions

may fear this possible action and the

consequences for their professional careers and

personal lives. For example, dramatic

reductions in real estate values in some parts of

the country mean that a relocated employee,

who has to sell a house in today’s market, may

do so at a significant loss. Furthermore, moving

to a higher cost area with no locality pay could

be detrimental for many people. Regular and

up-to-date data on the number of involuntary

transfers of career SES members might

demonstrate to potential SES candidates that

such potential action is less likely to happen

than perceived. Potential job candidates for

SES positions could thus be less resistant to

considering and applying for these important

positions. In addition, agencies should ensure

that relocation assistance programs and

relocation bonuses are routinely available to

SES and SL/ST employees who are reassigned to

a position in a new geographic area.


simplify the job application process for SES and

SL/ST positions while maintaining important

safeguards against politicization and

acceptance of unqualified candidates,

including the continued use of OPM

Qualifications Review Boards (QRBs) for SES

positions. The hiring process for SES positions

is viewed by many as complex and burdensome.

In OPM’s most recent survey of the SES, only 30

percent of respondents disagreed with the

statement, “The SES application process

discourages high-quality candidates from

applying.” The assessment process for SES

vacancies involves a QRB that reviews and

assesses the credentials of a recommended job

candidate and determines whether the

candidate has met the executive qualifications

required for entry into the SES. Each three-

person review board convened by OPM has at

least two career SES members and rotates, with

each member serving for short periods of time.

Independent peer review of applications

through the QRB process is imperative for

minimizing politicization of the SES and the

unfair appointment of unqualified persons who

are politically connected. In addition, agencies

should have succession plans in place to identify

positions before they become vacant, allowing

sufficient time to broadcast openings and

identify qualified candidates to fill the vacant

positions. Moreover, agency leaders should

place priority on ensuring that SES hiring is

completed within the 30-day goal outlined by

OPM. Any changes to the current hiring process

should ensure that job applicants face fewer

undue administrative burdens while making

certain that agencies have sufficient

information to determine qualifications of

applicants. Finally, agencies should have

sufficient resources to carry out the changes

and should continue to uphold merit system

principles.


46 | P a g e


improve the selection process for SES positions

to ensure that these leaders have not only the

technical skills to succeed in the job but also

the interpersonal and executive skills

necessary to communicate and lead people

effectively. Technical qualifications are not

required for all SES positions, although

individual agencies can require technical

qualifications when filling their SES vacancies.

On the other hand, OPM has identified five

Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs) that are

mandatory for every SES position: Leading

Change, Leading People, Results Driven,

Business Acumen, and Building Coalitions.

Agencies should stress the importance of

Leading People in assessing candidates for SES

positions, as this competency appears to be a

key component of executive success according

to many GS-14/15 direct reports of SES

members. Having more effective leaders with

strong interpersonal and supervisory skills will

likely increase employee satisfaction and

commitment in agencies. OPM’s recently

issued rule (see Federal Register, Volume 74,

No. 236, pp. 65383-65390) should help in this

regard by requiring (1) mandatory training for

new supervisors within the first year on the job

and ongoing training at least once every 3 years

and (2) the preparation and use of an Executive

Development Plan (EDP) for each senior

executive to guide his or her continuous

learning. Congressional action should be taken

to provide funding for training and to ensure

agencies prioritize training and development

when budgets are tight. SEA supports giving

each senior executive an annual allowance of at

least $5,000 to cover his or her training and

development expenses.


develop additional mechanisms for interested

and qualified GS-14/15 employees to obtain

valuable developmental experiences, including

within their current geographic areas rather

than requiring these individuals to relocate for

extended periods. Professional development

programs for aspiring SES and Senior

Professional employees are mostly

decentralized and sometimes haphazard.

Cabinet-level departments should conduct an

SES candidate development program at least

once every 3 years, and OPM should work with

smaller agencies to develop a joint candidate

development program to be used by these

smaller agencies to leverage economies of

scale. Additional mechanisms for development

could include inter-agency, inter-governmental,

and inter-sector rotation programs for GS-14/15

employees showing leadership potential. As an

example, the 28 Federal Executive Boards –

which serve as a forum for communication and

collaboration among federal agencies outside of

Washington, DC – could play a greater role in

facilitating the effort for federal employees

within their specific geographic areas to obtain

developmental experiences through short-term

rotations to other federal agencies in the same

geographic area.

Recommendation 7: Congress, OPM, and

agencies should make career SES and Senior

Professional positions more attractive to

potential candidates by increasing the

incentives for serving in these positions. Most

federal managers are more fundamentally


47 | P a g e

motivated by devotion to the mission than by

pay. No manager ignores his or her pay but the

question raised here is whether the relatively

marginal pay increments available to the SES,

especially when coupled with looming pay

compression, actually make any difference at

all, much less enough difference to overcome

the many perceived negatives associated with

senior leadership positions. To address this

issue, additional incentives for serving in SES

and Senior Professional positions should

include:

An assured annual increase for those rated fully successful or better. All SES and Senior Professionals who receive a rating of “fully successful” or higher should receive a mandatory annual adjustment to their salary. This adjustment should be equal to the total average increase awarded to General Schedule employees. The current pay system creates disincentives for GS-15 employees to apply for SES and Senior Professional positions. SES and SL/ST pay caps are linked to congressional salaries, and Congress can deny increases in these pay caps. SES members and Senior Professionals who have reached the pay cap cannot earn more, regardless of performance. It should be noted that under the current system all pay increases – even those based on performance – are totally discretionary to the agency. This recommendation will provide an assurance to Senior Executives and Senior Professionals that, with good performance, they will at least receive approximately the same increase as their subordinates. A minimum increase will also address the concerns of some that entry into the SES means a loss of locality pay.

Inclusion of performance awards and retention and recruitment allowances in retirement annuity calculations. Performance awards given to career senior leaders should be included in “high 3” average salary calculations for retirement. Performance awards are a significant part of senior-level compensation and should be further recognized as such by including them in retirement calculations. The existence of this incentive could well encourage many GS-14 and GS-15 employees to apply to SES and Senior Professional positions.

An assured increase of at least 5 percent in salary for new career executives and senior-level officials. For 2010, the minimum pay level for SES and SL/ST positions is $119,554. Conversely, the salary range for a GS-15 employee stationed in the Washington, DC locality area is $123,758 to $155,500. Given this situation, any person who is appointed to an SES or SL/ST position from the General Schedule should be assured a minimum salary increase of at least 5 percent over his or her current GS salary.

Recommendation 8: Congress should de-link

its pay from SES and Senior Professional pay to

help eliminate the growing problem that

permits some subordinates to earn more than

Senior Executives. As a result of legislation in

2004 and 2008, SES members and SL/ST

employees no longer receive either traditional

cost-of-living adjustments or locality pay. Thus,

GS-15 employees can earn more than career

executives. GS pay is increasingly overlapping

SES pay and, in fact, pay levels for political

appointees. For example, in the Washington,

D.C. locality area, pay for GS-15, step 10 now


48 | P a g e

equals Executive Schedule IV ($155,500), which

is the pay rate for Assistant Secretaries, as well

as the presidentially-appointed members of

such agencies as the National Labor Relations

Board and other commissions; this alone is a

disincentive for potential political appointees,

much less Senior Executives. Currently, the

minimum pay level for SES and Senior

Professional positions is $119,554 and the

maximum is $179,700 (Executive Schedule II) in

agencies with a certified performance appraisal

system. The maximum pay level for those

agencies not certified is $165,300 (Executive

Level III). The SES and Senior Professional pay

ceiling has not kept pace with General Schedule

pay adjustments, that is, adjustments for the

pay of employees these executives supervise. If

the Executive Schedule had kept pace with the

national comparability increases provided the

General Schedule since 1994, Executive Level II

(the cap for SES and SL/ST pay in certified

agencies) would be $248,182, not $179,700.


increase their efforts to provide additional

information to federal employees about SES

and Senior Professional positions, including

the differences between these positions and

those under the General Schedule,


positions, and ways to position oneself to

apply for and succeed in these positions. A

lack of current and comprehensive information

about SES and Senior Professional positions

limits the ability of agencies to attract a sizeable

number of high-quality candidates to these

senior leadership positions. The additional

information about SES and SL/ST positions that

would likely prove to be useful includes the

specific differences between these positions

and those under the General Schedule,


positions, and ways to position oneself to apply

for and succeed in these positions. SEA

currently offers seminars to its members on the

differences between SES and SL/ST positions

and those under the General Schedule. SEA

also plans to offer future workshops and

training sessions for federal managers and

supervisors on ways to position oneself to apply

for and succeed in these senior leadership

positions.

Recommendation 10: OPM and agencies need

to coordinate and strengthen actions to

support diversity in the SES corps and other

senior-level positions while upholding merit

system principles. Past efforts to increase

diversity in the career SES corps have been

fragmented and without overall leadership

necessary for success. There is an absence of a

well-developed pipeline and the need to foster

a culture of leadership that values diversity.

SEA supports diversity legislation introduced in

2008 that seeks to identify methods of

increasing diversity in the career SES while

upholding merit system principles and not

creating further complications in appointing

practices. OPM’s newly re-established

executive resources office should play a key role

in ensuring that agencies are taking appropriate

actions to further diversity of the corps.

Agencies should be tasked to work with OPM to

eliminate barriers for minorities, women, and

individuals with disabilities to advance to the

SES. Agencies should also be required to have


49 | P a g e

annual plans approved by OPM that will help

assure a diverse SES, and agencies should be

expected to use diverse Executive Resources

Boards and selection panels to the extent

practicable.


50 | P a g e

Appendix I – Methodology

The following is a description of the

methodology that SEA and Avue used to gather

and analyze information for this report. This

description includes detailed information on the

protocols for the online survey of GS-14 and GS-

15 employees and their equivalents in the

federal government and the questionnaire for

members of the Chief Human Capital Officers

(CHCO) Council.

Survey of GS-14 and GS-15 Employees and

Their Equivalents

In the fall of 2008, SEA staff began developing

an initial draft survey for GS-14 and GS-15

employees and their equivalents in the federal

government to obtain their views and interests

related to applying for and serving in Senior

Executive Service (SES) positions. The draft

survey instrument was reviewed by the SEA

Board of Directors, which recommended a

number of changes to the survey wording. The

survey was then provided informally to several

human capital officials in the federal sector to

gauge their initial reactions to such a survey.

One significant comment provided to SEA

suggested that the survey include questions

about GS-14/15 employees’ interests and views

related to Senior Professional positions in

addition to SES positions; consequently, SEA

revised the survey to include questions about

Senior Professional positions. In late December

2008, the draft survey was provided to

representatives of the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) and further changes were

made in response to this review. In the spring

of 2009, SEA worked with consultants from

Avue to input the draft survey to an online

instrument that would be accessible to

respondents through an Internet hyperlink. The

draft survey was pretested with 5 federal

employees at the GS-14/15 level and additional

revisions were made based on their feedback.

In June 2009, a screen-capture copy of the final

draft online survey was sent to representatives

of OPM, and a copy of the final survey was

submitted to the SEA Board for its review and

approval.

To access the online survey, respondents visited

the home page of the SEA website

(www.seniorexecs.org) and clicked on a

hyperlink that took the respondent to the Avue

website (www.avuecentral.com). SEA

recognized that GS-14/15 employees in some

agencies might have difficulties with computer

access to the online survey, and information

was included for telephone and e-mail technical

assistance provided by Avue; the other option

for GS-14/15 employees was to complete the

survey from a home computer. Upon entering

the online GS-14/15 survey, respondents were

given the option to choose whether they would

most likely consider application to a SES

position or a Senior Professional position,

assuming that they were to consider application

for a senior-level career position in the federal

government. In addition to questions asking

respondents about their views and interests

concerning career SES and Senior Professional

positions, the survey also solicited information

on job satisfaction, personal work and

professional development experiences, future

http://www.seniorexecs.org/

http://www.avuecentral.com/


51 | P a g e

employment plans, and demographic

information.

SEA requested the assistance of OPM in

publicizing the launch of the government-wide

survey of GS-14 and GS-15 federal employees

and their equivalents. On July 17, 2009, OPM

Director John Berry distributed a memorandum

to CHCOs across the federal government

encouraging them to distribute information

about the survey to GS-14 and GS-15 employees

in their agencies and encourage participation in

the survey. SEA publicized the launch of the

survey in various communications with its

membership and also reached out to media

covering the federal government. The survey

was initially scheduled to close on August 14,

2009, but SEA extended the survey to August

30, 2009, to provide several agencies with the

opportunity for further outreach to their

employees to encourage participation from GS-

14s and GS-15s.

SEA received a total of 11,798 responses to the

survey, including over 3,700 narrative

comments. Review of the survey data showed

that demographic variables of the GS-14/15

respondents were similar to the overall

government-wide workforce of GS-14s and GS-

15s. (See figure 23 for a comparison of

demographic variables of the survey

respondents to overall demographic variables

of employees serving in GS-14 and GS-15

positions across the federal government, using

OPM data as of September 2009.) In addition,

some federal agencies were better represented

than others among respondents; the largest

number of responses (1,539) was from

employees of the Treasury Department (see

app. II for additional information). Because the

Demographics Source Under 40 40 to 60 60 or older No Answer

Age GS-14/15 survey respondents 13.2% 76.3% 9.8% 0.7%

Government-wide GS-14/15 workforce 13.9% 72.8% 13.3% n/a

Demographics Source Female Male No

Answer Demographics Source

Hispanic or

Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer

Gender

GS-14/15 survey

respondents 41.4% 57.3% 1.3%

Ethnicity

GS-14/15 survey

respondents 4.4% 83.1% 11.3%

Government-wide

GS-14/15 workforce 40.8% 59.2% n/a

Government-wide

GS-14/15 workforce 5.0% 95.0% n/a

Demographics Source

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Asian

Black or

African

American

Native Hawaiian

or Other Pacific

Islander

White Multi-

Racial

No

Answer

Race and

National

Origin

Identification

GS-14/15 survey respondents 1.15% 3.44% 10.56% 0.22% 73.86% 1.29% 9.48%

Government-wide GS-14/15 workforce 1.11% 6.78% 14.94% 0.07% 75.90% 0.94% 0.26%

Figure 23

Comparisons of GS-14/15 Survey Demographics and GS-14/15 Government-wide Workforce

Source: Government-wide data from OPM’s FedScope, found at www.fedscope.opm.gov.

http://www.fedscope.opm.gov/


52 | P a g e

survey was not a random sample, the results

may not be+ representative of all GS-14 and GS-

15 employees and their equivalents in the

federal government. Nonetheless, the survey

results are instructive for identifying challenges

and possible solutions for ensuring that the

federal government is able to maintain an

outstanding cadre of federal career executives.

Questionnaire for Members of the CHCO

Council



SEA staff also began developing an initial draft

questionnaire in the fall of 2008 to ask

members of the federal Chief Human Capital

Officers (CHCO) Council about their views on

issues associated with attracting, hiring, and

retaining individuals for career SES and Senior

Professional positions. The draft questionnaire

was reviewed by the SEA Board of Directors,

which recommended a number of changes to

the survey wording. The questionnaire was

then provided informally to several human

capital officials in the federal sector to gauge

their initial reactions to the questionnaire. One

significant comment provided to SEA suggested

that SEA’s planned survey of GS-14/15

employees also include questions about GS-

14/15 employees’ interests and views related to

Senior Professional positions in addition to SES

positions; in response, SEA revised both the GS-

14/15 survey and CHCO questionnaire to

include questions about Senior Professional

positions. In late December 2008, the draft

questionnaire was provided to OPM

representatives and further changes were made

in response to this review. In June 2009, a copy

of the final draft questionnaire was sent to

representatives of OPM, and a copy of the final

questionnaire was submitted to the SEA Board

for its review and approval.

SEA requested the assistance of OPM in

distributing the CHCO questionnaire to

members of the CHCO Council. OPM Director

John Berry’s July 17, 2009 memorandum to

federal CHCOs included information about SEA’s

effort to survey CHCO Council members on

issues associated with attracting, hiring, and

retaining individuals for career SES and Senior

Professional positions. Specifically, the

questionnaire asked CHCO Council members for

their views about the quality of applicants for

career SES and Senior Professional positions,

potential challenges in hiring and retaining

employees for such positions, as well as various

attractors and detractors to serving in these

positions. The OPM memorandum included a

copy of the CHCO questionnaire that CHCO

Council members could complete and submit to

SEA via fax or mail. SEA sought responses from

24 Council members. OPM and OMB have two

representatives on the CHCO Council; SEA

sought only one survey response per agency.

The CHCO questionnaire was initially scheduled

to close on August 30, 2009, but SEA extended

the survey through the fall to allow additional

time for CHCO Council members to respond.

For those CHCOs who had not yet responded to

the questionnaire during that time, SEA made

several attempts to contact them and obtain

their input, including providing additional

copies of the questionnaire. (During this time,

SEA staff and Avue consultants analyzed the

survey data and approximately 3,700 narrative


53 | P a g e

responses from the GS-14/15 survey.) By

December 2009, SEA received responses from

17 of the 24 Council members surveyed. Those

17 agencies are:

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Education

Department of Energy

Department of Interior

Department of Justice

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury

Environmental Protection Agency

General Services Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Science Foundation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Office of Management and Budget

Office of Personnel Management

CHCO Council members representing seven

agencies did not respond to the SEA survey and

thus their views are not included in this report.

The seven agencies are:

Department of Defense

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Labor

Department of Veterans Affairs

Social Security Administration


54 | P a g e

Appendix II – Result Tables for Government-wide Survey of GS-14/15 Employees

Survey Section 1 – Identify Area of Interest

Assuming that you were to consider application for a senior-level career position in the

federal government, which of the following would you most likely consider?

Career Path Interest # of Responses

Senior Executive Service (SES) 9475

Senior Professional (SL/ST) 2323

Total 11,798

Appendix II


55 | P a g e

Survey Section 2 - Views and Interests Concerning Career SES or Senior Professional Positions

Views and Interests Career Path

Interest Strongly Agree Agree

Neither Agree Nor

Disagree Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

# of

Responses

My opinion of serving in an SES or Senior Professional (SL/ST) position is favorable. SES 27.9% 40.1% 18.1% 11.2% 2.7% 9312

SL/ST 25.8% 40.6% 25.8% 6.0% 1.7% 2306

In my job, I interact regularly with one or more career Senior Executives/Professionals. SES 57.8% 27.8% 5.1% 7.1% 2.2% 9361

SL/ST 22.3% 29.9% 15.3% 20.1% 12.4% 2315

My opinion of serving in an SES or SL/ST position has been influenced by my discussions with one

or more Senior Executives/Professionals.

SES 23.4% 33.9% 25.7% 13.2% 3.8% 9345

SL/ST 10.1% 23.3% 31.1% 22.3% 13.3% 2315

My supervisor has told me that I would be a good candidate for an SES or SL/ST position. SES 18.4% 18.0% 37.2% 18.4% 8.1% 9345

SL/ST 8.0% 12.8% 35.6% 25.6% 18.0% 2316

My supervisor has encouraged me to apply for an SES Candidate Development Program. SES 11.4% 11.6% 34.5% 29.8% 12.7% 9351

SL/ST - - - - - -

My supervisor has encouraged me to apply for SES or SL/ST vacancies. SES 7.5% 8.3% 37.6% 33.2% 13.3% 9327

SL/ST 4.8% 7.9% 34.5% 30.5% 22.3% 2305

The career path that could lead to an SES or SL/ST position is clear to me. SES 14.1% 27.3% 16.9% 28.8% 12.9% 9328

SL/ST 5.2% 13.4% 17.2% 35.7% 28.5% 2308

I understand the differences between the SES or SL/ST personnel system and the General

Schedule.

SES 25.2% 38.5% 11.7% 20.2% 4.4% 9336

SL/ST 8.7% 23.7% 15.1% 34.1% 18.4% 2313

I am interested in becoming a member of the Senior Executive Service or Senior Professional. SES 29.7% 28.6% 21.9% 13.0% 6.8% 9343

SL/ST 25.2% 36.0% 23.8% 10.1% 4.9% 2312

I believe that I would be a strong candidate for an SES or Senior Professional position. SES 41.8% 36.9% 16.8% 3.4% 1.1% 9343

SL/ST 31.5% 38.6% 24.2% 3.6% 2.1% 2314

Appendix II


56 | P a g e

Survey Section 3 – Attractors and Detractors to Serving in SES or Senior Professional Positions

In the following section we are looking for your views on factors that draw you to consider becoming an SES or Senior Professional (i.e., attractors) and factors

that preclude you from considering an SES or Senior Professional position (i.e., detractors).

To what extent do each of the following factors make the SES or SL/ST attractive to

you?

Career Path

Interest

Very Great

Extent Great Extent Moderate Extent Limited Extent Not at All

No Basis to

Judge

# of

Responses

Ability to contribute more to the mission of my agency SES 39.9% 38.4% 14.9% 3.9% 2.0% 1.0% 9437

SL/ST 30.4% 40.6% 17.5% 4.8% 2.2% 4.5% 2313

Increased responsibility and authority SES 26.6% 37.3% 23.2% 7.6% 4.7% 0.6% 9421

SL/ST 18.6% 33.9% 27.3% 10.0% 6.9% 3.3% 2313

Greater opportunity for creativity and innovation SES 33.3% 36.8% 17.9% 6.8% 3.9% 1.2% 9398

SL/ST 31.2% 39.4% 15.9% 5.5% 3.7% 4.3% 2312

The ability to interact at higher levels (e.g., with both political appointees and career

executives)

SES 23.0% 29.3% 24.7% 12.6% 9.6% 0.7% 9423

SL/ST 17.8% 26.9% 25.1% 14.0% 12.9% 3.2% 2309

The honor of serving at the highest career level SES 36.9% 29.1% 16.8% 9.4% 7.2% 0.5% 9427

SL/ST 26.7% 29.0% 20.4% 10.3% 10.4% 3.1% 2308

Increased pay SES 17.1% 26.5% 30.8% 16.4% 8.5% 0.8% 9416

SL/ST 20.6% 29.1% 28.8% 12.4% 6.5% 2.5% 2307

Ability to receive Presidential Rank Awards SES 9.2% 12.4% 24.9% 22.3% 27.0% 4.2% 9416

SL/ST 10.4% 13.4% 22.1% 21.7% 26.7% 5.7% 2306

Ability to receive other performance awards SES 9.8% 14.6% 27.5% 22.3% 22.5% 3.2% 9405

SL/ST 11.4% 17.0% 24.5% 21.2% 21.2% 4.7% 2305

Annual leave carryover: Up to 720 hours of annual leave can be carried over from year

to year.

SES 13.3% 17.1% 24.4% 21.0% 22.6% 1.6% 9411

SL/ST 15.8% 19.1% 22.3% 18.5% 21.3% 3.0% 2303

Sabbaticals: Up to 11 months for study or uncompensated work experience. SES 11.8% 15.7% 22.0% 20.2% 25.4% 4.9% 9411

SL/ST - - - - - - -

Last move home: Entitled to moving expenses upon retirement (under certain

circumstances) if reassigned or transferred geographically.

SES 11.0% 14.4% 21.1% 20.5% 28.8% 4.1% 9402

SL/ST - - - - - - -

Appendix II

Appendix II


57 | P a g e

Survey Section 3 – Attractors and Detractors to Serving in SES or Senior Professional Positions

To what extent do each of the following factors make the SES or SL/ST unattractive to

you?

Career Path

Interest

Very Great

Extent Great Extent Moderate Extent Limited Extent Not at All

No Basis to

Judge

# of

Responses

Complexity of the application process SES 15.9% 22.0% 24.7% 14.8% 12.6% 10.0% 9430

SL/ST 13.6% 20.0% 19.8% 12.6% 9.7% 24.2% 2311

Increased responsibility SES 1.4% 4.9% 14.0% 21.9% 56.6% 1.2% 9419

SL/ST 2.5% 5.3% 17.3% 25.8% 43.0% 6.1% 2307

Lack of sufficient authority to meet goals SES 5.5% 14.0% 20.8% 23.8% 26.4% 9.6% 9404

SL/ST 7.3% 16.0% 22.9% 18.9% 16.1% 18.8% 2304

Insufficient financial incentives SES 8.0% 11.5% 18.3% 21.9% 34.2% 6.1% 9409

SL/ST 4.9% 9.4% 20.5% 22.2% 27.0% 16.0% 2302

Ineffective SL/ST performance management system SES 6.7% 10.5% 16.5% 18.5% 21.1% 26.6% 9384

SL/ST 5.5% 11.2% 15.4% 14.6% 13.8% 39.5% 2297

Potential negative impact on balance of my work and family responsibilities SES 23.3% 21.3% 19.2% 17.4% 16.1% 2.6% 9424

SL/ST 17.7% 20.0% 22.6% 15.1% 15.2% 9.5% 2303

Increased interaction with political appointees SES 3.8% 6.8% 15.3% 21.0% 50.0% 3.0% 9408

SL/ST 6.8% 9.8% 16.4% 21.0% 36.8% 9.1% 2302

Lack of locality pay SES 10.6% 12.9% 19.8% 23.2% 28.4% 5.0% 9418

SL/ST 11.1% 13.7% 19.1% 19.5% 24.1% 12.6% 2307

Lack of an assured annual pay adjustment to reflect inflation SES 11.4% 14.5% 22.2% 24.6% 23.6% 3.7% 9410

SL/ST 13.5% 15.5% 20.4% 22.3% 18.0% 10.3% 2301

Being reassigned or transferred geographically SES 24.8% 18.7% 17.8% 17.9% 18.7% 2.2% 9410

SL/ST - - - - - - -

Increased job risk/loss of GS job rights SES 14.4% 15.9% 22.0% 22.0% 21.0% 4.7% 9414

SL/ST - - - - - - -

Attractors and Detractors Career Path

Interest

Attractors greatly

outweigh

detractors

Attractors

slightly

outweigh

detractors

Attractors and

detractors

even out

Detractors

slightly outweigh

attractors

Detractors

greatly

outweigh

attractors

No Basis to

Judge

# of

Responses

In your opinion, how do the attractors to serving in the SES or a Senior Professional

position compare to the detractors to serving in the SES or a Senior Professional position?

SES 24.1% 25.8% 13.7% 16.4% 17.9% 2.1% 9252

SL/ST 19.1% 30.2% 14.9% 14.0% 12.8% 9.0% 2262

Appendix II

Appendix II


58 | P a g e

Survey Section 4 – Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction Career Path

Interest Very Satisfied Satisfied

Neither Satisfied

Nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Very

Dissatisfied # of Responses

Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job? SES 40.6% 43.6% 8.1% 6.1% 1.7% 9443

SL/ST 34.1% 45.1% 8.9% 9.4% 2.5% 2307

How satisfied are you with your opportunity to get a better job in your organization? SES 14.4% 26.4% 27.0% 22.2% 10.0% 9445

SL/ST 9.6% 20.0% 30.9% 26.2% 13.3% 2306

Survey Section 5 – Professional Development

Professional Development Career Path

Interest Yes

Yes, less than 1 year

ago

Yes, within the past

1 to 3 years

Yes, more than

3 years ago No

No

Answer # of Responses

Have you attended an executive education program in residence, such as the Federal

Executive Institute or the Harvard Kennedy School?

SES 10.6% N/A N/A N/A 88.9% 0.5% 9445

SL/ST 6.3% N/A N/A N/A 92.8% 0.9% 2311

Have you completed an SES Candidate Development Program sponsored by your agency

or by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management?

SES N/A 1.0% 2.0% 1.4% 95.2% 0.5% 9451

SL/ST N/A 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 96.9% 0.9% 2314

Professional Development

Career

Path

Interest

Yes:

Accepted

but

program

has not yet

completed.

Yes:

Accepted,

but did not

complete

the

program

Yes:

Selections

have not yet

been

announced

Yes: Not

accepted No

No: But I

intend to

apply in the

future if

another such

program is

offered

No: I do not

intend to

apply in the

future

N/A: My

agency has no

SES Candidate

Development

Program

No

Answer # of Responses

Did you apply to the most recent SES Candidate

Development Program at your agency?

SES 1.1% N/A 1.4% 2.1% N/A 36.1% 32.0% 15.4% 11.9% 9205

SL/ST 0.3% N/A 0.3% 1.0% N/A 27.6% 44.8% 12.0% 14.0% 2286

Did you apply to the SES Federal Candidate Development

Program sponsored by the U.S. Office of Personnel

Management in July 2005?

SES N/A 0.1% N/A 1.3% 96.5% N/A N/A N/A 2.2% 9188

SL/ST N/A 0.0% N/A 1.0% 96.1% N/A N/A N/A 2.9% 2285

Did you apply to last year’s SES Federal Candidate

Development Program sponsored by the U.S. Office of

Personnel Management?

SES N/A 0.1% N/A 1.0% N/A 44.4% 38.3% N/A 16.2% 9185

SL/ST N/A 0.0% N/A 0.4% N/A 32.9% 49.1% N/A 17.5% 2285

Appendix II


59 | P a g e

Survey Section 6 – Personal Work Experience

I am a current employee of

Agency SES SL/ST % of all SES respondents % of all SL/ST respondents

Department of Agriculture 36 6 <1% <1%

Department of Commerce 975 341 10% 15%

Department of Defense 649 104 7% 4%

Department of Education 147 20 2% 1%

Department of Energy 594 183 6% 8%

Department of Health and Human Services 596 211 6% 9%

Department of Homeland Security 163 20 2% 1%

Department of Housing and Urban Development 70 11 1% <1%

Department of Justice 457 60 5% 3%

Department of Labor 27 5 <1% <1%

Department of State 277 20 3% 1%

Department of the Air Force 43 3 <1% <1%

Department of the Army 132 24 1% 1%

Department of the Interior 445 194 5% 8%

Department of the Navy 391 104 4% 4%

Department of the Treasury 1219 320 13% 14%

Department of Transportation 166 29 2% 1%

Department of Veterans Affairs 836 173 9% 7%

Environmental Protection Agency 314 114 3% 5%

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 116 48 1% 2%

Office of Personnel Management 169 42 2% 2%

Small Business Administration 118 7 1% <1%

Social Security Administration 711 68 8% 3%

All other agencies combined* 824 216 9% 9%

Total all agencies 9475 2323 100% 100%

*All other agencies combined include independent agencies with less than 100 respondents

Appendix II


60 | P a g e

Personal Work Experience Career Path

Interest Headquarters Field # of Responses

I am currently assigned to SES 61.2% 38.8% 9376

SL/ST 62.0% 38.0% 2279

Personal Work Experience

Career

Path

Interest

Yes No No Answer # of

Responses

Do you believe that your most recent performance appraisal

was a fair reflection of your performance?

SES 80.0% 15.4% 4.6% 9434

SL/ST 78.0% 17.0% 5.0% 2313

Did you receive a rating-based cash award (i.e., based

directly on your rating of record) for your most recent

performance appraisal period?

SES 71.5% 23.2% 5.3% 9435

SL/ST 68.0% 27.0% 5.0% 2307

Have you received an accomplishment-based cash award

(i.e., not based directly on your rating of record) within the

past 12 months?

SES 45.8% 50.6% 3.6% 9433

SL/ST 44.0% 52.0% 4.0% 2316

Have you formally been assigned a mentor within your

current department or agency?

SES 9.0% 90.3% 0.7% 9446

SL/ST 5.0% 94.0% 2.0% 2312


Interest GS Other # of Responses

My current pay plan is: SES 79.6% 20.4% 9438

SL/ST 78.0% 22.0% 2310


Interest Grade 14 Grade 15 # of Responses

My grade is (GS or GS equivalent) SES 54.1% 45.9% 9350

SL/ST 69.0% 31.0% 2282


Interest

Civil Service

Retirement

System

(CSRS)

Federal

Employees

Retirement

System (FERS)

Other # of

Responses

My federal retirement program is : SES 24.5% 74.5% 1.0% 9403

SL/ST 27.0% 72.0% 1.0% 2307

Appendix II

Appendix II


61 | P a g e


Career

Path

Interest

Less than 1

year 1 to 3 years 4 to 5 years 6 to 10 years 11 to 20 years

More than 20

years # of Responses

I have worked for the federal government (excluding

military service) for a total of

SES 1.9% 5.2% 5.2% 15.4% 27.2% 45.1% 9447

SL/ST 1.9% 5.7% 4.2% 12.6% 25.8% 49.8% 2312

During this period of employment, I have worked for my

current agency for

SES 5.4% 12.9% 8.3% 18.4% 26.1% 28.9% 9360

SL/ST 4.1% 11.5% 7.5% 17.2% 27.9% 31.7% 2292


Career

Path

Interest

Less than 1


More than 20

years # of Responses

I have been in my current grade (or equivalent) for: SES 13.5% 33.6% 19.3% 22.1% 9.8% 1.7% 9398

SL/ST 12.3% 32.3% 17.4% 23.8% 11.6% 2.6% 2306


Career

Path

Interest

Less than

$85,000

$85,000 to

$99,999

$100,000 to

$114,999

$115,000 to

$129,999

$130,000 to

144,999

$145,000 to

159,999

$160,000 and

above # of Responses

My current salary (base pay plus locality pay) is: SES 0.2% 3.1% 26.3% 28.6% 23.7% 16.3% 1.8% 8790

SL/ST 0.4% 3.8% 27.3% 32.1% 21.9% 13.0% 1.6% 2154

Appendix II


62 | P a g e

Survey Section 7 – Future Employment Plans

Future Employment Plans Career Path Interest Yes No Don’t Know # of

Responses

Do you intend to remain in the federal government at least

until you are eligible to retire?

SES 85.5% 1.8% 12.6% 9439

SL/ST 84.3% 2.4% 13.3% 2311

Future Employment Plans

Career

Path

Interest

No Yes, to

retire.

Yes, to take

another job

within the

federal

government.

Yes, to take

another job

outside of the

federal

government.

Yes, other # of

Responses

Are you considering leaving your agency within the next

year, and if so, why?

SES 73.5% 4.3% 17.6% 2.5% 2.0% 9422

SL/ST 71.6% 5.3% 16.0% 4.3% 2.8% 2306

Future Employment Plans

Career

Path

Interest

I am currently

eligible for

optional

retirement

Less than 1


More than

20 years # of Responses

In how many years will you be eligible for optional

retirement?

SES 15.9% 3.3% 10.4% 9.6% 21.9% 28.7% 10.2% 9354

SL/ST 19.0% 3.2% 12.1% 10.7% 21.6% 25.2% 8.5% 2281

I am planning to retire in SES N/A 2.4% 10.3% 11.4% 24.4% 34.5% 17.0% 9241

SL/ST N/A 2.9% 12.9% 13.2% 24.4% 32.9% 13.6% 2244

Appendix II


63 | P a g e

Survey Section 8 – Personal Demographics

Demographics Career Path Interest Under 30 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 or older No Answer # of Responses

Age SES 0.7% 13.4% 35.3% 40.9% 9.1% 0.6% 9142

SL/ST 0.4% 9.1% 31.9% 45.0% 12.7% 0.9% 2220

Demographics Career Path

Interest Female Male No Answer

# of

Responses Demographics

Career Path

Interest

Hispanic or

Latino

Not Hispanic

or Latino No Answer # of Responses

Gender SES 41.8% 57.1% 1.1% 9403

Ethnicity SES 4.6% 84.3% 11.0% 9302

SL/ST 40.0% 58.0% 2.0% 2297 SL/ST 4.0% 83.0% 13.0% 2269


Interest

High school

graduate or GED

Some

college

Technical school

graduate

Associate’s

degree

Bachelor’s

degree

Master’s degree

(MA, MS, MBA)

Other professional

degree (law,

divinity, medicine)

Doctoral

degree

(Ph.D.,

Ed.D.)

# of

Responses

What is the highest level of

education you have

completed?

SES 0.9% 4.9% 0.4% 2.1% 30.3% 38.4% 13.7% 9.2% 9406

SL/ST 1.0% 5.7% 0.5% 2.4% 27.6% 29.4% 10.1% 23.2% 2299


Interest

American Indian or

Alaska Native Asian

Black or African

American

Native Hawaiian or Other

Pacific Islander White

Multi-

Racial No Answer

# of

Responses

Race and National Origin

Identification

SES 1.22% 2.96% 11.02% 0.23% 74.18% 1.29% 9.10% 9475

SL/ST 0.86% 5.42% 8.70% 0.17% 72.54% 1.29% 11.02% 2323

Appendix II

Appendix II


64 | P a g e

Appendix III – Result Tables for Chief Human Capital Officers Council Questionnaire

Survey Section 1 – Quality of Applicants for Career SES and Senior Professional Positions

Quality of Applicant

Career

Path

Interest

Very High High Moderate Low Very Low No basis to

Judge/Not sure N/A

# of

Responses

For job vacancies over the past 2 years, how would you rate the overall

quality of applicants for both career SES and Senior Professional positions in

your department or agency?

SES 2 12 3 0 0 0 0 17

SL/ST 2 8 2 0 0 2 3 17

Quality of Applicant

Career

Path

Interest

Greatly

Increased

Slightly

Increased

Neither

Increased

nor

Decreased

Slightly

Decreased

Greatly

Decreased

Not Basis to

Judge/Not Sure N/A

# of

Responses

To what extent, if at all, has the overall quality of applicants for both career

SES and Senior Professional positions in your department or agency

changed over the past 4 years?

SES 0 6 9 1 0 1 0 17

SL/ST 0 5 5 1 0 3 3 17

Quality of Applicant Yes No # of

Responses Has your department or agency accepted participants into an agency-

sponsored SES candidate development program within the past 4 years? 10 7 17

Quality of Applicant Total #

Graduated

If yes, how many employees have graduated from your agency-sponsored SES candidate development program over the past 4 years? 295

Quality of Applicant Total #

Selected

If yes, how many of those individuals who graduated from the SES candidate

development program in the past 4 years have been selected for SES-level positions in

your agency?

155

Quality of Applicant Career Path

Interest

Very

High High Moderate Low Very Low

No basis to

Judge/Not sure N/A

# of

Responses

If yes, how would you rate the overall quality of applicants for the SES

candidate development program within the past 4 years? SES 2 5 2 0 0 1 0 10

Appendix III

Appendix III


65 | P a g e

Survey Section 2 – Potential Challenges in Hiring Career SES and Senior Professional Employees

Potential Challenges Career Path

Interest

Extremely

Easy

Somewhat

Easy

Neither

Easy nor

Difficult

Somewhat

Difficult

Extremely

Difficult

No basis to

Judge/Not

sure

N/A # of

Responses

For job vacancies within the past 2 years, how would you rate

the level of ease/difficulty that your department or agency has

experienced in filling both career SES and Senior Professional

positions with high-quality staff?

SES 1 3 9 3 1 0 0 17

SL/ST 1 3 6 1 0 3 3 17

Over the past 2 years, how would you rate the level of

ease/difficulty that your department or agency has experienced

in retaining high-quality career SES and Senior Professional

staff?

SES 4 7 5 0 0 1 0 17

SL/ST 3 3 5 0 0 3 3 17

Potential Challenges

Range in #

of

Candidates

For SES vacancies at your agency over the past 2 years,

what has been the average number of best qualified

candidates included on the referral list to the selecting

official?

3 to 10


Interest Too Slow Too Fast

About

Right

No basis to

Judge/Not

sure

N/A # of

Responses

How would you rate the amount of time (speed) that it takes

your department or agency to fill career SES and Senior

Professional vacancies over the past 2 years?

SES 5 0 12 0 0 17

SL/ST 3 0 8 3 3 17


Interest

Very Great

Extent

Great

Extent

Moderate

Extent

Limited

Extent Not at all

No basis to

Judge/Not

sure

N/A # of

Responses

If you believe that the speed of hiring for career SES or Senior

Professional positions has been "too slow," to what extent, if at

all, has this slowness related to problems in attracting a

sufficient number of qualified candidates?

SES 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 5

SL/ST 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3

Potential Challenges Range in % of

Candidates

For SES vacancies at your agency over the past 2 years,

approximately what percentage of best qualified candidates on

referral lists have been internal candidates (i.e., employed at

your agency)?

20% to 90%

Appendix III

Appendix III


66 | P a g e


Career

Path

Interest

Less than

10%

At Least

10% but

less than

20%

At Least

20% but

less than

30%

At Least

30% but

less than

40%

At Least

40% but

less than

50%

At Least

50% but

less than

75%

75% or

More

No basis to

Judge/Not

sure

N/A # of

Responses

What percentage of the career SES and Senior

Professional positions filled in your department or agency

over the past 2 years has come from external sources

(i.e., from outside of the federal government)?

SES 6 6 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 17

SL/ST 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 4 17

What percentage of individuals in career SES and Senior

Professional positions in your department or agency is

currently eligible to retire voluntarily?

SES 1 0 4 4 7 1 0 0 0 17

SL/ST 1 0 3 3 3 2 1 1 3 17


Career

Path

Interest

Very

Great

Extent

Great

Extent

Moderate

Extent

Limited

Extent Not at all

No basis to

Judge/Not

sure

N/A # of

Responses

To what extent, if at all, are you concerned about the

ability of your department/agency to fill both career SES

vacancies and Senior Professional vacancies that occur

due to expected retirements?

SES 0 2 6 7 2 0 0 17

SL/ST 0 1 5 4 3 1 3 17


Career

Path

Interest

Yes No

No basis to

Judge/Not

sure

N/A # of

Responses

Over the past 2 years, has your department/agency had any

SES or Senior Professional vacancies that have remained

unfilled for more than 6 months? (For purposes of this

question, a vacancy occurs and begins when an incumbent

changes to a new job or retires or when workforce analysis

identifies the need for a new SES or Senior Professional

position.)

SES 14 3 0 0 17

SL/ST 3 9 1 4 17

Appendix III


67 | P a g e


Career

Path

Interest

Very

High High Moderate Low Very Low

No basis to

Judge/Not

sure

N/A # of

Responses

How would you rate the level of interest that high-quality

GS-15 (or equivalent) employees have in applying for

career SES and Senior Professional positions in your

department or agency?

SES 4 5 6 1 0 1 0 17

SL/ST 1 7 1 1 0 3 3 16

To what extent, if at all, do you attribute an increasing

overlap in General Schedule pay and SES and Senior

Professional pay as contributing to difficulty in attracting

qualified candidates to career SES and Senior Professional

positions?

SES 2 5 4 4 1 1 0 17

SL/ST 2 1 3 3 1 3 3 16


Career

Path

Interest

Yes No Don't

Know

# of

Responses

Does your agency have any special pay authorities to

provide financial incentives to staff above standard

GS-15/SES pay?

SES and

SL/ST 9 7 1 17

Has your department or agency obtained information

from your GS-15 (or equivalent) employees to determine

their level of interest in applying for or accepting career

SES and Senior Professional positions? (e.g., via employee

surveys, interviews, focus groups).

SES 4 10 2 16

SL/ST 1 10 4 15

Appendix III


68 | P a g e

Survey Section 3 – Attractors and Detractors to Serving in Career SES and Senior Professional Positions

Attractors Career Path Interest Very Great

Extent

Great

Extent

Moderate

Extent

Limited

Extent Not at all

No basis to

Judge

# of

Responses

Ability to contribute more to the mission of the agency SES 6 8 2 0 0 0 16

SL/ST 3 7 0 0 0 5 15

Increased responsibility and authority SES 4 10 1 1 0 0 16

SL/ST 1 5 3 1 0 5 15

Greater opportunity for creativity and innovation SES 3 9 2 2 0 0 16

SL/ST 2 6 0 2 1 4 15

The ability to interact at higher levels (e.g., with both

political appointees and career executives)

SES 6 7 1 1 0 1 16

SL/ST 2 6 2 0 0 5 15

The honor of serving at the highest career level SES 9 4 2 0 0 1 16

SL/ST 4 3 2 1 0 5 15

Increased pay SES 3 6 5 0 2 0 16

SL/ST 1 3 5 0 2 4 15

Ability to receive Presidential Rank Awards SES 2 6 3 3 1 1 16

SL/ST 1 2 2 3 1 6 15

Ability to receive other performance awards SES 3 7 2 3 1 0 16

SL/ST 1 4 1 3 1 5 15

Annual leave carryover: Up to 720 hours of annual leave

can be carried over from year to year

SES 2 4 5 3 0 2 16

SL/ST 3 1 4 1 0 6 15

Sabbaticals: Up to 11 months for study or uncompensated

work experience

SES 0 0 3 2 5 5 15

SL/ST n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Last move home: Entitled to moving expenses upon

retirement (under certain circumstances) if reassigned or

transferred geographically

SES 1 0 2 5 2 5 15


Appendix III


69 | P a g e

Detractors Career Path Interest Very Great

Extent

Great

Extent

Moderate

Extent

Limited

Extent Not at all

No basis to

Judge

# of

Responses

Complexity of the application process SES 4 7 3 1 1 0 16

SL/ST 2 2 2 5 0 4 15

Increased responsibility SES 0 1 2 4 7 2 16

SL/ST 0 1 1 4 3 6 15

Lack of sufficient authority to meet goals SES 1 1 2 6 4 2 16

SL/ST 1 1 0 4 3 6 15

Insufficient financial incentives SES 2 2 4 4 2 2 16

SL/ST 1 1 5 3 0 5 15

Ineffective performance management system SES 2 0 2 4 5 3 16

SL/ST 1 1 1 4 2 6 15

Potential negative impact on balance of work and family

responsibilities

SES 2 4 3 4 0 2 15

SL/ST 1 2 1 5 0 6 15

Increased interaction with political appointees SES 0 1 0 8 3 4 16

SL/ST 0 0 2 6 1 6 15

Lack of an assured annual pay adjustment to reflect

inflation

SES 2 3 1 6 2 2 16

SL/ST 2 0 3 3 1 6 15

Lack of locality pay SES 2 0 3 5 3 3 16

SL/ST 2 0 3 2 1 7 15

Increased job risk/loss of GS job rights SES 1 1 2 4 4 3 15


Being reassigned or transferred geographically SES 1 2 3 5 3 1 15


Attractors vs. Detractors Career Path Interest

Attractors

greatly

outweigh

detractors

Attractors

slightly

outweigh

detractors

Attractors

and

detractors

even out

Detractors

slightly

outweigh

attractors

Detractors

greatly

outweigh

attractors

No basis to

Judge

# of

Responses

In your opinion, how do the attractors to serving in the SES

or a Senior Professional position compare to the detractors

to serving in the SES or a Senior Professional position?

SES 5 4 3 2 0 1 15

SL/ST 4 3 2 1 0 4 14

Appendix III

Appendix III


70 | P a g e

Appendix IV – Demographic Cross-Analysis Tables for Survey of GS-14/15 Employees

Survey Section 2 - Views and Interests Concerning Career SES or Senior Professional Positions, by Gender

Views and Interests -

Gender

Career

path

interest

% Positive (strongly agree, agree) % Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) % Negative (disagree, strongly disagree) # of Responses

Female Male No

Answer All Female Male

No


No


No

Answer All

My opinion of serving in an SES or

Senior Professional (SL/ST) position

is favorable

SES 67.8% 68.3% 60.6% 68.0% 19.1% 17.4% 20.6% 18.1% 13.1% 14.3% 18.8% 13.9% 3851 5291 170 9312

SL/ST 65.6% 67.4% 59.7% 66.5% 26.6% 24.9% 32.8% 25.8% 7.8% 7.7% 7.5% 7.7% 906 1333 31 2306

In my job, I interact regularly with

one or more career Senior

Executives/Professionals

SES 87.0% 84.7% 82.5% 85.6% 4.5% 5.5% 5.3% 5.1% 8.5% 9.9% 12.3% 9.3% 3871 5319 171 9361

SL/ST 58.9% 48.4% 37.3% 52.2% 14.8% 15.1% 28.4% 15.3% 26.3% 36.6% 34.3% 32.4% 913 1335 31 2315

My opinion of serving in an SES or

SL/ST position has been influenced

by my discussions with one or more

Senior Executives/Professionals

SES 56.9% 57.8% 50.6% 57.3% 25.1% 26.0% 30.6% 25.7% 18.0% 16.2% 18.8% 17.0% 3868 5307 170 9345

SL/ST 34.9% 32.8% 25.4% 33.4% 31.1% 31.0% 31.3% 31.1% 34.0% 36.2% 43.3% 35.6% 912 1336 31 2315

My supervisor has told me that I

would be a good candidate for an

SES or SL/ST position

SES 35.8% 36.9% 31.2% 36.3% 35.6% 38.2% 41.8% 37.2% 28.6% 24.9% 27.1% 26.5% 3864 5311 170 9345

SL/ST 22.6% 19.7% 19.4% 20.8% 35.9% 35.7% 29.9% 35.6% 41.5% 44.6% 50.7% 43.6% 913 1336 31 2316

My supervisor has encouraged me

to apply for an SES Candidate

Development Program

SES 22.4% 23.5% 21.3% 23.0% 33.3% 35.3% 36.7% 34.5% 44.3% 41.2% 42.0% 42.5% 3866 5316 169 9351

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My supervisor has encouraged me

to apply for SES or SL/ST vacancies

SES 14.8% 16.6% 13.5% 15.8% 35.8% 38.9% 38.8% 37.6% 49.5% 44.4% 47.6% 46.6% 3852 5305 170 9327

SL/ST 14.2% 11.7% 10.8% 12.7% 34.2% 35.0% 29.2% 34.5% 51.6% 53.3% 60.0% 52.8% 907 1333 31 2305

The career path that could lead to

an SES or SL/ST position is clear to

me

SES 40.7% 42.2% 34.3% 41.5% 15.3% 17.9% 23.1% 16.9% 44.0% 39.9% 42.6% 41.6% 3860 5299 169 9328

SL/ST 18.3% 18.9% 18.2% 18.7% 16.4% 17.6% 19.7% 17.2% 65.2% 63.5% 62.1% 64.1% 912 1330 31 2308

I understand the differences

between the SES or SL/ST

personnel system and the General

Schedule

SES 63.7% 63.7% 64.1% 63.7% 10.1% 13.0% 9.4% 11.7% 26.2% 23.4% 26.5% 24.6% 3859 5307 170 9336

SL/ST 33.1% 31.9% 33.8% 32.4% 13.1% 16.1% 23.1% 15.1% 53.8% 52.0% 43.1% 52.4% 913 1335 31 2313

I am interested in becoming a

member of the Senior Executive

Service or a Senior Professional

SES 52.3% 51.3% 44.7% 58.3% 28.6% 28.7% 25.3% 21.9% 19.1% 20.0% 30.0% 19.8% 3865 5308 170 9343

SL/ST 59.0% 63.1% 51.6% 61.2% 24.9% 22.4% 37.5% 23.8% 16.1% 14.5% 10.9% 15.0% 913 1335 31 2312

I believe that I would be a strong

candidate for an SES or Senior

Professional position

SES 75.9% 81.0% 70.2% 78.7% 19.0% 14.9% 23.8% 16.8% 5.1% 4.1% 6.0% 4.5% 3864 5311 168 9343

SL/ST 67.2% 72.4% 65.2% 70.1% 27.3% 21.9% 28.8% 24.2% 5.5% 5.8% 6.1% 5.7% 912 1336 31 2314

Appendix IV


71 | P a g e

Section 3 - Attractors and Detractors to Serving in Career SES or Senior Professional Positions, by Gender

Attractors - Gender

Career

path

interest

% Positive (very great extent, great

extent)

% Neutral (moderate extent, limited

extent, no basis to judge) % Negative (not at all) # of Responses

Female Male No


No


No


No

Answer All

Ability to contribute more to the

mission of my agency

SES 79.8% 77.3% 71.3% 78.2% 18.4% 20.6% 24.7% 19.7% 1.8% 2.1% 4.0% 2.0% 3912 5351 174 9437

SL/ST 72.6% 70.4% 61.2% 71.0% 25.5% 27.3% 32.8% 26.8% 1.9% 2.3% 6.0% 2.2% 912 1334 67 2313

Increased responsibility and

authority

SES 63.0% 64.8% 56.9% 63.9% 32.4% 30.5% 36.8% 31.4% 4.6% 4.7% 6.3% 4.7% 3903 5344 174 9421

SL/ST 53.4% 52.7% 37.9% 52.5% 40.3% 40.4% 50.0% 40.6% 6.3% 7.0% 12.1% 6.9% 914 1333 66 2313

Greater opportunity for creativity

and innovation

SES 72.5% 68.8% 56.5% 70.1% 24.3% 26.8% 35.9% 25.9% 3.2% 4.3% 7.6% 3.9% 3901 5327 170 9398

SL/ST 36.9% 34.0% 45.5% 35.5% 60.2% 61.7% 50.0% 60.8% 2.8% 4.3% 4.5% 3.7% 913 1333 66 2312


levels

SES 52.9% 52.3% 40.8% 52.3% 38.6% 37.4% 44.3% 38.0% 8.5% 10.3% 14.9% 9.6% 3908 5341 174 9423

SL/ST 45.5% 44.8% 30.8% 44.7% 43.1% 41.6% 47.7% 42.4% 11.4% 13.6% 21.5% 12.9% 912 1332 65 2309

The honor of serving at the highest

career level

SES 68.3% 64.8% 51.1% 66.0% 25.9% 27.0% 39.7% 26.8% 5.8% 8.2% 9.2% 7.2% 3910 5343 174 9427

SL/ST 59.1% 54.3% 36.9% 55.7% 32.3% 34.5% 41.5% 33.8% 8.6% 11.2% 21.5% 10.4% 912 1331 65 2308

Increased pay SES 47.0% 41.2% 34.7% 43.5% 45.6% 49.6% 51.4% 48.0% 7.4% 9.1% 13.9% 8.5% 3907 5336 173 9416

SL/ST 52.7% 48.2% 40.0% 49.8% 41.5% 45.2% 43.1% 43.7% 5.7% 6.6% 16.9% 6.5% 910 1332 65 2307

Ability to receive Presidential Rank

Awards

SES 23.8% 20.1% 19.5% 21.6% 51.6% 51.2% 51.7% 51.4% 24.7% 28.7% 28.7% 27.0% 3903 5339 174 9416

SL/ST 25.7% 22.6% 20.6% 23.8% 50.4% 49.1% 46.0% 49.5% 23.9% 28.3% 33.3% 26.7% 911 1332 63 2306

Ability to receive other

performance awards

SES 26.8% 22.8% 23.5% 24.5% 52.6% 53.4% 48.8% 53.0% 20.6% 23.8% 27.6% 22.5% 3895 5340 170 9405

SL/ST 31.0% 26.9% 21.5% 28.4% 50.6% 50.3% 50.8% 50.4% 18.4% 22.8% 27.7% 21.2% 909 1331 65 2305

Annual leave carryover: Up to 720

hours of annual leave can be

carried over

SES 33.9% 27.7% 32.4% 30.4% 45.8% 48.0% 43.9% 47.0% 20.3% 24.3% 23.7% 22.6% 3899 5339 173 9411

SL/ST 39.1% 32.3% 33.8% 35.0% 41.8% 45.0% 44.6% 43.7% 19.1% 22.7% 21.5% 21.3% 906 1332 65 2303

Sabbaticals: Up to 11 months for

study or uncompensated work

experience

SES 33.6% 23.3% 24.3% 27.6% 45.1% 48.6% 45.1% 47.1% 21.3% 28.2% 30.6% 25.4% 3896 5342 173 9411

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Last move home: Entitled to

moving expenses upon retirement

if reassigned

SES 27.3% 24.1% 22.0% 25.4% 44.5% 46.7% 45.1% 45.8% 28.3% 29.1% 32.9% 28.8% 3892 5337 173 9402

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Appendix IV


72 | P a g e

Detractors - Gender

Career

path

interest

% Positive (not at all) % Neutral (moderate extent, limited

extent, no basis to judge)

% Negative (very great extent, great

extent) # of Responses

Female Male No


No


No


No

Answer All

Complexity of the

application process

SES 11.6% 13.1% 18.4% 12.6% 49.6% 49.7% 41.4% 49.5% 38.9% 37.1% 40.2% 37.9% 3907 5349 174 9430

SL/ST 9.2% 10.2% 7.6% 9.7% 53.9% 58.5% 57.6% 56.6% 36.9% 31.3% 34.8% 33.6% 913 1332 66 2311

Increased responsibility SES 51.2% 60.6% 56.1% 56.6% 40.7% 34.3% 36.4% 37.0% 8.1% 5.0% 7.5% 6.3% 3900 5346 173 9419

SL/ST 36.9% 47.3% 40.9% 43.0% 52.6% 46.5% 56.1% 49.2% 10.4% 6.2% 3.0% 7.8% 910 1331 66 2307

Lack of sufficient authority

to meet goals

SES 23.8% 28.2% 26.0% 26.4% 55.0% 53.7% 51.4% 54.2% 21.1% 18.1% 22.5% 19.5% 3889 5342 173 9404

SL/ST 14.6% 17.5% 9.1% 16.1% 59.1% 61.2% 69.7% 60.6% 26.3% 21.3% 21.2% 23.3% 910 1328 66 2304


incentives

SES 33.5% 34.9% 29.8% 34.2% 48.2% 45.0% 44.4% 46.3% 18.4% 20.1% 25.7% 19.5% 3899 5339 171 9409

SL/ST 24.0% 29.4% 19.7% 27.0% 60.8% 56.6% 71.2% 58.7% 15.2% 14.0% 9.1% 14.3% 909 1327 66 2302

Ineffective SES or SL/ST

performance management

system

SES 18.7% 22.9% 19.9% 21.1% 62.7% 60.9% 58.5% 61.6% 18.5% 16.2% 21.6% 17.3% 3884 5329 171 9384

SL/ST 11.6% 15.4% 10.9% 13.8% 69.3% 69.6% 71.9% 69.5% 19.1% 15.1% 17.2% 16.7% 906 1327 64 2297


on balance of my work and


SES 15.4% 16.4% 19.5% 16.1% 37.7% 40.5% 39.1% 39.3% 46.9% 43.1% 41.4% 44.7% 3904 5346 174 9424

SL/ST 14.4% 15.7% 16.7% 15.2% 42.0% 50.4% 51.5% 47.1% 43.6% 33.9% 31.8% 37.6% 908 1329 66 2303


political appointees

SES 48.1% 51.6% 47.1% 50.0% 41.7% 37.5% 40.2% 39.3% 10.3% 10.9% 12.6% 10.7% 3902 5332 174 9408

SL/ST 36.2% 37.8% 26.2% 36.8% 46.7% 46.0% 55.4% 46.6% 17.1% 16.2% 18.5% 16.6% 908 1329 65 2302

Being reassigned or


SES 17.4% 19.7% 20.7% 18.7% 35.1% 39.7% 42.0% 37.8% 47.5% 40.6% 37.4% 43.4% 3898 5338 174 9410

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lack of locality pay SES 26.8% 29.5% 28.9% 28.4% 48.8% 47.6% 48.0% 48.1% 24.4% 22.9% 23.1% 23.5% 3901 5344 173 9418

SL/ST 21.0% 26.1% 25.8% 24.1% 51.5% 50.8% 54.5% 51.2% 27.5% 23.0% 19.7% 24.7% 909 1332 66 2307

Lack of an assured annual

pay adjustment to reflect

inflation

SES 21.3% 25.4% 20.3% 23.6% 50.8% 50.1% 54.1% 50.5% 27.9% 24.5% 25.6% 25.9% 3895 5343 172 9410

SL/ST 14.9% 20.1% 19.7% 18.0% 51.6% 54.0% 54.5% 53.1% 33.6% 25.9% 25.8% 28.9% 909 1326 66 2301

Count of Increased job

risk/loss of GS job rights

SES 17.6% 23.5% 19.7% 21.0% 47.3% 49.7% 52.6% 48.8% 35.1% 26.8% 27.7% 30.3% 3897 5344 173 9414

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Attractors vs. Detractors -

Gender

Career

path

interest

% Positive

(attractors greatly outweigh/slightly

outweigh detractors)

% Neutral

(attractors and detractors even out, no

basis to judge)

% Negative

(detractors greatly outweigh/slightly

outweigh attractors)

# of Responses

Female Male No


No


No


No

Answer All

How do the attractors to

serving in the SES or a

Senior Professional position

compare to the detractors

to serving in the SES or a

Senior Professional

position?

SES 47.8% 51.6% 43.0% 49.9% 17.9% 14.2% 19.2% 15.8% 34.3% 34.2% 37.8% 34.3% 3840 5240 172 9252

SL/ST 46.3% 52.0% 38.1% 49.3% 26.2% 21.7% 38.1% 23.9% 27.5% 26.3% 23.8% 26.7% 897 1302 63 2262

Appendix IV


73 | P a g e

Survey Section 2 - Views and Interests Concerning Career SES or Senior Professional Positions, by Ethnicity

Views and Interests -

Ethnicity

Career

path

interest

% Positive (strongly agree, agree) % Neutral (neither agree nor disagree) % Negative (disagree, strongly disagree) # of Responses

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

My opinion of serving in an SES

or Senior Professional (SL/ST)

position is favorable

SES 78.6% 68.2% 62.7% 68.0% 12.9% 18.0% 20.7% 18.1% 8.5% 13.8% 16.5% 13.9% 426 7719 31 9312

SL/ST 76.9% 65.7% 68.6% 66.5% 21.8% 26.4% 23.3% 25.8% 1.3% 7.9% 8.1% 7.7% 78 1884 31 2306

In my job, I interact regularly

with one or more career Senior


SES 84.1% 85.6% 86.3% 85.6% 5.8% 5.0% 5.4% 5.1% 10.0% 9.4% 8.3% 9.3% 428 7758 31 9361

SL/ST 46.9% 52.3% 53.3% 52.2% 25.9% 14.4% 18.2% 15.3% 27.2% 33.4% 28.5% 32.4% 81 1887 31 2315

My opinion of serving in an SES

or SL/ST position has been

influenced by my discussions

with one or more Senior


SES 60.3% 57.5% 54.3% 57.3% 23.0% 25.5% 27.9% 25.7% 16.7% 16.9% 17.8% 17.0% 426 7750 31 9345

SL/ST 33.3% 33.0% 35.5% 33.4% 34.6% 30.0% 36.1% 31.1% 32.1% 37.0% 28.3% 35.6% 81 1888 31 2315

My supervisor has told me that I

would be a good candidate for

an SES or SL/ST position

SES 40.4% 36.5% 33.8% 36.3% 37.1% 36.6% 41.2% 37.2% 22.5% 26.9% 25.0% 26.5% 426 7748 31 9345

SL/ST 23.5% 20.7% 20.8% 20.8% 22.2% 35.2% 41.3% 35.6% 54.3% 44.2% 37.9% 43.6% 81 1889 31 2316

My supervisor has encouraged

me to apply for an SES Candidate

Development Program

SES 28.1% 23.0% 20.8% 23.0% 35.6% 33.9% 38.5% 34.5% 36.3% 43.1% 40.7% 42.5% 427 7753 31 9351

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My supervisor has encouraged

me to apply for SES or SL/ST

vacancies

SES 18.7% 15.9% 14.0% 15.8% 39.1% 36.9% 42.0% 37.6% 42.2% 47.2% 44.0% 46.6% 427 7731 31 9327

SL/ST 14.8% 12.6% 12.3% 12.7% 24.7% 34.3% 38.0% 34.5% 60.5% 53.1% 49.7% 52.8% 81 1882 31 2305

The career path that could lead

to an SES or SL/ST position is

clear to me

SES 44.9% 41.9% 37.1% 41.5% 19.6% 16.3% 19.7% 16.9% 35.5% 41.7% 43.2% 41.6% 428 7731 31 9328

SL/ST 17.3% 19.1% 16.6% 18.7% 24.7% 16.6% 18.9% 17.2% 58.0% 64.3% 64.5% 64.1% 81 1883 31 2308

I understand the differences

between the SES or SL/ST

personnel system and the

General Schedule

SES 67.5% 63.2% 65.7% 63.7% 11.2% 11.9% 11.1% 11.7% 21.3% 25.0% 23.3% 24.6% 428 7743 31 9336

SL/ST 37.0% 31.8% 34.5% 32.4% 16.0% 14.9% 16.2% 15.1% 46.9% 53.3% 49.3% 52.4% 81 1887 31 2313

I am interested in becoming a

member of the Senior Executive


SES 71.0% 57.9% 55.8% 58.3% 17.5% 21.9% 23.6% 21.9% 11.4% 20.2% 20.5% 19.8% 428 7742 31 9343

SL/ST 69.1% 60.3% 64.1% 61.2% 24.7% 24.0% 22.2% 23.8% 6.2% 15.6% 13.7% 15.0% 81 1888 31 2312

I believe that I would be a strong

candidate for an SES or Senior


SES 83.4% 78.6% 77.6% 78.7% 13.8% 16.7% 18.4% 16.8% 2.8% 4.7% 4.0% 4.5% 428 7746 31 9343

SL/ST 79.0% 69.4% 72.0% 70.1% 19.8% 24.6% 22.8% 24.2% 1.2% 5.9% 5.2% 5.7% 81 1887 31 2314

Appendix IV


74 | P a g e

Section 3 - Attractors and Detractors to Serving in Career SES or Senior Professional Positions, by Ethnicity

Attractors - Ethnicity

Career

path

interest

% Positive (very great extent, great extent) % Neutral (moderate extent, limited extent,

no basis to judge) % Negative (not at all) # of Responses

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Ability to contribute more to the

mission of my agency

SES 85.6% 78.2% 75.9% 78.2% 12.8% 20.0% 20.8% 19.7% 1.6% 1.8% 3.4% 2.0% 430 7818 31 9437

SL/ST 72.8% 70.7% 72.3% 71.0% 25.9% 27.1% 24.9% 26.8% 1.2% 2.2% 2.9% 2.2% 81 1886 346 2313

Increased responsibility and

authority

SES 70.3% 63.8% 62.3% 63.9% 26.4% 31.6% 31.9% 31.4% 3.3% 4.6% 5.7% 4.7% 428 7806 31 9421

SL/ST 59.3% 51.9% 54.2% 52.5% 34.6% 41.2% 38.6% 40.6% 6.2% 6.8% 7.2% 6.9% 81 1887 345 2313

Greater opportunity for creativity

and innovation

SES 81.1% 69.9% 67.9% 70.1% 17.3% 26.4% 26.2% 25.9% 1.6% 3.8% 5.9% 3.9% 428 7792 1178 9398

SL/ST 53.1% 34.1% 38.8% 35.5% 43.2% 62.4% 56.5% 60.8% 3.7% 3.6% 4.6% 3.7% 81 1886 345 2312


levels

SES 59.9% 52.2% 50.3% 52.3% 31.5% 38.5% 37.6% 38.0% 8.6% 9.3% 12.1% 9.6% 429 7810 1184 9423

SL/ST 51.9% 43.7% 48.5% 44.7% 39.5% 43.3% 38.1% 42.4% 8.6% 13.1% 13.4% 12.9% 81 1884 344 2309

The honor of serving at the

highest career level

SES 76.7% 65.9% 62.6% 66.0% 17.9% 27.1% 27.9% 26.8% 5.4% 7.0% 9.5% 7.2% 429 7813 1185 9427

SL/ST 63.0% 55.3% 56.1% 55.7% 29.6% 34.4% 31.7% 33.8% 7.4% 10.2% 12.2% 10.4% 81 1883 344 2308

Increased pay SES 43.5% 43.8% 42.0% 43.5% 47.7% 48.0% 47.8% 48.0% 8.9% 8.2% 10.2% 8.5% 428 7805 1183 9416

SL/ST 60.5% 49.2% 50.1% 49.8% 32.1% 44.7% 40.8% 43.7% 7.4% 6.1% 9.0% 6.5% 81 1883 343 2307


Rank Awards

SES 28.9% 21.3% 21.1% 21.6% 49.9% 51.9% 48.8% 51.4% 21.2% 26.9% 30.1% 27.0% 429 7806 1181 9416

SL/ST 22.2% 22.8% 29.2% 23.8% 50.6% 51.0% 41.1% 49.5% 27.2% 26.1% 29.7% 26.7% 81 1882 343 2306

Ability to receive other

performance awards

SES 29.8% 24.3% 23.9% 24.5% 52.4% 53.4% 50.4% 53.0% 17.7% 22.3% 25.7% 22.5% 429 7797 1179 9405

SL/ST 32.5% 27.5% 32.2% 28.4% 48.8% 51.8% 43.0% 50.4% 18.8% 20.7% 24.9% 21.2% 80 1883 342 2305

Annual leave carryover: Up to 720

hours of annual leave can be

carried over

SES 35.1% 29.9% 31.8% 30.4% 48.0% 47.3% 44.5% 47.0% 16.9% 22.8% 23.7% 22.6% 427 7797 1187 9411

SL/ST 37.0% 34.3% 38.4% 35.0% 45.7% 44.1% 41.0% 43.7% 17.3% 21.6% 20.6% 21.3% 81 1878 344 2303

Sabbaticals: Up to 11 months for

study or uncompensated work

experience

SES 34.5% 27.0% 28.8% 27.6% 46.4% 47.5% 44.5% 47.1% 19.1% 25.5% 26.6% 25.4% 429 7796 1186 9411

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Last move home: Entitled to

moving expenses upon retirement

if reassigned

SES 37.1% 24.9% 24.6% 25.4% 42.9% 46.1% 44.2% 45.8% 20.0% 29.0% 31.2% 28.8% 429 7792 1181 9402

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Appendix IV

Appendix IV


75 | P a g e

Detractors - Ethnicity

Career

path

interest

% Positive (not at all) % Neutral (moderate extent, limited extent,

no basis to judge) % Negative (very great extent, great extent) # of Responses

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Complexity of the

application process

SES 13.5% 12.7% 11.6% 12.6% 45.0% 50.7% 43.1% 49.5% 41.5% 36.6% 45.2% 37.9% 429 7814 1187 9430

SL/ST 8.6% 9.7% 10.1% 9.7% 60.5% 57.2% 52.5% 56.6% 30.9% 33.1% 37.4% 33.6% 81 1885 345 2311

Increased responsibility SES 60.7% 56.4% 56.7% 56.6% 33.9% 37.3% 36.1% 37.0% 5.4% 6.3% 7.3% 6.3% 428 7805 1186 9419

SL/ST 39.5% 42.4% 47.4% 43.0% 54.3% 49.6% 45.6% 49.2% 6.2% 8.0% 7.0% 7.8% 81 1884 342 2307

Lack of sufficient

authority to meet goals

SES 29.8% 26.0% 27.1% 26.4% 50.0% 55.0% 50.3% 54.2% 20.2% 18.9% 22.6% 19.5% 426 7790 1188 9404

SL/ST 18.5% 15.4% 19.2% 16.1% 59.3% 61.0% 59.2% 60.6% 22.2% 23.6% 21.6% 23.3% 81 1880 343 2304


incentives

SES 35.8% 34.4% 32.7% 34.2% 45.0% 46.5% 45.4% 46.3% 19.2% 19.1% 21.9% 19.5% 427 7802 1180 9409

SL/ST 23.8% 27.2% 26.7% 27.0% 56.3% 58.5% 60.3% 58.7% 20.0% 14.3% 13.0% 14.3% 80 1877 345 2302

Ineffective SES or SL/ST

performance

management system

SES 22.8% 21.3% 19.1% 21.1% 56.6% 62.2% 59.9% 61.6% 20.7% 16.5% 21.0% 17.3% 426 7776 1182 9384

SL/ST 13.8% 13.9% 12.9% 13.8% 70.0% 70.2% 65.5% 69.5% 16.3% 15.8% 21.6% 16.7% 80 1875 342 2297


on balance of my work

and family responsibilities

SES 20.4% 15.7% 16.8% 16.1% 38.2% 39.2% 39.8% 39.3% 41.5% 45.0% 43.4% 44.7% 427 7809 1188 9424

SL/ST 13.6% 15.1% 16.4% 15.2% 49.4% 46.5% 50.0% 47.1% 37.0% 38.4% 33.6% 37.6% 81 1880 342 2303


political appointees

SES 50.9% 50.4% 47.3% 50.0% 38.9% 39.2% 39.6% 39.3% 10.1% 10.3% 13.2% 10.7% 424 7799 1185 9408

SL/ST 35.8% 36.6% 38.6% 36.8% 46.9% 47.1% 43.6% 46.6% 17.3% 16.3% 17.8% 16.6% 81 1879 342 2302

Being reassigned or


SES 23.4% 18.4% 19.4% 18.7% 36.9% 37.8% 38.5% 37.8% 39.7% 43.8% 42.1% 43.4% 428 7799 1183 9410

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lack of locality pay SES 31.2% 28.4% 27.3% 28.4% 42.4% 48.2% 49.3% 48.1% 26.3% 23.4% 23.4% 23.5% 429 7803 1186 9418

SL/ST 25.9% 24.1% 23.9% 24.1% 50.6% 51.2% 51.3% 51.2% 23.5% 24.7% 24.8% 24.7% 81 1883 343 2307

Lack of an assured annual

pay adjustment to reflect

inflation

SES 24.6% 23.6% 23.2% 23.6% 46.0% 50.9% 49.0% 50.5% 29.3% 25.5% 27.8% 25.9% 426 7797 1187 9410

SL/ST 16.0% 17.8% 19.3% 18.0% 46.9% 53.7% 51.2% 53.1% 37.0% 28.5% 29.5% 28.9% 81 1878 342 2301

Increased job risk/loss of

GS job rights

SES 20.8% 21.2% 19.7% 21.0% 50.0% 48.9% 47.7% 48.8% 29.2% 30.0% 32.5% 30.3% 428 7800 1186 9414

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Attractors vs. Detractors

- Ethnicity

Career

path

interest

% Positive

(attractors greatly outweigh/slightly

outweigh detractors)

% Neutral

(attractors and detractors even out, no basis

to judge)

% Negative

(detractors greatly outweigh/slightly

outweigh attractors)

# of Responses

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

Hispanic

or Latino

Not

Hispanic

or Latino

No

Answer All

How do the attractors to

serving in the SES or a

Senior Professional

position compare to the

detractors to serving in

the SES or a Senior

Professional position?

SES 58.1% 50.2% 44.6% 49.9% 15.7% 15.5% 17.6% 15.8% 26.2% 34.2% 37.8% 34.3% 420 7685 1147 9252

SL/ST 55.6% 49.3% 48.2% 49.3% 22.2% 23.3% 27.5% 23.9% 22.2% 27.4% 24.3% 26.7% 81 1847 334 2262

Appendix IV


76 | P a g e

Survey Section 2 - Views and Interests Concerning Career SES or Senior Professional Positions, by Race and National Origin

Views and Interests - Race and

National Origin Identification

Career

path

interest

% Positive (strongly agree, agree) % Neutral (neither agree nor disagree)

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Asian

Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Asian

Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

My opinion of serving in an SES or Senior Professional position is

favorable

SES 80.9% 73.7% 80.5% 68.9% 66.3% 62.6% 68.0% 10.4% 17.5% 12.2% 17.0% 19.0% 19.3% 18.1%

SL/ST 80.0% 75.4% 76.6% 63.3% 64.3% 67.1% 66.5% 15.0% 19.0% 18.4% 33.3% 27.4% 24.5% 25.8%

In my job, I interact regularly with one or more career Senior


SES 82.6% 80.7% 85.1% 83.2% 86.1% 84.1% 85.6% 7.0% 9.5% 4.3% 5.6% 4.8% 6.6% 5.1%

SL/ST 60.0% 61.1% 72.6% 50.0% 49.2% 50.6% 52.2% 25.0% 12.7% 8.5% 16.7% 15.6% 19.8% 15.3%

My opinion of serving in an SES or SL/ST position has been influenced

by my discussions with one or more Senior Executives/Professionals

SES 61.7% 55.7% 60.2% 63.6% 57.1% 54.5% 57.3% 18.3% 29.3% 21.0% 15.9% 26.3% 27.9% 25.7%

SL/ST 35.0% 46.0% 40.8% 43.3% 30.9% 36.5% 33.4% 50.0% 23.0% 34.8% 30.0% 31.0% 31.0% 31.1%

My supervisor has told me that I would be a good candidate for an


SES 41.7% 36.5% 39.3% 43.0% 35.9% 35.0% 36.3% 35.7% 42.0% 30.8% 26.2% 38.1% 38.1% 37.2%

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My supervisor has encouraged me to apply for an SES Candidate

Development Program

SES 25.2% 26.6% 27.9% 28.0% 22.1% 22.0% 23.0% 34.8% 38.7% 28.8% 25.2% 35.4% 34.4% 34.5%

SL/ST 20.0% 20.6% 26.4% 23.3% 20.1% 20.6% 20.8% 50.0% 44.4% 42.3% 33.3% 33.7% 37.3% 35.6%

My supervisor has encouraged me to apply for SES or SL/ST vacancies SES 18.3% 18.0% 18.6% 15.2% 15.5% 14.5% 15.8% 36.5% 44.1% 32.4% 33.3% 38.0% 39.7% 37.6%

SL/ST 15.0% 17.6% 17.0% 10.0% 11.6% 13.7% 12.7% 40.0% 40.8% 38.0% 33.3% 33.5% 34.9% 34.5%

The career path that could lead to an SES or SL/ST position is clear to

me

SES 46.1% 34.7% 43.6% 36.4% 41.8% 38.3% 41.5% 13.9% 22.5% 17.0% 13.1% 16.7% 17.8% 16.9%

SL/ST 15.0% 29.6% 25.1% 16.7% 17.7% 14.7% 18.7% 20.0% 27.2% 18.1% 16.7% 16.3% 16.7% 17.2%

I understand the differences between the SES or SL/ST personnel

system and the General Schedule

SES 67.0% 62.6% 71.8% 57.9% 62.6% 63.6% 63.7% 7.8% 15.0% 9.2% 11.2% 12.1% 11.3% 11.7%

SL/ST 26.3% 42.1% 41.5% 33.3% 30.8% 31.1% 32.4% 26.3% 22.2% 10.5% 6.7% 14.7% 17.9% 15.1%

I am interested in becoming a member of the Senior Executive


SES 71.3% 68.7% 73.9% 69.2% 55.6% 54.5% 58.3% 17.4% 22.2% 16.1% 20.6% 22.7% 23.4% 21.9%

SL/ST 85.0% 79.4% 65.0% 73.3% 58.9% 60.4% 61.2% 15.0% 12.7% 25.0% 13.3% 24.6% 25.6% 23.8%

I believe that I would be a strong candidate for an SES or Senior


SES 90.4% 77.5% 85.8% 89.7% 77.4% 78.4% 78.7% 9.6% 17.5% 11.5% 9.3% 17.6% 18.2% 16.8%

SL/ST 80.0% 77.8% 75.5% 76.7% 68.5% 70.6% 70.1% 20.0% 16.7% 20.0% 16.7% 25.4% 24.6% 24.2%

% Negative (disagree, strongly disagree) # of Responses

My opinion of serving in an SES or Senior Professional position is

favorable

SES 8.7% 8.8% 7.2% 14.2% 14.7% 18.1% 13.9% 115 274 1022 106 6933 862 9312

SL/ST 5.0% 5.6% 5.0% 3.3% 8.2% 8.4% 7.7% 20 126 201 30 1676 249 2306

In my job, I interact regularly with one or more career Senior


SES 10.4% 9.8% 10.7% 11.2% 9.1% 9.3% 9.3% 115 275 1031 107 6965 868 9361

SL/ST 15.0% 26.2% 18.9% 33.3% 35.2% 29.6% 32.4% 20 126 201 30 1681 253 2315

My opinion of serving in an SES or SL/ST position has been influenced

by my discussions with one or more Senior Executives/Professionals

SES 20.0% 15.0% 18.8% 20.6% 16.7% 17.6% 17.0% 115 273 1027 107 6960 863 9345

SL/ST 15.0% 31.0% 24.4% 26.7% 38.1% 32.5% 35.6% 20 126 201 30 1682 252 2315

My supervisor has told me that I would be a good candidate for an


SES 22.6% 21.5% 29.9% 30.8% 26.1% 27.0% 26.5% 115 274 1029 107 6956 864 9345

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My supervisor has encouraged me to apply for an SES Candidate

Development Program

SES 40.0% 34.7% 43.3% 46.7% 42.5% 43.6% 42.5% 115 274 1030 107 6961 864 9351

SL/ST 30.0% 34.9% 31.3% 43.3% 46.2% 42.1% 43.6% 20 126 201 30 1683 252 2316

My supervisor has encouraged me to apply for SES or SL/ST vacancies SES 45.2% 37.9% 49.0% 51.4% 46.6% 45.9% 46.6% 115 272 1027 105 6943 865 9327

SL/ST 45.0% 41.6% 45.0% 56.7% 54.9% 51.4% 52.8% 20 125 200 30 1677 249 2305

The career path that could lead to an SES or SL/ST position is clear to

me

SES 40.0% 42.8% 39.5% 50.5% 41.5% 43.9% 41.6% 115 271 1026 107 6944 865 9328

SL/ST 65.0% 43.2% 56.8% 66.7% 65.9% 68.5% 64.1% 20 125 199 30 1679 251 2308

I understand the differences between the SES or SL/ST personnel

system and the General Schedule

SES 25.2% 22.3% 19.1% 30.8% 25.3% 25.1% 24.6% 115 273 1027 107 6953 861 9336

SL/ST 47.4% 35.7% 48.0% 60.0% 54.5% 51.0% 52.4% 19 126 200 30 1683 251 2313

I am interested in becoming a member of the Senior Executive


SES 11.3% 9.1% 9.9% 10.3% 21.7% 22.1% 19.8% 115 275 1028 107 6952 866 9343

SL/ST 0.0% 7.9% 10.0% 13.3% 16.5% 14.0% 15.0% 20 126 200 30 1682 250 2312

I believe that I would be a strong candidate for an SES or Senior


SES 0.0% 5.1% 2.7% 0.9% 5.0% 3.5% 4.5% 114 275 1027 107 6956 864 9343

SL/ST 0.0% 5.6% 4.5% 6.7% 6.0% 4.8% 5.7% 20 126 200 30 1682 252 2314

Appendix IV


77 | P a g e

Section 3 – Attractors and Detractors to Serving in Career SES or Senior Professional Positions, by Race and National Origin

Attractors - Race and National

Origin Identification

Career path

interest

% Positive (very great extent, great extent) % Neutral (moderate extent, limited extent, no basis to judge)

American Indian

or Alaska Native Asian

Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

American Indian


Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

Ability to contribute more to the mission of my agency SES 86.2% 82.4% 84.8% 85.0% 77.2% 75.7% 78.2% 13.8% 16.8% 13.6% 14.0% 20.9% 20.5% 19.7%

SL/ST 70.0% 43.7% 76.6% 86.7% 69.0% 70.6% 71.0% 30.0% 15.9% 20.9% 13.3% 28.7% 25.8% 26.8%

Increased responsibility and authority SES 36.5% 74.5% 72.5% 70.8% 62.4% 60.8% 63.9% 27.8% 23.0% 24.5% 25.5% 32.7% 33.0% 31.4%

SL/ST 65.0% 66.7% 63.2% 53.3% 50.2% 50.8% 52.5% 35.0% 30.2% 30.3% 40.0% 42.6% 41.3% 40.6%

Greater opportunity for creativity and innovation SES 77.6% 79.8% 81.2% 72.0% 68.4% 66.4% 70.1% 19.0% 18.1% 16.9% 26.2% 27.6% 27.1% 25.9%

SL/ST 40.0% 44.4% 36.0% 46.7% 33.7% 40.2% 35.5% 60.0% 55.6% 60.5% 53.3% 62.3% 55.0% 60.8%

The ability to interact at higher levels SES 58.6% 62.6% 62.1% 58.9% 51.0% 46.5% 52.3% 35.3% 32.7% 31.9% 30.8% 39.0% 40.0% 38.0%

SL/ST 65.0% 65.1% 50.7% 40.0% 42.4% 43.6% 44.7% 35.0% 31.0% 37.3% 50.0% 44.1% 40.4% 42.4%

The honor of serving at the highest career level SES 75.0% 77.0% 79.7% 70.1% 64.3% 57.9% 66.0% 21.6% 18.3% 17.4% 20.6% 28.1% 31.5% 26.8%

SL/ST 65.0% 77.8% 71.0% 63.3% 52.2% 53.6% 55.7% 35.0% 16.7% 22.5% 26.7% 37.1% 31.2% 33.8%

Increased pay SES 39.1% 47.7% 50.3% 37.4% 43.0% 39.4% 43.5% 50.4% 45.9% 42.6% 54.2% 48.5% 49.7% 48.0%

SL/ST 45.0% 60.5% 54.2% 60.0% 48.7% 47.0% 49.8% 45.0% 34.7% 41.3% 30.0% 45.0% 43.0% 43.7%

Ability to receive Presidential Rank Awards SES 19.8% 33.3% 31.6% 27.1% 19.8% 20.0% 21.6% 54.3% 48.4% 49.0% 43.9% 52.3% 48.3% 51.4%

SL/ST 30.0% 39.7% 34.3% 20.0% 21.3% 23.6% 23.8% 45.0% 46.0% 47.5% 40.0% 51.3% 42.8% 49.5%

Ability to receive other performance awards SES 23.5% 34.5% 33.7% 29.2% 23.0% 21.7% 24.5% 57.4% 50.0% 48.7% 47.2% 54.0% 51.0% 53.0%

SL/ST 40.0% 41.6% 37.3% 23.3% 26.5% 27.1% 28.4% 45.0% 44.0% 45.3% 50.0% 52.1% 47.0% 50.4%


can be carried over

SES 33.9% 32.4% 39.2% 32.7% 29.1% 28.6% 30.4% 44.3% 46.4% 42.3% 46.7% 47.7% 47.3% 47.0%

SL/ST 50.0% 45.6% 48.2% 30.0% 32.3% 36.8% 35.0% 30.0% 36.8% 33.7% 36.7% 46.0% 42.8% 43.7%


work experience

SES 31.9% 38.7% 39.5% 31.1% 25.1% 28.5% 27.6% 44.0% 45.2% 42.4% 50.0% 48.1% 44.8% 47.1%

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


retirement if reassigned

SES 36.2% 28.0% 34.9% 32.7% 23.7% 24.3% 25.4% 44.0% 48.4% 41.7% 39.3% 46.4% 45.4% 45.8%

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

% Negative (not at all) # of Responses

Ability to contribute more to the mission of my agency SES 0.0% 0.7% 1.6% 0.9% 2.0% 3.9% 2.0% 116 279 1039 107 7016 880 9437

SL/ST 0.0% 40.5% 2.5% 0.0% 2.3% 3.6% 2.2% 20 126 201 30 1680 252 2313

Increased responsibility and authority SES 35.7% 2.5% 3.0% 3.8% 4.9% 6.3% 4.7% 115 278 1036 106 7007 879 9421

SL/ST 0.0% 3.2% 6.5% 6.7% 7.1% 7.9% 6.9% 20 126 201 30 1680 252 2313

Greater opportunity for creativity and innovation SES 3.4% 2.2% 1.9% 1.9% 4.0% 6.5% 3.9% 116 277 1032 107 6994 872 9398

SL/ST 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 4.0% 4.8% 3.7% 20 126 200 30 1681 251 2312

The ability to interact at higher levels SES 6.0% 4.7% 6.0% 10.3% 9.9% 13.6% 9.6% 116 278 1037 107 7007 878 9423

SL/ST 0.0% 4.0% 11.9% 10.0% 13.5% 16.0% 12.9% 20 126 201 30 1678 250 2309

The honor of serving at the highest career level SES 3.4% 4.7% 3.0% 9.3% 7.6% 10.6% 7.2% 116 278 1037 107 7011 878 9427

SL/ST 0.0% 5.6% 6.5% 10.0% 10.7% 15.2% 10.4% 20 126 200 30 1678 250 2308

Increased pay SES 10.4% 6.5% 7.0% 8.4% 8.5% 10.9% 8.5% 115 279 1037 107 7003 875 9416

SL/ST 10.0% 4.8% 4.5% 10.0% 6.3% 10.0% 6.5% 20 124 201 30 1679 249 2307

Ability to receive Presidential Rank Awards SES 25.9% 18.3% 19.4% 29.0% 27.9% 31.7% 27.0% 116 279 1036 107 7002 876 9416

SL/ST 25.0% 14.3% 18.2% 40.0% 27.4% 33.6% 26.7% 20 126 198 30 1678 250 2306

Ability to receive other performance awards SES 19.1% 15.5% 17.6% 23.6% 23.0% 27.3% 22.5% 115 278 1035 106 7002 869 9405

SL/ST 15.0% 14.4% 17.4% 26.7% 21.4% 25.9% 21.2% 20 125 201 30 1678 247 2305


can be carried over

SES 21.7% 21.2% 18.5% 20.6% 23.2% 24.1% 22.6% 115 278 1033 107 7000 878 9411

SL/ST 20.0% 17.6% 18.1% 33.3% 21.7% 20.4% 21.3% 20 125 199 30 1675 250 2303


work experience

SES 24.1% 16.1% 18.0% 18.9% 26.8% 26.7% 25.4% 116 279 1037 106 6993 880 9411

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


retirement if reassigned

SES 19.8% 23.6% 23.3% 28.0% 29.8% 30.3% 28.8% 116 275 1033 107 6995 876 9402

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Appendix IV

Appendix IV


78 | P a g e

Detractors - Race and National

Origin Identification

Career

path

interest

% Positive (not at all) % Neutral (moderate extent, limited extent, no basis to judge)

American Indian


Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

American Indian


Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

Complexity of the application process SES 19.3% 12.3% 14.0% 12.1% 12.2% 13.1% 12.6% 43.9% 46.9% 40.6% 48.6% 51.7% 44.0% 49.5%

SL/ST 0.0% 14.3% 10.4% 13.3% 9.4% 10.0% 9.7% 65.0% 38.9% 50.5% 50.0% 58.9% 55.0% 56.6%

Increased responsibility SES 66.7% 52.2% 56.7% 68.2% 56.4% 57.5% 56.6% 29.8% 38.8% 36.5% 29.0% 37.4% 36.1% 37.0%

SL/ST 45.0% 41.3% 34.5% 53.3% 42.9% 50.0% 43.0% 55.0% 48.4% 50.0% 43.3% 50.1% 42.7% 49.2%

Lack of sufficient authority to meet goals SES 31.3% 22.4% 30.4% 32.7% 25.8% 25.8% 26.4% 49.6% 55.6% 51.7% 49.5% 55.1% 50.7% 54.2%

SL/ST 10.0% 16.8% 16.5% 26.7% 15.5% 18.7% 16.1% 75.0% 59.2% 59.5% 50.0% 60.9% 60.6% 60.6%

Insufficient financial incentives SES 46.1% 32.5% 38.7% 32.7% 33.6% 33.1% 34.2% 40.0% 52.0% 45.9% 50.5% 46.5% 43.8% 46.3%

SL/ST 25.0% 20.8% 26.0% 33.3% 27.4% 27.1% 27.0% 65.0% 65.6% 54.0% 40.0% 58.8% 60.2% 58.7%

Ineffective SES or SL/ST performance management system SES 27.2% 15.3% 22.2% 21.5% 21.4% 18.8% 21.1% 61.4% 64.6% 61.2% 58.9% 61.9% 59.1% 61.6%

SL/ST 10.0% 12.1% 16.0% 10.0% 14.0% 12.0% 13.8% 75.0% 64.5% 62.5% 53.3% 71.1% 68.3% 69.5%

Potential negative impact on balance of my work and


SES 32.2% 15.5% 23.0% 17.8% 14.5% 18.1% 16.1% 30.4% 41.0% 41.5% 46.7% 39.3% 36.2% 39.3%

SL/ST 10.0% 21.6% 16.5% 23.3% 14.2% 17.6% 15.2% 70.0% 47.2% 37.5% 43.3% 47.7% 48.8% 47.1%

Increased interaction with political appointees SES 58.3% 43.5% 51.8% 51.4% 50.3% 46.7% 50.0% 33.9% 42.4% 39.6% 39.3% 39.1% 40.2% 39.3%

SL/ST 25.0% 31.0% 39.7% 56.7% 37.0% 34.9% 36.8% 65.0% 48.4% 45.2% 26.7% 47.1% 44.2% 46.6%

Being reassigned or transferred geographically SES 33.0% 12.7% 24.4% 17.8% 17.8% 19.7% 18.7% 31.3% 48.2% 37.0% 42.1% 37.4% 39.3% 37.8%

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lack of locality pay SES 39.1% 23.7% 33.1% 29.0% 27.5% 29.4% 28.4% 40.9% 53.6% 44.6% 41.1% 48.7% 47.4% 48.1%

SL/ST 20.0% 20.8% 30.0% 26.7% 23.2% 26.4% 24.1% 65.0% 57.6% 43.5% 40.0% 52.1% 48.4% 51.2%


inflation

SES 36.5% 20.3% 26.7% 26.4% 23.1% 23.1% 23.6% 40.0% 55.4% 47.4% 43.4% 51.0% 49.9% 50.5%

SL/ST 10.0% 14.3% 21.7% 20.0% 17.6% 20.2% 18.0% 70.0% 61.1% 43.9% 46.7% 54.3% 47.6% 53.1%

Increased job risk/loss of GS job rights SES 33.9% 20.6% 21.8% 23.4% 20.7% 20.5% 21.0% 36.5% 48.7% 43.4% 42.1% 50.2% 46.4% 48.8%

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

% Negative (very great extent, great extent) # of Responses

Complexity of the application process SES 36.8% 40.8% 45.4% 39.3% 36.1% 42.9% 37.9% 114 277 1036 107 7018 878 9430

SL/ST 35.0% 46.8% 39.1% 36.7% 31.7% 35.1% 33.6% 20 126 202 30 1678 251 2311

Increased responsibility SES 3.5% 9.0% 6.8% 2.8% 6.3% 6.4% 6.3% 114 278 1037 107 7006 877 9419

SL/ST 0.0% 10.3% 15.5% 3.3% 6.9% 7.3% 7.8% 20 126 200 30 1679 248 2307

Lack of sufficient authority to meet goals SES 19.1% 22.0% 18.0% 17.8% 19.1% 23.4% 19.5% 115 277 1030 107 6996 879 9404

SL/ST 15.0% 24.0% 24.0% 23.3% 23.7% 20.7% 23.3% 20 125 200 30 1674 251 2304

Insufficient financial incentives SES 13.9% 15.5% 15.4% 16.8% 19.9% 23.1% 19.5% 115 277 1034 107 7001 875 9409

SL/ST 10.0% 13.6% 20.0% 26.7% 13.8% 12.7% 14.3% 20 125 200 30 1672 251 2302

Ineffective SES or SL/ST performance management system SES 11.4% 20.1% 16.6% 19.6% 16.7% 22.0% 17.3% 114 274 1029 107 6984 876 9384

SL/ST 15.0% 23.4% 21.5% 36.7% 14.9% 19.7% 16.7% 20 124 200 30 1670 249 2297

Potential negative impact on balance of my work and


SES 37.4% 43.5% 35.4% 35.5% 46.2% 45.7% 44.7% 115 278 1033 107 7012 879 9424

SL/ST 20.0% 31.2% 46.0% 33.3% 38.1% 33.6% 37.6% 20 125 200 30 1674 250 2303

Increased interaction with political appointees SES 7.8% 14.1% 8.5% 9.3% 10.6% 13.0% 10.7% 115 276 1032 107 7003 875 9408

SL/ST 10.0% 20.6% 15.1% 16.7% 15.9% 20.9% 16.6% 20 126 199 30 1674 249 2302

Being reassigned or transferred geographically SES 35.7% 39.1% 38.6% 40.2% 44.8% 40.9% 43.4% 115 276 1031 107 7004 877 9410

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lack of locality pay SES 20.0% 22.7% 22.3% 29.9% 23.7% 23.2% 23.5% 115 278 1034 107 7005 879 9418

SL/ST 15.0% 21.6% 26.5% 33.3% 24.7% 25.2% 24.7% 20 125 200 30 1678 250 2307


inflation

SES 23.5% 24.3% 25.9% 30.2% 25.9% 26.9% 25.9% 115 276 1035 106 7001 877 9410

SL/ST 20.0% 24.6% 34.3% 33.3% 28.2% 32.3% 28.9% 20 126 198 30 1675 248 2301

Increased job risk/loss of GS job rights SES 29.6% 30.7% 34.8% 34.6% 29.1% 33.1% 30.3% 115 277 1037 107 6999 879 9414

SL/ST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Appendix IV

Appendix IV


79 | P a g e

Attractors vs. Detractors -

Race and National Origin Identification

Career

path

interest

% Positive

(attractors greatly outweigh/slightly outweigh detractors)

% Neutral

(attractors and detractors even out, no basis to judge)

American

Indian or

Alaska Native

Asian

Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

American Indian


Black or

African

American

Multi-

Racial White

No

Answer All

How do the attractors to serving in the SES or a

Senior Professional position compare to the

detractors to serving in the SES or a Senior


SES 61.7% 60.7% 60.5% 55.4% 48.4% 43.7% 49.9% 14.8% 14.0% 18.3% 15.8% 15.3% 17.3% 15.8%

SL/ST 52.6% 59.7% 55.3% 43.3% 47.9% 48.8% 49.3% 21.1% 26.1% 21.8% 36.7% 23.7% 23.8% 23.9%

% Negative

(detractors greatly outweigh/slightly outweigh attractors) # of Responses

How do the attractors to serving in the SES or a

Senior Professional position compare to the

detractors to serving in the SES or a Senior


SES 23.5% 25.4% 21.2% 28.7% 36.3% 39.0% 34.3% 115 272 1014 101 6889 861 9252

SL/ST 26.3% 14.3% 22.8% 20.0% 28.4% 27.5% 26.7% 19 119 197 30 1649 244 2262

Appendix IV

Appendix IV



820 First Street NE

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20002

202.927.7000

www.seniorexecs.org

attracting the next generation of federal leaders · pdf file... attracting the next...

Documents