Executive, Management, and Supervisory Development

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final

regulations to eliminate the 3-year limitation on the validity of

Qualifications Review Board (QRB) certification for appointment to the

Senior Executive Service (SES). The Office is also revising its

regulations governing executive and management development. The

coverage has been expanded to include supervisory development. The

revised regulations present broad program criteria on the systematic

development of executives, managers, supervisors, and candidates for

these positions. They also establish minimum requirements for formal

SES candidate development programs. The revisions are intended to

promote training and development activities which foster a corporate

perspective of Government within the Federal executive cadre.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance Maravell at 202-606-1832.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OPM published proposed regulations to make

changes in parts 317 and 412 on December 11, 1995 (60 FR 63454). We

received comments from 7 agencies, 1 individual, and the Senior

Executives Association (SEA). Most comments were supportive of the

changes. There were some reservations about requirements for SES

candidate development programs.

Part 317--Employment in the Senior Executive Service

The proposed regulations included a change in 5 CFR 317.501(c)(5)

which would have allowed Executive Resources Boards to refer to the

selecting official all candidates as best qualified when there were

less than 10 applicants for a position. This was proposed in response

to a recommendation from the Executive Resources Management Group's

(ERMG) Staffing Work Group, with the goal of simplifying and

streamlining the merit staffing process. However, we recognize that

such a provision presents difficulties in the context of other

requirements of 5 CFR 317.501(c), calling for the ``relative ranking of

the candidates'' and requiring selection ``from among the candidates

identified as best qualified.'' Two agencies as well as the Senior

Executives Association raised concerns relating to the interpretation

and application of the proposed revision. In evaluating the proposal

and the subsequent comments, we placed primary emphasis on the language

of the merit principle requiring selection and advancement ``solely on

the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills * * * '' (5 U.S.C.

2301(b)(1)). In light of these considerations, the proposals has been

deleted from the final regulation.

Another recommendation put forward by the ERMG's Staffing Work

Group involves a larger role for agencies in the management of the QRB

process. Two agencies commenting on these proposed regulations

recommended that the QRB process be delegated to agencies or,

alternatively, eliminated entirely. Our research of the legislative

history of the Civil Service Reform Act indicates that Congressional

intent in legislating Qualifications Review Boards was to assure an

independent review of executive qualifications outside the selecting

agency. This is incompatible with full delegation of the QRB process to

agencies. We currently have an interagency advisory group reviewing the

function and operations of the QRBs as they are presently conducted. If

we conclude that the QRB process does not ``add value'' to the

selection of Federal executives, we will recommend appropriate changes,

including revisions to the statute if necessary.

Part 412--Executive, Management, and Supervisory Development

One agency raised a question about sabbaticals, which are spelled

out in statute (5 U.S.C. 3396(c)) and which are not covered in this

final rule. The question concerned whether agencies would have complete

authority for deciding the merits of requests for sabbaticals. Agencies

have always had complete decision-making authority regarding the use of

sabbaticals. Agencies should continue to report the use of sabbaticals

to OPM, including submission of appropriate documentation (currently

OPM Form 1390, Executive Personnel Transaction).

One agency suggested including the role of ``team leader'' in the

supervisory, managerial, and executive continuum. At this time the role

of the team leader is still evolving and may vary widely, depending on

the type of team or the specific agency. There is no prohibition

barring an agency from setting whatever training policies it deems

appropriate for the training of teams and team leaders. However, we are

not broadening the scope of part 412 to incorporate such a requirement

for all agencies.

Another agency asked for verification of its assumption that a

person who leaves the Government and has been certified as qualified

for the SES by a QRB retains that certification. Since the

certification has no time limit, this is a correct assumption. The

individual could use that certification to return to the Government and

receive a noncompetitive appointment to the SES, provided that he or

she had competed Governmentwide to enter the Candidate Development

Program (CDP).

One agency commented that agencies should be encouraged to train

their managerial corps as needed to meet their program needs rather

than being required to provide managerial training generally. The

regulations require that training and development programs be

consistent with an agency's strategic plan. We would like to emphasize

the importance of training for enhancing organizational achievement.

Training and development play a critical role in assuring high quality

customer service, information management, and improved management

skills. This is widely recognized in the private sector as well as in

Government. Furthermore, the requirements for managerial

[[Page 46532]]

development are flexible enough to allow agencies to comply within the

limits of their financial resources.

Section 412.104 Formal Candidate Development Programs for SES

Positions

OPM believes that formal SES Candidate Development Programs (CDPs)

provide an excellent vehicle for creating and reinforcing a corporate

perspective within the SES. The idea of a ``corporate SES'' originated

with the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and was reinforced by the

National Performance Review (NPR) in 1994. One agency asked us to

clarify the concept of corporate SES perspective; another questioned

whether it was a valid objective. We believe that a corporate SES ( a

Governmentwide executive service with shared values, a common identity,

and a certain fundamental uniformity in personnel systems) contributes

to stronger Government, and we will continue our efforts to promote a

corporate SES culture in our policies and programs.

The essence of a corporate SES is shared values. These values must

transcend a commitment to agency mission; they must extend beyond an

executive's individual profession and aspirations. The SES values must

respect and embrace the dynamics of American democracy, an approach to

governance that provides a continuing vehicle for change. The NPR

report on the SES captures the original vision of the SES:

to serve the twin objectives of change and continuity: On one hand

helping the top officials of a new administration to steer their

agencies in the direction set by the newly elected President; on the

other hand carrying forward the institutional memory of government

and maintaining high standards of public service.

We believe that this vision is still valid, and we believe that

balancing continuity and change is the fundamental responsibility of

the Senior Executive. Inherent in this responsibility is respect for

both merit and diversity, both the dignity and importance of the

individual and the richness and wisdom that diversity of individuals

brings to organizations and societies.

Two agencies commented in favor of adding a provision to establish

a cadre of ``precertified'' managers in order to expedite the filling

of executive positions. The ERMG's Staffing Work Group has recommended

that OPM examine ways to allow agencies to precertify the

qualifications of executive candidates outside of the candidate

development process. We are currently considering the feasibility of

possible options for implementing such a recommendation. We recognize

that even experienced managers, who would otherwise meet the

requirements for SES appointment, can benefit from the training and

development provided through a formal CDP. However, given the

limitations of formal training budgets, the CDP is not a cost-effective

vehicle for certifying executive qualifications obtained outside a

formal program.

One agency advocated substituting a general statement of purpose

for formal candidate development programs, in place of the specific

program requirements at Sec. 412.104(e), saying that such

specifications are ``unnecessary and rigid.'' Another agency took

exception to the requirement specifying the aggregate length of

developmental assignment(s) outside the candidate's position of record.

We do not find these requirements to be unnecessary, and it is not our

intention to be rigid in their application or interpretation. In all

cases except where competition for entry into the CDP is restricted to

agency employees, QRB certification based on successful completion of

an OPM-approved executive development program makes an individual

eligible Governmentwide for noncompetitive appointment to the SES.

Therefore, to support development of a corporate perspective in

Government, there is a Governmentwide interest in assuring that a

minimum level of training and development is shared by successful DCP

participants. The regulations allow a great deal of flexibility in

choosing the formal interagency training experience, and the 4 months

of developmental assignments can be accomplished through a series of

shorter assignments. Furthermore, OPM will work with agencies to

develop program plans that are tailored to specific agency needs and

circumstances, and we will permit individual participants to have

development plans which deviate from their agencies' approved program

plans, provided these deviations are approved by OPM in advance. We

absolutely agree with the comment that developmental assignments should

be ``tailored to the individual developmental needs of each

candidate.''

At the same time, some work experiences would not normally provide

the depth and breadth of experience needed to enhance a candidate's

executive qualifications. For example, one agency asked if a candidate

could stay in his/her current position and have extra duties added to

that position. This does not go far enough to achieve the principal

goal of the developmental assignment, which is to have the person gain

a broader perspective on his/her agency and the Federal Government. To

achieve this requires experience in other lines of work and/or in

different working relationships within the organization, or in

different organizations. Adding duties to an existing position does not

accomplish that purpose.

One agency commented that not all candidates have equivalent

backgrounds and, therefore, that development should be based on

individual requirements needed to reach a set level of expected job

performance. As we have previously indicated, we agree that development

plans should be tailored to the individual needs of each candidate. The

regulations require that each candidate have a development plan

prepared from a competency-based needs assessment. The minimum

standards are sufficiently broad so that individual development plans

can be tailored to meet each candidate's needs.

Another agency requested that OPM not restrict formal training to

``interagency sources.'' In fact, the regulations do not restrict

formal training to any particular source or sources. The regulations

allow agencies to choose any source, including nongovernmental, for the

required training experience, which must be Governmentwide or multi-

agency in its nature and scope. The purpose of this requirement is to

expose potential executives to multiple points of view and foster a

corporate perspective.

One agency questioned the necessity of requiring OPM approval of

agency programs prior to announcement for the first time under the new

regulations. We believe these regulations are a significant departure

from the superseded regulations, such that prior OPM review and

approval will contribute to the development of agency programs that

both meet minimum regulatory standards and are tailored to individual

agency needs. We encourage agencies to meet with us early in the

development of their programs so that the concerns of all parties can

be surfaced and adequately addressed. By engaging in such discussion

before agencies' programs are announced for the first time, we can

minimize problems which might arise as individual candidates are

submitted for QRB certification.

The Senior Executives Association (SEA) commented on the

requirement that agencies' recruitment efforts comply with statutory

merit principles (1) and (2) and also take ``into consideration the

goal of achieving a

[[Page 46533]]

diversified workforce'' (412.104(b)). SEA believes ``To provide

additional emphasis will create an appearance that preferential

treatment for some is the desired, but unclearly stated, goal.'' In

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995), the Supreme

Court ruled that all Federal programs which use race-based decision-

making are subject to strict judicial scrutiny. However, the provision

in question speaks to the recruiting process and not to the selection

process. In a Department of Justice memorandum to General Counsels

providing guidance on the Adarand decision (February 29, 1996),

agencies were advised:

Adarand does not apply, however, to actions in which race is not

used as a basis for making employment decisions about individuals.

For example, action to increase minority applications for employment

is not subject to Adarand. Outreach and recruitment efforts * * *

which merely seek to expand the pool of qualified applicants

generally would not be subject to strict scrutiny under Adarand.

Our purpose in highlighting the value of achieving a diversified

workforce is not to influence selections or other employment decisions

but to articulate the principle that members of all groups should have

an opportunity for consideration.

The SEA suggested that we list in the regulations the 22 generic

competencies identified in the Leadership Effectiveness Framework to

assist potential candidates in assessing their qualifications for SES

positions. For purposes of assessing an individual's executive

qualifications, these 22 competencies are grouped into five ``executive

core qualification:'' strategic vision, human resources management,

program development and evaluation, resource planning and management,

and organizational representation and liaison. It is against these five

core qualifications that individuals are evaluated by Qualifications

Review Boards to determine ``demonstrated executive experience'' and/or

``likelihood of executive success,'' as required by 5 U.S.C. 3393. OPM

has already published guidance which describes the five core

qualifications and provides additional information on how to present a

candidate's executive qualifications for consideration by a QRB.

Operational Issues

One agency raised a number of operational issues, such as the

appropriate organizational level for seeking OPM approval of agency

programs and the lowest organizational level appropriate for seeking

exceptions to Governmentwise recruitment under section 412.104(a)(2).

We plan to discuss these and other procedural questions with all stake

holders and issue operational guidance at the time the regulations

become final.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not have significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities because they affect

only federal employees and agencies.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Parts 317 and 412

Government employees.

James B. King,

Director, Office of Personnel Management.

Accordingly, the Office of Personnel Management is amending 5 CFR

parts 317 and 412 as follows:

PART 317--EMPLOYMENT IN THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE

1. The authority citation for part 317 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3392, 3393, 3393a, 3395, 3395, 3397, 3593,

and 3595.

2. In subpart E, Sec. 317.502, paragraph (c) is revised to read as

follows:

Subpart E--Career Appointments

Sec. 317.502 Qualifications Review Board certification.

* * * * *

(c) Qualifications Review Board certification of executive

qualifications just be based on demonstrated executive experience;

successful completion of an OPM-approved candidate development program;

or possession of special or unique qualities that indicate a likelihood

of executive success. Any existing time limit on a previously approved

certification is removed.

* * * * *

PART 412--EXECUTIVE, MANAGEMENT, AND SUPERVISORY DEVELOPMENT

3. Part 412 is revised to read as follows:

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec.

412.101 Coverage.

412.102 Purpose.

412.103 Criteria for programs for the systematic training and

development of executives, managers, supervisors, and candidates.

412.104 Formal candidate development programs for Senior Executive

Service positions.

Subpart B--Senior Executive Service Status and Nonstatus Candidate

Development Programs

412.201 Purpose.

412.202 ``Status'' programs.

412.203 ``Non-status'' programs.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3397, 4101, et seq.

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec. 412.101 Coverage.

This subpart applies to all incumbents of or candidates for

supervisory, managerial, and executive positions in the General

Schedule, the Senior Executive Service (SES), or equivalent pay systems

who are also covered by part 410 of this chapter.

Sec. 412.102 Purpose

(a) This subpart implements for supervisors, managers, and

executives the provisions of chapter 41 of title 5 of the United States

Code related to training and section 3396 of title 5 related to the

criteria for programs of systematic development of candidates for the

SES and the continuing development of SES members.

(b) The subpart identifies a continuum of preparation starting with

supervisory positions and proceeding through management and executive

positions Governmentwide. For this reason, the subpart establishes a

comprehensive system that is intended to:

(1) Provide the competencies needed by supervisors, managers, and

executives to perform their current functions at the mastery level of

proficiency; and

(2) Provide learning through development and training in the

context of succession planning and corporate perspective to prepare

individuals for advancement, thus supplying the agency and the

government with an adequate number of well prepared and qualified

candidates to fill supervisory, managerial, and executive positions

Governmentwide.

Sec. 412.103 Criteria for programs for the systematic training and

development of executives, managers, supervisors, and candidates.

Each agency must provide for the initial and continuing development

of individuals in executive, managerial, and supervisory positions, and

candidates for those positions. The agency must issue a written policy

to assure that their development programs:

(a) Are designed as part of the agency's strategic plan and foster

a corporate perspective.

(b) Make assignments to training and development consistent with

the merit

[[Page 46534]]

system principles set forth in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b) (1) and (2).

(c) Provide for:

(1) Initial training as an individual makes critical career

transitions to become a new supervisor, a new manager, or a new

executive consistent with the results of needs assessments;

(2) Continuing learning experiences, both short- and long-term,

throughout an individual's career in order for the individual to

achieve the mastery level of proficiency for his or her current

management level and position; and

(3) Systematic development of candidates for advancement to a

higher management level. Formal candidate development programs leading

to noncompetitive placement eligibility represent one, but not the

only, type of systematic development.

Sec. 412.104 Formal candidate development programs for Senior

Executive Service positions.

Formal SES candidate development programs permit the certification

of the executive qualifications of graduates by a Qualifications Review

Board under the criterion of 5 U.S.C. 3393(c)(2)(B) and selection for

the SES without further competition. The agency must have a written

policy describing how the program will operate. The agency must obtain

OPM approval of the program before it is conducted for the first time

under these regulations and whenever there are substantive changes to

the program. Agency programs must meet the following criteria.

(a) Recruitment.

(1) Recruitment for the program is from all groups of qualified

individuals within the civil service, or all groups of qualified

individuals whether or not within the civil service.

(2) Agencies may request an exception to the provision in paragraph

(a) of this section if they can show that during the 5-year period

prior to the announcement of a program they have made at least 15% of

their career SES appointments from sources outside the agency.

Notwithstanding this exception recruitment must be competitive and be

announced at least agencywide. Graduates of these programs who have

been certified by a QRB must then compete Governmentwide for entry to

the SES, but do not have to obtain a second QRB certification before

appointment.

(b) In recruiting, the agency, consistent with the merit system

principles in 5 U.S.C. 2301(b) (1) and (2), takes into consideration

the goal of achieving a diversified workforce.

(c) All candidates are selected through SES merit staffing

procedures. The number selected shall be consistent with the number of

expected vacancies.

(d) Each candidate has an SES development plan covering the period

of the program. The plan is prepared from a competency-based needs

determination. It is approved by the Executive Resources Board.

(e) The minimum program requirements, unless an exception is

obtained in advance of the beginning of the candidate's program, for an

SES development plan are as follows:

(1) There is a formal training experience that addresses the

executive core qualifications and their application to SES positions

Governmentwide. The training experience must include interaction with a

wide mix of Federal employees outside the candidate's department or

agency to foster a corporate perspective but may include managers from

the private sector and state and local governments. The nature and

scope of the training must have Governmentwide or multi-agency

applicability. If formal interagency training is used to meet this

requirement, it must total at least 80 hours. If an interagency work

experience is used, it must be of significantly longer duration than 80

hours.

(2) There are developmental assignments that total at least 4

months of full-time service outside the candidate's position of record.

The purpose of the assignments is to broaden the candidate's experience

and/or increase knowledge of the overall functioning of the agency so

that the candidate is prepared for a range of agency positions.

(3) There is a member of the Senior Executive Service as a mentor.

(f) Each candidate's performance in the program is evaluated

periodically, and there is a written policy for discontinuing a

candidate's participation in the program. A candidate can be

discontinued or may withdraw from the program without prejudice to his

or her ability to apply directly for SES positions.

(g) Each candidate has a documented starting and finishing date in

the program.

Subpart B--Senior Executive Service Status and Nonstatus Candidate

Development Programs

Sec. 412.201 Purpose.

Section 3393 of title 5, United States Code, requires that career

appointees to the SES be recruited either from all groups of qualified

individuals within the civil service, or from all groups of qualified

individuals whether or not within the civil service. This subpart sets

forth regulations establishing two types of SES candidate development

programs, ``status'' and ``non-status.''

Sec. 412.202 ``Status'' programs.

Only employee serving under career appointments, or under career-

type appointments as defined in Sec. 317.304(a)(2) of this chapter, may

participate in ``status'' candidate development programs.

Sec. 412.203 ``Non-status'' programs.

(a) Eligibility. Candidates are from outside Government and/or from

among employees serving on other than career or career-type

appointments within the civil service.

(b) Requirements.

(1) Candidates must be appointed using the Schedule B authority

authorized by Sec. 213.3202(j) of this chapter. The appointment may not

exceed or be extended beyond 3 years.

(2) Assignments must be to a full-time position created for

developmental purposes connected with the SES candidate development

program. Candidates serving under Schedule B appointment may not be

used to fill an agency's regular positions on a continuing basis.

(3) Schedule B appointments must be made in the same manner as

merit staffing requirements prescribed for the SES, except that each

agency shall follow the principle of veteran preference as far as

administratively feasible. Positions filled through this authority are

excluded under Sec. 302.101(c)(6) of this chapter from the appointment

procedures of part 302.

[FR Doc. 96-22366 Filed 9-3-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-01-M