Following is the section of a recent MSPB report examining one of the Obama administration’s recent major initiatives regarding federal employees, the ‘REDI’ (for recruitment, engagement, diversity and inclusiveness) initiative.
In March 2015, OPM released the REDI Roadmap. The REDI Roadmap is a data-centric approach that OPM developed to support the People and Culture cross-agency priority goal of the President’s Management Agenda that is intended to bring together all of the tools available to agencies to help them attract, develop, and retain a talented, engaged, and diverse workforce.
Recruitment. Specific recruitment-related initiatives under REDI include—
• Working with agencies to improve their processes, focusing on three specific areas: (1) laws, regulations, and merit system principles that may be confusing to managers; (2) OPM policies that may hinder effective hiring practices; and (3) potential agency misunderstandings of their authority to use existing hiring flexibilities;
• Planned improvements to USAJOBS.gov, the Governmentwide portal for job posting and application, to improve the experience of job seekers and to provide agencies with data on that experience to help them measure the success of their recruitment efforts, locate applicants for particular jobs, and better analyze resumes;
• Expanding partnerships with colleges, universities, and other entities to fill critical skills gaps with a diverse pool of applicants; and
• Improving the effectiveness of the Pathways programs and eliminating barriers to attracting diverse talent to the Senior Executive Service.
Engagement. The REDI Roadmap recognizes that engaged employees are more productive and effective than employees who are not engaged. OPM’s goal is to support high levels of employee engagement by supporting the development of transformational agency leaders, providing opportunities for the enrichment of Federal employees’ careers, and helping agencies measure and act on key drivers of employee engagement. Increasing Federal employee engagement is a central theme of the People and Culture CAP goal of the President’s Management Agenda. A key indicator of that cross-agency goal is that, from 2015 to 2016, Federal employee engagement will have increased by three percentage points as measured by OPM’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
Diversity and Inclusion. Initiatives to promote diversity and inclusion are woven into the recruitment and engagement portions of the REDI Roadmap. These initiatives aim to address the under-representation of women, Hispanics, and people with disabilities in the Federal workforce. In March 2015, the Diversity and Inclusion in Government Council was established to provide a forum for improving senior leadership engagement and collaboration on strategic and operational diversity and inclusion priorities.
Significance
Recruitment. The REDI Roadmap provides for active OPM assistance to agencies in improving recruitment and streamlining their hiring practices. Efforts to improve Federal recruiting relate to MSP [merit system principle] 1—recruiting from qualified individuals in an endeavor to achieve a workforce from all segments of society, and selecting and advancing based on relative ability, knowledge, and skills after fair and open competition assuring that all receive equal opportunity—and OPM’s efforts to improve Federal agency understanding and use of the hiring system are constructive.
MSPB has two broad observations about improving the hiring system. Our first observation concerns balancing efficiency and speed in hiring with other important values. Most will agree that the processes used by agencies to hire new employees can be made more effective and efficient. However, any improvements made to hiring systems must operate within the framework established by the MSPs and PPPs. These principles and prohibitions impose both ethical and procedural constraints on Federal agencies to help ensure that Federal employees are hired and managed based on merit resulting in a Federal workforce free from undue political influence or favoritism. Policymakers, stakeholders, and agencies must understand that these constraints place limits on “streamlining” and the extent to which Federal hiring can or should mirror actual or perceived private sector practices.
Our second observation relates to the scope and results of current and previous efforts to reform Federal hiring. Improving hiring is a long-term effort and OPM has focused considerable attention to this issue over the years. Nevertheless, it appears that sustained and substantial progress remains elusive. For example, as of the third quarter in FY 2015, hiring manager satisfaction had increased only marginally, to 61 percent from the baseline of 60 percent. Enabling Federal agencies to routinely “[hire] the best talent”—and effectively balance the several values and goals of Federal hiring—may ultimately require more than improved understanding and implementation of existing policy. For example, the percentage of hiring managers who report active, personal participation in recruitment and outreach remains essentially unchanged from the baseline level of 43 percent. Clearly, greater involvement is desirable and achievable. However, many hiring managers may see little practical value in active recruitment under conditions that may include an overwhelming volume of applications, applicant assessments of insufficient rigor or reliability, and referral and selection rules that give little or no practical weight to a manager’s valuation of a candidate’s merits. As discussed in various MSPB reports on hiring, those conditions may be a consequence of Governmentwide policy as well as a consequence of imperfect understanding or practice.
Engagement. Continued OPM and agency attention to Federal employee engagement is appropriate. Previous MSPB research found a relationship between higher levels of employee engagement and improved Federal agency outcomes. Specifically, in agencies where more employees were more engaged better program results were produced, employees used less sick leave, fewer employees filed equal employment opportunity complaints, and there were fewer cases of workplace injury or illness. Our subsequent research established the importance of effective performance management processes, job design, and rewards in improving employee engagement. Efforts to increase employee engagement are related to MSP 4, which envisions that employees will act in the public interest.
However, it is important that policymakers and stakeholders recognize the limits as well as the value of employee engagement and its measures. First, it is plausible that any management attention directed at improving the workplace, agency leadership, or employee morale should have some positive effect on agency operations. It remains unclear, however, what effect small improvements in Federal employee engagement as measured by the FEVS—such as the stated goal of a three percentage point increase—will have on agency outcomes. In addition, because OPM notes that the FEVS employee engagement index does not directly measure employee engagement—although it covers most, if not all, of the conditions likely to lead to employee engagement—it is uncertain that even large increases in that index would result in positive agency outcomes.
Second, although agency leaders can influence the work environment and other drivers of employee engagement, they are far from the only factor that affect an employee’s level of engagement as measured by instruments such as the FEVS. In the short term, in particular, indicators of employee satisfaction and engagement can be greatly affected by externally-directed changes in policy, budget, or structure. Also, it may be necessary for agency leaders to undertake, in the long-term public or agency interest, actions that are disruptive to both organizations and individuals. In such situations, effective leadership could result in short-term decreases, rather than increases, in employee engagement. Finally, employees themselves must be active participants in their own engagement. For example, “pride in one’s work” ultimately requires an individual willing to produce outstanding results and a personal understanding of the importance of those results to the American people. For these reasons, although executives should be accountable for efficient and effective use of the workforce and for taking steps to understand and sustain employee engagement, it appears counterproductive to hold agencies or individual executives accountable for a particular increase (or decrease) in any measure of employee engagement, regardless of its source.
Diversity and inclusion. Efforts to improve diversity and inclusion in the Federal workplace relate to MSP 2, requiring fair and equitable treatment of employees, and MSP 8, protecting employees against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes. Continued attention to diversity and inclusion is supported by MSPB research, which documents that the vision of full inclusion of all employees, regardless of non-merit factors, is not yet fully achieved although substantial progress has been made.
