Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Executive development and effectiveness: A study of mobility assignment experiences of career executives in federal research and development agencies
(USC Thesis Other)
Executive development and effectiveness: A study of mobility assignment experiences of career executives in federal research and development agencies
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master UM I films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS:
A STUDY OF MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCES
OF CAREER EXECUTIVES IN
FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
by
James J. Gorman. Jr.
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY. PLANNING.
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC .ADMINISTRATION
May 2002
Copyright 2002 James J. Gorman, Jr.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UM I Number: 3073783
Copyright 2002 by
Gorman, James Joseph, Jr.
All rights reserved.
__ ___ (B )
UMI
UMI Microform 3073783
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, written by
JAMES J. GORMAN, JR.
under the direction o f h. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its
members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Faculty o f the School o f
Policy, Planning, and Development, in
partial fulfillment o f requirements fo r the
degree o f
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Dean
rrT r.
TION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
James J. Gorman, Jr. Dr. Robert C. Myrtle
ABSTRACT
EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS:
A STUDY OF MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCES OF
CAREER EXECUTIVES IN FEDERAL RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
Since the establishment of the Federal Senior Executive Service (SES) over
20 years ago, one issue continues to stimulate controversy: the value and importance
of mobility assignment experiences to the successful development of senior
managers and executives.
This research is concerned with the type, frequency, and timing of mobility
assignment experience of career SES members in federal civilian research and
development agencies to determine if a positive relationship can be demonstrated
between these dimensions and the variable of executive effectiveness. The research
concentrates on the analysis of data regarding the mobility assignments experienced
by the career SES members assigned to three federal research and development
agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; and, the National Science Foundation. Input was solicited from over
700 career SES members in these agencies; the data was collected via a research
questionnaire: the Mobility Assignment Experience Survey Instrument (MAESI)-
Results of the study indicate that in federal civilian research and development
agencies: (I) the mobility assignment experiences of career executives vary
dramatically; and, (2) there is evidence to support a positive relationship between
certain dimensions of mobility assignment experiences and the recognition of career
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SES members for their executive effectiveness. Furthermore, the results of this
research should offer encouragement for those who wish to pursue additional
quantitative research study in a field of investigation, which, heretofore, has
remained the almost exclusive domain of qualitative research methodology.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
To Mary Jo
For all your understanding,
encouragement, and love ...
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my deep appreciation to Dr. Robert C. Myrtle, Professor of
Public Administration at the University of Southern California for his patient
stewardship and guidance throughout this project. My thanks also to Dr. Robert
M. Carter of the United States Military Academy. Dr. Terry Newell of the Federal
Executive Institute, and Dr. Joyce Jatko o f the National Science Foundation for
their constructive critiques, positive support, and friendship. A special note of
gratitude goes to Mr. A. Jerry McGIynn for his assistance regarding the “numbers
crunching” aspect of this project.
I would be remiss if I did not thank those members of the Federal Senior
Executive Service serving with the Environmental Protection Agency, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation who
enthusiastically supported this study. In addition. I must thank my colleagues in
NASA’s Office of Human Resources and Education—particularly Mr. Frank
Owens and Ms. Vicki Novak—for their support and encouragement.
I would like to recognize Ms. Theresa Price for her tireless administrative
assistance. I will always be indebted to her for her dedication and patience
throughout this project.
And, finally, I must recognize the love and support of my parents, Ann and
Jim Gorman, Sr., and of my daughters, Deanna Numera and Debi Keith. They will
also share in the pride of my being “Dr. Gorman”; but no personal reference will
ever supersede that o f “Son” or “Dad.”
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION...................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................ vi
1. MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCES OF
CAREER EXECUTIVES IN FEDERAL CIVILIAN
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES...................... I
Purpose......................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement...................................................................... 2
Senior Executive Service (SES)................................................. 2
SES Mobility Studies.................................................................. 4
Types of Mobility........................................................................ 8
Qualifications and Competencies of SES Members................... 10
SES Effectiveness Recognition................................................... 11
Presidential Rank Awards....................................................... 1 1
SES Performance Awards....................................................... 13
SES Pay Level Adjustments.................................................... 14
SES Development....................................................................... 16
Organization of the Study............................................................ 17
2. REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT
AND MOBILITY IN TFIE LITERATURE................................... 19
Executive Development and
Mobility Assignment Experiences............................................. 26
Research Summary and Hypotheses.......................................... 34
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY......................... 37
Scope.............................................................................................. 37
Environmental Protection Agency............................................ 38
National Aeronautics and Space Administration...................... 38
National Science Foundation.................................................... 39
Definition of Variables.................................................................. 40
Independent Variable................................................................. 40
Dimensions of the Independent Variable.................................. 40
Dependent Variable.................................................................... 42
Dependent Variable: Executive Effectiveness........................ 44
Research Methodology............................................................... 47
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH STUDY DATA ........................ 53
Overview of Responses and
Agency Level D ata................................................................... 53
Type of Mobility Assignment Experience
And Executive Effectiveness:
Statistical Correlation.............................................................. 63
Frequency of Mobility Assignment Experience
And Executive Effectiveness:
Statistical Correlation.............................................................. 69
Timing of Mobility Assignment Experience
And Executive Effectiveness:
Statistical Correlation............................................................... 76
5. FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS...................................... 81
Summary of Research Findings.................................................... 81
Strengths and Limitations of the Research Study...................... 86
Implications for Future
Executive Mobility Policy........................................................ 88
Suggested Direction of Future Research.................................... 91
Conclusion..................................................................................... 94
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................. 96
APPENDICES
Appendix A: SES Core Qualifications ....................................... 99
Appendix B: Leadership Competency Definitions...................... 101
Appendix C: Presidential Rank Awards
Evaluation Criteria............................................... 107
Appendix D: Survey Instrument Cover Letter ........................ 109
Appendix E: Mobility Assignment Experience
Survey Instrument (MAESI)................................. 110
Appendix F: Summary of Survey
Responses by Agency............................................. 118
Appendix G: Summary o f Responses by Agency........................ 120
Appendix H: Summary of Survey Responses to Agency............. 122
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1—Types of Mobility................................................................ 9
Table 2—Summary Demographic Data: A ll...................................... 45
Table 3—Summary Demographic Data: NASA O nly....................... 55
Table 4— Summary Demographic Data: EPA O nly.......................... 56
Table 5—Summary Demographic Data: NSF O nly.......................... 57
Table 6— Summary Mobility Assignment Experience
Prior to SES Appointment............................................... 59
Table 7—Summary Mobility Assignment Experience
Since SES Appointment.................................................. 60
Table 8—Correlation Coefficients: Type o f Mobility
Assignment Experience (Pre-SES) and
Executive Effectiveness.............................................. 64
Table 9—Correlation Coefficients: Type of Mobility
Assignment Experiences (Post-SES) and
Executive Effectiveness................................................. 65
Table 10— Distribution of Total Mobility
Assignment Experiences (M AE)................................... 71
Table 11— Mobility Assignment Experience (MAE)
Frequency Prior to SES Appointment......................... 72
Table 12—Mobility Assignment Experience (MAE)
Frequency Post-SES Appointment............................ 73
Table 13—Correlation Coefficients: Frequency of All
Mobility Assignment Experiences and
Executive Effectiveness.............................................. 74
Table 14— Correlation Coefficients: Frequency of
Pre- and Post-SES Mobility Assignment
Experiences and Executive Effectiveness................ 75
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 15—Correlation Coefficients: Timing of Mobility
Assignment Experience and Executive
Effectiveness............................................................... 78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCES OF
CAREER EXECUTIVES IN FEDERAL CIVILIAN
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
Purpose
The purpose of this research is to study the type, frequency, and timing of
mobility assignment experiences of public sector executives in research and
development agencies to determine if a positive relationship can be demonstrated
between mobility assignment experience and executive effectiveness. In essence, the
research question to be addressed is: "In a federal research and development ("R&D")
organization, does a correlation exist between career mobility assignment experiences
and the performance achievement recognition received by career executives"?
The focus of the study will be the career members of the Federal Senior
Executive Service (SES); representing the highest level o f non-political executive
leadership in the federal civil service. The research concentrates on the collection and
analysis of data regarding the mobility-related experiences of the career SES members
assigned to three federal research and development agencies. These agencies include:
the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; and, the National Science Foundation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Problem Statement
Since the establishment o f the Federal Senior Executive Service (SES) over 20
years ago, one issue continues to stimulate controversy: the value and importance of
mobility assignment experiences to the successful development of senior managers
and executives. Currently, regulatory and statutory changes— as well as policy and
procedural revisions— are being proposed that would change the requirements for SES
membership.1 In addition, specific exclusion of certain types of positions currently
held by individuals with professional and technical backgrounds (e.g. law, science,
engineering) is being given serious consideration.2 Once again mobility assignment
experiences are being emphasized as a critical and necessary component of successful
executive development. Thus, the results of this research— regarding the relationship
between these events— may influence the direction and content of future public sector
executive development strategy.
The Senior Executive Service fSES)
The development of a skilled talent pool of competent, experienced leaders is
critical to the success of all organizations. Executive development and effectiveness is
1 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. "An outline o f OPM's Proposed
Framework for Improving the Senior Executive Service." OPM SES Bulletin
98-04A. April 1998.
2 Ibid.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
no less valuable to public sector stewardship responsibilities than to private sector
shareholder expectations. And, as democratic nations throughout the world reassess
and reaffirm public sector roles and responsibilities, they must encourage a public
sector cadre which will lead these policy and administrative changes.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was enacted into law as a measure of
administrative reform of the federal civil service. A key component of this legislation
was the creation of a Senior Executive Service (SES) established to:
...provide the flexibility needed by agencies to recruit and retain
the highly competent and qualified executives needed to provide
more effective management of agencies and their functions, and
the more expeditious administration of the public business/
Individuals selected into these positions are expected to possess certain core
competencies and experiences that, in large measure, reflect both vertical and
horizontal career paths, responsibilities and assignments.4 In fact, one of the espoused
principles of successful development of this executive cadre is that of mobility/
Mobility was seen as a way to further executive development as well as to meet
government and agency critical staffing needs.
In his testimony on the Civil Service Reform Act before the House Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, the then chairman of the Civil Service Commission,
3 Public Law, 95-454, Title IV, 1978.
4 Ibid, section 3396.
5 Ibid.
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Alan Campbell, (who would later become the first Director of the Office of Personnel
Management) noted that the traditional fragmented approach to career building, in
which an administrator spends his or her entire career within one agency, "deprives
both the government and the employee of the rich benefits in competence and
understanding which accrue from experience gained in a variety of agencies and
programs."6 The SES, he maintained, would place a "strong emphasis" on executive
mobility and development.7
SES Mobility Studies
Since the inception of the SES in 1979, this "strong emphasis" on executive
mobility and development envisioned by Director Campbell has come under scrutiny
from various groups at various times.
In 1983, the Grace Commission criticized the "failure or inability" of agency
heads to reassign senior executives for reasons of either a staffing or development
need. It further found "...difficulty of convincing executives to accept positions of
greater responsibility that may involve moving to a different part of the country, and
incurring expenses that are generally necessary in such a move..."8
6 Alan K. Campbell, "Testimony on Civil Service Reform and Organization (Testimony
before the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of
Representatives, March 14,1978)." Reprinted in Frank J. Thompson, ed.,
Classics of Public Personnel Policy. 2nd ed. (Oak Park, 111 .: Moore Publishing
Co., 1991), 95.
7 Ibid.
8 President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control. "War on Waste," 1984,242.
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In 1986, the General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study of federal
agencies which had established mandatory rotation programs for members of the SES.
These rotation programs required senior executives who served in a position for a
certain period of time to transfer to another assignment as a means o f providing agency
heads with a mechanism to optimize executive talents.9 However, in its findings, the
GAO cited two primary reasons for not having a formal rotation program: an
insufficient number of SES members; and that SES staffs were too specialized to be
rotated.1 0 In fact, this report only covered four agencies. The remaining 59 agencies
surveyed had not established a mandatory rotation program.
In 1990, a study conducted by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
was critical of agencies for utilizing intra-agency reassignments rather than inter
agency transfers." The study also found that some agencies were apparently reluctant
to reassign SES members to further the goals of executive development.
In 1992, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) weighed in
with its own recommendations on how best to facilitate mobility. In one of its
recommendations, NAPA indicated that the structural composition of the SES should
9 U.S. General Accounting Office. "Senior Executive Service: Agencies with an SES
Rotation Program." GAO/GGD-87-22FS, December 1986.
1 0 Ibid, 4.
" U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. "Senior Executive Service Pay Setting and
Reassignments: Expectations vs. Reality." 1990; 12-13.
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
be reviewed to determine which occupations are most appropriate for development or
mobility assignments.1 2
In 1993, the National Performance Review (NPR)--also known as the National
Partnership for Reinventing Government— recommended that voluntary mobility
within and between agencies be encouraged to provide executives an opportunity to
broaden their skills and perspectives and to provide agencies a mechanism to optimize
executive talent. However, it also added a caveat that mobility may not be appropriate
for all executives.1 3
In general, each of these studies focused on an aspect of SES rotation,
development, or learning that agencies were utilizing at the time of the study. In large
measure they represent snap shots— and close-ups, at best. In addition, they are fairly
uniform in their criticism of the lack of mobility of incumbent SES members. The
primary focus in each of these snap-shots is on the frequency, or lack thereof, of
mobility experiences of incumbent executives from their date of appointment into the
SES.
1 2 The National Academy o f Public Administration. "Paths to Leadership: Executive
Succession Planning in the Federal Government." 1992: 51-56.
1 3 National Performance Review. "HRM 11: Strengthen the Senior Executive Service
So That It Becomes a Key Element in the Government-wide Culture Change
Effort," 1993; also see www.NPR.GOV...executives+voIuntary+mobility.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
However, another study conducted in July 1986 found that while the majority
of the 50 agencies studied had formal or in-place SES candidate development
programs, the overwhelming number of appointments to the SES did not come from
individuals who had been members of the formal SES development programs.1 4
Although this study generated somewhat of a firestorm, there was one
observation/recommendation that apparently fell on deaf ears during the resulting
arguments between the executive and congressional camps:
Few private companies operate a formal program like CDP. Instead, the
private sector emphasizes a long-term career development process to
prepare those with high potential as replacements for incumbent executives.
Such development begins with identifying these individuals early in their
careers...then, development is provided throughout the individuals'
careers...1 5
This observation seems to capture the general criticism that could be leveled at
the other studies that address the mobility question. None of these studies address
patterns of mobility assignment experiences that may have existed prior to either SES
appointment or formal candidate development program. This distinction is important.
Prior research provides support for this distinction; and the distinction will help frame
the hypotheses and research methodology of this study.
1 4 General Accounting Office. "Senior Executive Service: Agencies' Use of the
Candidate Development Program"; GAO/GGD 86-93. Washington, D.C.
July 1986.
1 5 Ibid, 3.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tvnes of Mobility
While the original thrust of SES mobility focused on the mobility of executives
between government agencies to meet critical staffing-related needs, the principle of
mobility has developed a fairly broad definition over time. Emphasizing the
developmental value of mobility assignment experiences, the Office of Personnel
Management now characterizes four types of mobility assignment experiences for SES
members.1 6 These include: 1) Intergovernmental Personnel Act assignments;
2) temporary or permanent inter or intra-agency reassignments from one geographic
location to another; 3) inter or intra-agency assignment to a difference functional area
of responsibility; or 4) sabbaticals. Table 1 describes these types of mobility
assignments/experiences, and provides examples as appropriate. For purposes of this
study, the operational definition of mobility assignments or experiences— or any
patterns of these assignments or experiences— will be limited to those assignments or
experiences that are consistent with the categories described in Table 1. However, the
depiction of these mobility assignments or experiences as presented in Table 1 should
not be considered to be normative or hierarchical.
1 6 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. "Senior Executive Service Mobility" OPM
SES Bulletin 94-09. September 1994.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Type of
Assignment Experience
Temporary Job Change
Permanent Job Change
Intergovernmental
Personnel Act (IPA)
Assignments
Sabbatical
TYPES OF SES MOBILITY
Table 1
Description
Moving from one SES position to
another for approximately 4-12
months.
Accepting a permanent position in another
federal agency, or in a different bureau,
administration or other major component o f
the current agency.
IPA assignments enable federal executors
to work in state, local, and Indian tribal
governments, domestic colleges,
universities and certain non-profit
organizations. Assignments can be
intermittent, part-time, or full-time
up to four years in duration.
A 3-11 month assignment in which
executives temporarily work outside
the Federal Government to broaden
professional skills.
Example
Move to a different function (e.g. chief financial
officer to personnel director); move to a similar
function at another agency; move front HQ to Field
or vice versa.
Permanently reassigned from DOD to DOE; from
FAA to Coast Guard; from Commerce to Interior.
HUD IPA to a state housing agency; Department
o f Labor IPA to non-profit jo b training
organization.
Teaching, study, or research at a University; study
or research in a "think tank"; work with private
sector, foreign government.
Qualifications and Competencies of SES Members
Individuals appointed to the SES must demonstrate that they are
"...visionary leaders with a strong commitment to public service. They must be
able to apply 'people skills' to motivate their employees, build partnerships, and
communicate with customers. Finally, they need solid management skills in order
to produce optimum results with limited resources."1 7 To determine whether a
candidate possesses these essential qualifications, the Office of Personnel
Management establishes, reviews, and periodically revises the leadership skills
criteria. The law requires that the executive qualifications of each new career
appointee to the Senior Executive Service be certified by an independent
Qualifications Review Board based on criteria established by OPM.
The Office o f Personnel Management has identified five fundamental
executive qualifications, called ECQ's (Executive Core Qualifications):
Leading Change
Leading People
Results Driven
Business Acumen
Building Coalitions/Communication.
These ECQ's were designed to assess executive experience and potential— not technical
experience; they measure whether an individual has the broad executive leadership
skills needed in a variety of SES positions.1 8 The operating definitions of these ECQ's
1 7 U.S. Office o f Personnel Management, "Executive Core Qualifications."
http://www.OPM.gov/SES/html/ecq4.
1 8 Ibid.
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are found in Appendix A. In addition, OPM has identified 27 Leadership
Competencies (Appendix B). These are the personal and professional attributes that
are critical to successful performance in the SES. It is OPM's contention that
experience and training that strengthen these Leadership Competencies will enhance
the overall capability and performance of the SES.1 9
SES Effectiveness Recognition
There are a number of mechanisms by which career members of the Senior
Executive Service can be recognized for effective performance. For example, each
agency may choose to recognize individual accomplishments for outstanding
performance of its executive cadre via honorary awards and recognition. In addition,
each agency may choose to recognize executive performance and effectiveness via
award mechanisms that also include monetary components. Specifically there are
three monetary-related award mechanisms available to recognize particularly effective
SES performance accomplishments. These mechanisms are Presidential Rank
Awards, SES Performance Awards (bonuses), and SES Pay Level Adjustments.
Presidential Rank Awards
A specific provision of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 is the
establishment of a Presidential Rank Awards Program which serves to recognize
sustained outstanding performance by career SES members.2 0 In brief. Presidential
1 9 Ibid.
2 0 Public Law 95-454, Title IV, 1978: Section 4507.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rank Awards highlight and reward long-time exceptional performance and
achievements by career SES members. Executives from across Government are
nominated by their agency heads, evaluated by citizen panels, and, receive citations
and recognition by the President.
There are two categories of Presidential Rank Awards. The Distinguished
Executive award is given for leaders who achieve extraordinary results over a long
period of time. Annually, not more than one percent of all career SES members may
earn this award. Distinguished Executives receive a lump sum payment of 35 percent
of their base pay, a gold pin, and a framed certificate signed by the President. The
Meritorious Executive Award is given for long-term accomplishments. Annually, not
more than five percent of career SES workforce may receive the award; this
recognition includes a lump sum of 20 percent o f the executive's base pay, a silver pin,
and a framed certificate signed by the President. The percentage of career SES
members who may receive each award is based on the total government-wide career
SES population each fiscal year.
In general, rank awards are reserved for executives whose achievements and
accomplishments (effectiveness) have been consistently outstanding and valued
throughout the nominating agency or on a national or international level. Each agency
is limited to a total number of SES rank award nominations (<10%); with a 1:5 ratio
limit of Distinguished to Meritorious nominees. Appendix C reflects the evaluation
criteria upon which nominees are evaluated and ranked. Again, the executive core
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
competencies (ECQ's) that form the basis of SES qualifications, remain the consistent
yardstick against which rank award nominee career achievements are evaluated.
General eligibility criteria for Presidential Rank Awards include being a
member of the career SES with at least three years of federal service at the SES level.
A Distinguished Executive or Meritorious Executive cannot receive the same award
again in a five-year period; although an executive may receive one award and then
another at a closer interval.2 1
Presidential rank recognition will be part of the research data collected in this
study.
SES Performance Awards
SES Performance Awards, also known as SES "bonuses," may be given only to
career members of the SES. These are annual awards determined by the head of the
agency and are intended to recognize performance effectiveness during the previous
appraisal period.2 2 While there is no statutory or regulatory limit to the number of SES
Performance Awards any one SES member may receive, there is a range between 5%
and 20% of basic pay that an executive may receive; and an agency annual limit of
10% of the aggregate base pay o f all career SES members.2 3 However, unlike
Presidential Rank Awards, there is no waiting period regarding eligibility for SES
2 1 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. "Guidance for the FY2000 Presidential
Rank Awards Program." http://www.opm.gov/SES/html/Instruct.htm.
2 2 The Office of Personnel Management, "Senior Executive Service:
Performance Management," http://www.opm.gov/SES/appraise.html.
2 3 Ibid.
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Performance Awards. SES Performance Award data will be part of the survey data to
be collected.
SES Pay Level Adjustments
Compensation is another factor that sets the Senior Executive Service apart
from other federal career civil service positions. Career employees who occupy other
than SES positions, receive compensation that is based primarily on the scope and
complexity of the duties and responsibilities contained within the specific position to
which they are assigned. This principle is also known as one of "rank in the job." In
other words, the background, education, experience, and reputation of the individual
who occupies the position is--in large measure-inconsequential for purposes of pay;
i.e., the compensation is dictated by the relative "value" of the position's aggregate
duties and responsibilities ("the position description").
However, individuals appointed to career SES positions have their pay set at
one of six pay levels.2 4 The basic pay for each level is consistent throughout the SES;
for example, an ES-5 in one agency will receive the exact same basic compensation as
an ES-5 in another agency. A local cost-of-living factor, however, may result in
slightly different final compensation rates across geographic regions. While the
statutory pay levels of the SES are determined annually by Presidential and
Congressional action, the maximum compensation (base salary plus bonus/rank
award) for any SES employee has a statutory limitation. The key difference is that
2 4 Public Law 95-454, Title IV, 1978: subchapter VIII.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SES pay levels are determined by the SES employee's agency— with pay levels
determined by the perceived value, contribution, and level of expertise that the
employee "brings to the service." In other words, SES compensation is based on the
principle of "rank in the person"; a principle that places less value in the construction
of performed duties and responsibilities and more value in the demonstrated skill-set
of competencies and performance accomplishments of the individual employee.
Rank-based corps in the federal bureaucracy are limited to the Foreign Service, the
military services, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Public Health Service, the
Environmental Service, and, to a more limited extent, the SES.2 5
The rank-in-the-person construct is a less rigid system than the rank-in-the-
position system. As such, it provides the flexibility envisioned by the original SES
legislation. This flexibility was believed critical to support and encourage SES
mobility. However, unlike their counterparts in the other federal "corps", SES
membership does not require or mandate periodic or scheduled mobility assignments
as a prerequisite for career promotion. This is a significant distinction among the
rank-in-the-person corps-type systems; and it is a factor in the framing of this research
study.
Employee performance, background, experiences, and current level of
responsibility are ail factors that agencies might use to set the initial pay level or to
adjust this level for each member of the SES. Pay level adjustments cannot occur
2 5 Mark Huddleston and William Boyer. The Higher Civil Service in the United
States. University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996:25-26.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
more frequently than annually. However, SES pay levels may be adjusted up or down
at the end of each pay adjustment cycle. Current SES pay level identification will be
part of the research survey data collected for this study.
SES Development
While the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 paid significant attention to the
structure, composition, pay, performance, and recognition of this civilian executive
leadership corps, it provided little in the way of prescriptive requirements as to the
acquisition or development of the executive core qualifications or competencies.
Although mobility was to be valued and encouraged by members of the SES, the act is
silent on either incentives or repercussions as to the demonstration of mobility-specific
experiences or assignments. The "systematic development" of candidates for the SES
and for the continuing development of senior executives became the responsibility of
each federal agency; with oversight provided by the Office of Personnel
Management.2 6
In essence, the individual federal agencies were, by law, responsible for the
preparation and continued development of this executive cadre. The voluntary nature
of mobility assignments for those in the SES allow each agency to use or encourage
mobility assignment experiences as they see fit. And here lies the conundrum: all
members of the SES have the same qualifications and competency requirements; yet
each may achieve and sustain those competencies by whatever means they and their
2 6 Public Law 95-454, Title IV, 1978: section 3396.
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizations choose. This is certainly true for the civilian research and development
community of agencies. The research interest is thus in the evolution of any “patterns”
of mobility assignment experiences that may exist between and among the SES
members within this community.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 sets the background and purpose of this research study; as well as
providing the context by which current public policy guides the development and
recognition of career executives in the federal civilian service.
Chapter 2 explores the experiential literature regarding executive development:
with particular emphasis on research supporting the relationship between mobility
assignment experiences and executive effectiveness. Chapter 2 focuses on the
following research-directed questions. “What is known about mobility assignment
experiences as an enabler of executive qualifications and competencies”? “If
executives can be developed, and effective leaders can acquire and nurture particular
leadership competencies, what role do mobility assignment experiences play in this
development”? “In any given organization, do the recognized highly effective leaders
evidence specific mobility assignment experience patterns”? Exploration of the
research literature leads to this study’s research hypotheses to determine whether a
direct relationship exists between mobility assignment experiences and the
effectiveness of career senior executives within the federal research and development
community.
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 3 outlines the research design and methodology of this study. The
scope of this study includes the career, civilian executive employees of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). This chapter
includes operational definitions of the dependent and independent variables, as well as
the description of the “Mobility Assignment Experience Survey Instrument” developed
and implemented as the means of data collection for the prescribed eligible survey
population (n = 714).
Chapter 4 presents and analyzes the data collected using the Mobility
Assignment Experience Survey Instrument to analyze the key data elements bearing on
the relationship between the independent and dependent research variables.
Chapter S presents the research study findings and conclusions. It provides
highlights of the research's strength and weaknesses related to the research hypotheses.
This chapter concludes with a summary of the inferences that may be drawn from the
research data, and the affect that the study’s results may have on potential public
policy questions - as well as suggested directions and emphasis for future research in
this area.
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND
MOBILITY IN THE LITERATURE
The examination of executive development begins with assumptions about the
nature of human—and especially adult—development...
Some executives we have worked with maintain that leadership is not
something that can be trained or developed. You have it or you don't.
Other executives act as if any clay can be pounded or formed into an
effective manager. The ultimate in egalitarianism, their assumption
is that all o f us are potential leaders if only the proper education or
experience could be found to release those abilities.2 7
While the research can never be definitive, sufficient evidence exists to
conclude that neither explanation is adequate.2 8 Even when it comes to managerial
and executive effectiveness, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive list of all
potentially relevant characteristics. John Kotter. in his study of corporate general
managers, concluded that the general managers he studied had some background
experiences in common; and this in turn resulted in common characteristics such as
optimism, emotional stability, and desire for achievement and power.2 9 Yet, while
2 7 Morgan McCall, Michael Lombardo, and Ann Morrison. The Lessons of
Experience. Lexington Books: Massachusetts, 1988:2.
2 8 Tom Bouchard found, in his research on twins reared apart, that sixty-one percent
of leadership was genetically determined. See "All About Twins," Newsweek,
November 23, 1987: 69; also B.S. Bloom, "Generalizations About Talent
Development," in Developing Talent in Young People, ed. B.S. Bloom, New
York: Ballentine, 1985: 507-549.
2 9 John Kotter. The General Managers. New York: Tree Press, 1982.
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kotter's research marked somewhat of a watershed in the "experiential" research
regarding leadership and executive development, it failed to focus on the job-specific
experiences of successful executives.
Leadership has probably been written about, formally researched, and
informally discussed more than any other single topic.3 0 Leadership has been defined
in terms o f influence, group processes, compliance, interaction, role differentiation,
initiation of structure, and combinations of two or more of these.3 1 Numerous research
studies have been devoted to predicting executive effectiveness by measuring
personality traits, cognitive abilities, and background experiences.3 2 Even the most
sophisticated and expensive assessment technique, the assessment center, usually
accounts for only ten to 20 percent of the variability in executive and management
promotion rates.3 3 More importantly, a good deal of research involving performance
of executives—or more specifically the predictability of that performance— can best be
summed up by McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison in their research regarding executive
job experiences:
3 0 F. Luthans. Organization Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995: 341.
3 1 B.M. Bass. Bass and Stogdill's Handbook on Leadership. New York: Free Press,
1990.
3 2 Ibid. Also J.P. Campbell and M.D. Dunnette. Managerial Behavior. Performance, and
Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
3 3 R. Klimonski and M. Brickner. "Why Do Assessment Centers Work? The Puzzle
o f Assessment Center Validity," Personnel Psychology 40, 1987:243-260.
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Whatever genetic endowment, whatever home life, however good
the education, a future executive does not walk into a corporation
knowing how to sell steam turbine engines to the Chinese.3 4
Thus, for purposes of this research, when we refer to leadership in an
organizational context, we refer to those individuals who occupy executive positions
in organizations. Although, as we readily admit, all people who emerge as candidates
for executive positions in organizations (be they private, public, non-profit, etc.)
possess a broad range of personal attributes (e.g. social and ethnic background,
education, cognitive ability, etc.), this research study will be anchored in the research
that attempts to understand what happens to them on the job. And, while members of
the SES may not ever have to know "how to sell turbine engines to the Chinese,"
knowledge of contractual issues, ability to work with political appointees, learning to
lead people who were once peers, negotiating with foreign governments, developing
sound public policy options— these and many others are lessons learned from
experience.
The early work of Mintzberg illustrated the inaccuracy of some popular beliefs
about the work of leaders and managers.3 5 This empirical/observation research
attempted to capture activities, tasks, and roles of leaders and managers. Mintzberg’s
criticism of the literature prior to the early I970’s was its tendency to focus on one
14
McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison. Op. cit, 3.
3 5 H. Mintzberg. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper and Row,
1972.
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aspect of the manager’s job to the exclusion of all others.5 6 The significance of his
research was its focus on the comprehensive nature of managerial work. The results of
his study suggested general categories of skills on which managers and leaders should
focus their attention.5 1 Mintzberg’s research and summary findings attempted to
establish an early link between a comprehensive set of skills needed by leaders and
executives and the concept of leadership and executive effectiveness. The criticism of
this research, however, is not Mintzberg’s methodology—but his research sample size.
The research data was collected by structured observation—but only of a total of five
CEO’s. Therefore, the resulting skill sets suggested by Mintzberg can certainly be
questioned. The significance of the research proposition, however, was not lost on
other scholars.
Boyatzis also utilized empirical/observation research to try to determine which
characteristics of managers were related to effective performance in a variety of jobs in
a variety of organizations.5 " Boyatzis’ research attempted to link the concepts of
competence and job performance. The strength of Boyatzis’ study—as well as its
relevance to the present research study—was its breadth. The study involved data
from 12 organizations and more than 2,000 people in 41 management jobs.5 1 ’ The
5 6 Ibid, p. 8.
5 1 Ibid, pp. 177-192.
5 *R. Boyatzis. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance.
New York: Wiley, 1982.
5 9 Ibid, p. 40.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizations studied included public and private sector entities. While the results
supported the concept of “competency clusters” exhibited by managers across
organizations, the predictability of job performance was inhibited by the normative
aspect of job performance as interpreted by the various organization environments.4 0
Once again, the value to the research at hand is one of support for the variable of
leadership effectiveness as measured by an established and consistent set of leadership
competencies—consistent across organizational lines.
Luthans, Rosenkrantz, and Hennessey examined the question “what do
successful managers really do?”4 1 This research made no a priori assumptions about
what managers do or should do to be successful. The research conducted was an
attempt to determine if successful managers actually behaved differently than less
successful managers. Success in this study was measured by an established promotion
index model. Their research methodology was also one of structured observation.
The results of this study demonstrated support for a positive relationship between
observable behaviors of “successful” executives.4 2 However, upon closer scrutiny of
the results, one might question the generalizeability of the study’s findings. The
executives and managers included in the study were drawn from three completely
4 0 Ibid, pp. 229-260.
41F. Luthans, S. Rosenkrantz, and H. Hennessey. “What Successful Managers
Really Do.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. August 1985:255-270.
4 2 Ibid, pp. 268-269.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
different types of organizations whose criteria for promotion appeared to vary
considerably. In addition, because o f the nature of work within each of the
organizations, the relative levels of responsibilities of each executive or manager may
not have been comparable. Although the study observed a much larger sample than in
the research cited by Mintzberg,4 3 it fell substantially short of Boyatzis’ sample size.4 4
Luthans, Rosenkrantz, and Hennessey did recognize the limitations o f the
observational methodology:
... it (observational methodology) is not a panacea and does not eliminate
all the problems of the commonly recognized reactivity, reliability, and
validity issues associated with the more traditional and frequently used
questionnaire and interview methods of gathering data...4 5
This observation will have a bearing on the research methodology of this study. And,
the observable findings also point to the value of constructing a research variable
whose operational definition more effectively controls for the concept of "success.”
Related research by Whetten and Cameron led to proposed models for both
personal and interpersonal executive leadership skills.4 6 The resulting models
proposed by Whetten and Cameron identified seven key executive skills and IS
supporting skill activities. The relevance of these models to the current study is that
4 3 H. Mintzberg, op. cit.
4 4 R. Boyatzis, op. cit.
4 5 F. Luthans, S. Rosenkrantz, and H. Hennessey, op. cit., p. 269.
4 6 D.A. Whetten and K.S. Cameron. Developing Management Skills. New York:
Harper Collins, 1991.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they address the aspect of how executive competencies and skills might be acquired.
While the thrust of Whetten and Cameron’s work was more cognitive than
experiential, its contribution is in the effort to focus on executive skill development
methodology. Their research, in essence, built upon prior studies which identified
apparent common skill and competency sets of “successful” executives. The proposed
models attempted to identify a framework for how such skills should be developed.
Redmund and Mumford, as well as Hart and Quinn, attempted to identify and
clarify previous research regarding roles and activities of successful leaders.4 7 Hart
and Quinn’s research focused on the activities of CEO’s and the relative success of the
organization. And, while that research attempted to control for the subjectivity bias of
the variable of “executive success,” it did not control for extraneous factors or
variables related to “firm effectiveness.” Redmund and Mumford analyzed leadership
behavior and activities from the perspective of impact (position or negative) on
subordinate or “follower” behavior. While they found certain attributes and skills to
be consistent among executives whose subordinates were most creative, the potential
variation in subordinate creativity levels, experience, or cognitive ability might argue
against the extrapolation of this methodology of measuring executive success.
4 7 R.M. Redmund and M.D. Mumford. “Putting Creativity to Work: Effects of
Leader Behavior on Subordinate Creativity.” Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes. June 1993: 120-151; and S.L. Hart and R.E.
Quinn. “Roles Executives Play: CEO’s, Behavioral Complexity, and Firm
Performance.” Human Relations. May 1993, 543-575.
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In essence, “executive success” is demonstrated to be quite contextual.
Although the research cited identifies a number of proposed executive
skill/competency models for which the various studies provide supportive evidence,
there is little that is prescriptive as to the acquisition or development of these skills and
competencies.
The literature does support a theoretical framework for executive development,
and the prescribed set of executive core qualifications and competencies identified in
Appendices A and B are consistent with the executive development literature. But
what is known about mobility assignment experiences as an enabler of these
qualifications and competencies? If managers and executives can be developed, and
effective leaders can acquire and nurture particular leadership competencies, what role
do mobility assignment experiences play in this development? In any given
organization, do the recognized highly effective leaders evidence specific mobility
assignment experiences? We need to review an additional path of research that begins
to more specifically frame the search for the answers to these questions.
Executive Development and
Mobility Assignment Experiences
John Kotter concluded that it takes ten to twenty years to "grow" a general
manager.4 8 In his later research, he cites findings that companies with the best
reputations for good management made extensive use of job challenge to develop their
4 8 J. Kotter. "What Do Effective General Managers Really Do?" Harvard Business
Review. November/December 1982:156-67.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
talent.4 9 Kotter also concluded that the firms he studied, all with reputations for
having superior management, were doing a better job of attracting, developing,
retaining, and motivating their leadership talent. They met developmental needs by
"adding responsibilities to jobs, creating special assignments, using inside and outside
training, mentoring and coaching employees, and giving feedback on development
progress."5 0
It is one thing to document the idea that job challenge in its various forms is
important, but it seems quite another to demonstrate evidence of where the skills to
handle challenges are learned or what learning results from different challenges. Until
the research by Kotter, studies that explain how successful managers gained specific
critical experience were quite limited. McCauley found "no systematic body
of research focused on what experiences or events may be important in executive
success."5 1 However, increased research activities, triggered by Kotter's work, focused
on the lessons of experience in executive development.
An intriguing study by McCall and Lombardo analyzed the most "frequent
flaws” of what was determined “derailed” executives.5 2 In their study, McCall and
4 9 J. Kotter. The Leadership Factor. New York: Free Press, 1988.
5 0 Ibid, 81-82.
5 1 C.D. McCauley. Developmental Experiences in Managerial Work: A Literature
Review. Technical Report No. 26. Greensboro: Center For Creative
Leadership, 1986: 2.
5 2 M.M. McCall and M.M. Lombardo. “What Makes a Top Executive?” Psychology
Today. No. 26, 1983:28-31.
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lombardo compared 20 derailed executives—successful people who were expected to
go even higher in the organization but who reached a plateau late in their careers, were
fired, or were forced to retire early—with 20 “arrivers”—those who made it all the
way to the top. The results of this study indicated that the two groups were
astonishingly similar as to their strengths and weaknesses. However. McCall and
Lombardo demonstrated that several differences in interpersonal skills and how the
two groups dealt with adversity differentiated the “arrivers” from the “derailed.” And.
importantly for the present study, derailed executives had a greater frequency of
success in similar kinds of situations; whereas arrivers had a greater diversity to their
successes.
McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison attempted to differentiate the types of
experiences identified by successful executives.5 3 Their study was concerned with the
relationship between challenge and learning and focused on the career experiences and
success of executives. Their research included data from four separate studies,
encompassing 191 successful executives from six major private sector corporations.
All of the subjects were considered by key members o f their corporations to be "high
potentials" who were considered "successful" in their careers and most likely to
continue being successful. Their findings show a positive relationship between
mastering challenging assignments and later management success. Another
conclusion, which appeared supported by the study, was that the "development" of
5 3 M.M. McCall, M.M. Lombardo, and A.M. Morrison. The Lessons of Experience:
How Successful Executives Develop on the Job. New York: Free Press, 1988.
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effective managers and executives depends not just on raw talent, but also on the
experiences one has and what one does with them; specifically that not all experiences
are created equal.3 4 The research also suggested evidence that some experiences were
more developmentally significant than others, and that the type and timing o f learning
experiences were potentially career-changing for some executives. O f particular
relevance to the research at hand are McCall, Lombardo, and Morrison's findings
regarding the experiences, cited by executives, that occurred early in their careers—
prior to their assuming executive responsibilities. However, it's one thing to document
that job challenge in its various forms is important; it's quite another to find evidence
of where the skills to handle challenge are learned.
McCall attempts to merge the streams of research on how successful
executives leam their trade with that explaining why talented people sometime
derail.5 5 The model of executive development that he offers addresses "core
challenges" and "powerful experiences." For McCall, experience drives development;
it is even more critical to success than the talent that executives bring to the job.5 6 Of
specific relevance to this study is McCall's categorization of job assignments that were
identified as having unique developmental possibilities. He terms them "significant
5 4 Ibid, p. 5.
5 5 M.M. McCall. High Fivers: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders.
Boston: Howard Business School Press, 1998.
5 6 Ibid, p. 65.
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
developmental experiences.'07 These categorical job assignments are identified and
briefly described as follows:5 8
Early Work: The potential developmental importance of early (pre-
supervisory) work experiences underscores the reality that executive
development begins long before a person reaches an executive level.
First Supervision: The transition from individual contributor to effective
manager of others: can be achieved in a team leader, first level supervisor, or
manager.
Turnarounds: Taking on a line leadership assignment to fix an organization
besieged with difficulties.
Changes in Scope: Taking on assignments that reflect a variety of executive
demands that expand perspective and require integration of perspective; not
simply doing more of the same.
Special Projects and Task Force Assignments: Assignments that provide
opportunities to learn about products, processes, functions, new technologies
that can provide as much development as permanent reassignment.
Staff Jobs: Assignments designed to provide experience across a strategic
perspective within an organization beyond day-to-day tactical concerns.
5 7 Ibid.
58
Ibid, pp. 65-72.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
While McCall does not disregard the significance of critical skill development
to executive effectiveness, his research suggests that executives who have “arrived”
exhibit certain patterns of experiences. His findings indicated that the most effective
executives demonstrate experiential patterns in their career assignments. And,
together with the research studies by Lombardo, McCauley, Morrison, et al—as cited
above—there is evidence to encourage additional research regarding aspects of
experiential assignments such as variety, diversity, timing, frequency, etc.
Davies and Easterby-Smith sought to compare the developmental value of on-
the-job experiences with the value to executives of classroom training programs.3 9
The results of his research lends support to a positive relationship between experiential
learning and managerial effectiveness. Still other research supports the relationship
between on-the-job learning experiences and executive effectiveness. Support for the
importance of challenge as a key component of development for executives is found in
the results of the AT&T studies. In a noted longitudinal study, Bray, Campbell, and
Grant’s results support the relationship between job challenge experiences and
managerial progress.6 0 In fact, the researchers found that low potential individuals
with challenging early assignments progressed almost as well as high potentials who
5 9 J. Davies and M. Easterby-Smith. Learning and developing from managerial
work experiences. Journal of Management Studies. 21: 169-183.
6 0 D.W. Bray, R.J. Campbell, and D.L. Grant. “Formative Years in Business:
A long-term AT&T study of managerial lines.” New York: John Wiley
And Sons, 1974.
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
had been assigned to low challenge jobs (potential was assessed using an assessment
center methodology).
Later research by Blunt and Clark—utilizing the key events technique
developed by McCall et al.—found that high progress managers differed from low
progress managers in their reported number of developmental events experienced; with
further indications that high progress managers experienced events at a younger age
and at a higher management level.6 1 Blunt and Clark researched “benchmark” private
and public sector organizations to determine the most common practices regarding
leadership and executive development.6 2 Within each of the four organizations
surveyed, executive promotion criteria included required experience in varied
positions and contexts deemed critical to leader development. Each surveyed
organization provided for rotational assignment of high potential candidates across
functions, organizational elements, and geographic regions.
However, a weakness of the research by Blunt and Clark—and to some extent
that of McCall—is one of generalizeability. In the research by Blunt and Clark, the
findings and common practices were drawn from a sample of three private sector and
one public sector “benchmark” organizations; and the determination as to the critical
factors indicative of executive effectiveness were drawn from the design of the
executive development programs. The survey instrument was completed by
6 1 R. Blunt and H. Clark. “Growing Public Service Leaders.” The Public Manager.
Summer 1997:41-45.
“ Ibid.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
representatives of the organizations who responded. And, although McCall developed
his proposed model from surveys conducted with executives—the interviewees were
classified as “successful” by the nature and function of the executive positions they
occupied in their organizations. Therefore the criteria that determined success or
effectiveness was a variable in itself. These observations are not offered as a criticism
of the research conducted by McCall, Blunt, and Clark; or for that matter Lombardo,
McCauley, Morrison, et al. What is suggested is for a research design methodology
that helps to minimize the subjectivity or contextual nature of the concept of executive
“success”; and, at the same time, measures the various aspects o f developmental
assignment experiences that are evidenced by these “successful” executives.
What appears to be lacking in the literature to date is an effort to identify
distinctions or gradations of executive success. If such a distinction or gradation were
quantifiable, it would then enable and encourage research regarding experiential
activities o f executives across organizational lines. In other words, if there were a
means to evaluate or assess executives utilizing a common set of performance-related
recognition criteria, the generalizeability of any research results would be enhanced.
This research study will attempt to develop a means to achieve such a distinction.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Summary and Hypotheses
From the discussion and review of the literature, the theory and practice of
leadership and executive development establishes, at minimum, a contextual basis for
the establishment of executive competencies against which individuals are measured
and evaluated for both qualifications and performance. The literature also indicates
support for a positive correlation between types of experiences and executive
"success.” In other words, in an organizational setting, successful executives will
most likely share a certain set of experiences in order to enhance specific skills and
competencies recognized as essential for executive success by their organization.
Furthermore, the current knowledge and resulting evidence in the experiential
stream of executive development research indicates that high-performing executives
demonstrate patterns of experience that are critical to their development. However,
the limitation on the development of models—such as those offered by McCall, Blunt,
and Clark, et al.—stems from the generalizeability of the research conducted to date.
While research studies that include public sector executive "success” is scarce, to this
researcher the more critical barrier to the generalizeability of model development
remains that of the contextual nature of the variable executive "success.” One means
of enhancing the generalizeability of the variable executive success is to provide a
more comparative and objective dimension to its measurement. In Chapter I, three
primary means of Senior Executive Service recognition are described: Executive Pay
Level; Bonus Awards; and, Presidential Rank Awards. While the first two categories
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are determined by a process within the organization (agency) to which an SES member
is assigned, the Presidential Rank Award process is external to the organization
(agency)—and thus provides a comparative or somewhat more objective dimension
regarding executive recognition. Therefore, for purposes of this research, we will
substitute the term “executive effectiveness” for that of “executive success” to
reinforce the intended enhancement of this variable.
Returning to the discussion of developmental experiences, the various research
studies and models cited indicate support for the premise that successful executives
often share a common set of assignment experiences. The literature cited also
indicates that certain aspects or dimensions of assignment experiences are present in
the career profiles of successful executives. These aspects include a range of
assignments in a variety of organizations over a lengthy career. For purposes of this
study, we will attempt to extend the premise that developmental experiences play a
positive role in the development of successful executives. This study will extend the
research by focusing on the mobility assignment experiences identified and described
in Figure I. The types o f mobility assignment experiences are believed to be
important to the development of successful federal executives. However, there exists
no research to date that brings evidence to bear on the effect of these specific
assignment experiences on career executive effectiveness.
In summary, this research study will address the premise that mobility
assignment experience, as operationalized, is directly related to career Senior
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Executive Service effectiveness. The dependent variable is operationally defined as
Senior Executive Service (SES) effectiveness. The independent variable is mobility
assignment experience. However, we will look at three dimensions of mobility
assignment experience: the type of mobility assignments experiences; the frequency
of mobility assignments experienced; and the timing of career mobility assignments
experienced. This study will test the hypothesized effect of these relationships as
follows:
Hi: The type of mobility assignments experienced is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness.
H2: The frequency of mobility assignments experienced is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness.
H3: The timing of mobility assignments experienced is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness.
The measures of type, frequency, and timing of mobility assignment
experiences are discussed and defined in Chapter 3.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This research study is designed to address the question whether a direct
relationship exists between mobility assignment experiences and the effectiveness of
career senior executives in a federal research and development organization. The
study will test for the type, frequency, and timing of mobility assignments experienced
by career executives.
Scope
The scope of the research study is the career, civilian SES employees of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Science Foundation. These agencies were selected
for inclusion in this study due to: ( 1) their civilian mission— non-militarv. research and
development, including non-directed, voluntary assignment and reassignment policies;
(2) the composition of the career workforce— relatively high percentages of employees
with engineering, scientific and technology-related education, training and
experiences; and, (3) their relatively large number of career SES positions. In
addition, each of these federal agencies came into existence prior to the establishment
of the Senior Executive Service; and each has a substantial history in the development,
selection, and recognition of its SES member cadre; and all three are independent
(non-departmental) federal agencies and have a very limited number o f “political
appointees” within their executive ranks.
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The total career civilian SES employee population of these agencies as of
September 30, 1999 was approximately 700 (n ~ 700). A brief background and
population profile of each subject agency is provided below...
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA1
The Environmental Protection Agency was established in the executive branch
as an independent agency on December 2, 1970. The EPA was created to permit
coordinated and effective governmental action on behalf of the environment. The
agency is designed to serve as the public's advocate for a livable environment. EPA's
mission is...
...to protect human health and safeguard the natural
environment—air, water, and land— upon which life depends to
the fullest extent possible under the laws enacted by Congress.6 3
The Environmental Protection Agency ended the 1999 fiscal year with an on
board civil service complement of 18,407; 246 of whom were career members of the
SES.
National Aeronautics and Spaee Administration (NASA)
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was established by the
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.6 4 NASA's principle mission is...
...to conduct research for the solution of problems of flight within
and outside the earth’ s atmosphere; and develops, constructs, tests,
and operates aeronautical and space vehicles. It conducts
activities required for the exploration of space with manned and
unmanned vehicles and arranges for the most effective utilization
6 3 U.S. Government Manual, 2000: 507.
6 4 Title 42, United States Code, section 2451 et. seq.
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States
with other nations engaged in aeronautical and space activities for
peaceful purposes.6 3
The total on-board civil service workforce at NASA on September 30. 1999 was
18,669. Of these, 361 employees were career SES members.
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation is an independent agency created by the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended.6 6 The primary mission of the
NSF is...
...to promote the progress of science and engineering through the support
of research and education programs. Its major emphasis is on high-quality,
merit-selected research— the search for improved understanding of the
fundamental laws of nature upon which our future well-being as a nation
depends. Its educational programs are aimed at ensuring increased
understanding of science and engineering at all educational levels,
maintaining an adequate supply of scientists, engineers, and science
educators to meet our country's needs.6 7
The on-board civil service strength at the National Science Foundation as of
September 30, 1999 was some 1,247 employees. Of these, 80 NSF employees held
career SES appointments. The NSF is clearly the smallest o f the federal agencies
included in this study; and has, by far, the fewest number of SES employees.
6 5 U.S. Government Manual, 2000: 585.
6 6 Title 42, United States Code, section 1861-1875.
6 7 U.S. Government Manual, 2000:619.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Definition of Variables
As identified in Chapter 2, this research will explore the thesis that mobility
assignment experiences are directly related to SES effectiveness. Specifically, that
the type, frequency, and timing of these mobility assignment experiences are directly
related to SES effectiveness.
Independent Variable
The term mobility assignment experiences, as operationalized for this study,
refers to the specific types of developmental assignments (as identified and discussed
in Chapter 1, Figure 1) experienced by career members of the Senior Executive
Service. Survey data will be collected regarding assignment experience history of
current career members of the SES in each of the three civilian research and
development agencies within the scope of this study.
Dimensions of the Independent Variable
There are three dimensions o f developmental assignment experiences. One
dimension is type, category or description of assignment experiences. Although there
are several research models that attempt to highlight or categorize assignment
experiences, for purposes o f this research study, we will adhere to the categorization of
assignment experiences found in the original SES enabling legislation. The types of
assignments are discussed in Chapter I and defined in Table I. However, in order to
capture the full scope of the aspects o f the mobility assignment experiences described
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in Table 1, the following experiential data will be solicited as part of the survey
design:
Type of Assignment Experience
Temporary Job Change
Permanent Job Change
Sabbatical
Specific Examples Included
- Pre-SES temporary inter-agency
assignment detail.
- Post-SES temporary inter-agency
assignment/detail.
- Pre-SES temporary intra-agency
assignment/detail.
- Post-SES temporary intra-agency
assignment/detail.
- Pre-SES temporary assignment/detail
to another functional skill.
- Post-SES temporary assignment/
detail to another functional skill.
- Temporary geographic relocation.
- Permanent position in more than
one federal agency pre-SES; post-SES.
- Permanent reassignment to a major
component of some agency pre-SES;
post-SES.
- Permanent reassignment to another
federal agency pre-SES; post-SES.
- Permanent geographic relocation,
pre-SES; post-SES.
- Formal SES sabbatical.
- Pre-SES “Break in Service.”
- Post-SES “Break in Service.”
A second dimension of developmental assignment experiences is that of
frequency, or more specifically, the total number of developmental assignments
experienced by executives during the course o f their careers.
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A third dimension is that of timing. For purposes of this study, we will
operationalize the dimension of timing as a developmental assignment experience
having occurred either prior to SES appointment or subsequent to SES appointment.
Accordingly, this study will collect data regarding each of these dimensions of
mobility assignment experiences.
Dependent Variable
For purposes of this research study, the dependent variable is defined as
"Senior Executive Service (SES) effectiveness." Operationalized, executive
effectiveness is measured in three ways: first, by the number of Presidential Rank
Awards received; secondly, by effectiveness recognition in the form of SES
Performance Awards (bonuses); and, lastly, by current SES Pay Level designation
(e.g. SES level I (lowest) 2, 3,4, 5, or 6 (highest)). Each of the forms of executive
recognition were described in Chapter 1 of this study. From this discussion we know
that Presidential Rank Award recognition requires an external review and approval
process that removes the ultimate granting of this form of recognition from the direct
control of the organization or agency to which the career executive is assigned. On the
other hand, final approval for both the granting of Performance Awards as well as the
designation of SES Pay Level remains the discretion of the agency to which the career
executive is assigned.
From the review of the literature in Chapter 2, one weakness cited from the
research of McCall, Blunt, and Clark, et. al. was the classification of “successful”
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
executives.6 8 The studies cited accepted the nature and function of the executive
position occupied as evidence of “executive effectiveness.” Using this approach, this
research study would be limited to defining “SES effectiveness” as the achievement or
attainment of the SES appointment itself.
Each of the three federal agencies included in this research survey appoint
individuals to career positions in the Senior Executive Service utilizing the
qualifications and competencies criteria identified in Appendices A and B. Each of
these agencies is authorized to determine the Executive Pay Level of their career
executives; and, to recognize their career executives for Bonus Awards. In addition,
each of these agencies is governed by the same criteria regarding nomination and
selection of their career executives for Presidential Rank Awards. Therefore, the
recognition mechanisms available to these organizations provide a common ground by
which gradations of recognition received by career executives can be extrapolated,
quantified, or measured—at least in relative terms. Thus this commonality of
recognition criteria presents an opportunity for comparison of relative executive
effectiveness not only between career executives in one organization (agency), but
more significantly, among career executives across organizations.
68
Op. Cit.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Dependent Variable: Executive Effectiveness
Table 2 reflects the summary profile of the total survey results—comparing
response data from executives whose tenure within the SES is at least three years, with
responses from executives who have less than three years SES service.
The three year rule is important, and has a direct bearing on this study’s
hypothesis testing. Specifically, career SES executives must have a minimum of three
years in the SES before they may even be considered for Presidential Rank Award
nomination. Failure to isolate this dimension would result in a skewing of data results.
However, isolating the dimension of years of SES service removes the data of the 122
respondents found within this category; thus reducing our research survey population
from 387 to 265. However, if subsequent statistical analysis were to include the total
survey response summary (« = 387), the inclusion o f those not eligible for a significant
form of recognition would be inappropriate—jeopardizing the validity of any resulting
inferences concerning the dependent and independent variables.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
(All responses it = 387)
Table 2
Career Executives > 3 Years SES (n = 265) Career Executives < 3 Years SES (n = 122)
Average Age: 54.7
Gender: 203 male (77% )
62 female (23% )
Average Years Federal Experience: 24,6
SES Pav Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 7 39 127 64 27
Education Level: H.S. A.A. BA/BS M A/M S LLB PhD or =
0 0 50 112 23 78
Rank Awards Received: D.E. M.E. D.E.& M.E. NONE
II 76 18 160
SES Performance
Awards Received: 0 1 2 3 4 5+
40 34 26 37 17 I I I
Education/Experience
Background: Engin. Science/M ed. Law Mumt/Admin.
103 48 31 21
Account/Fin. Other
13 49
Average Age: 49.0
Gender: 87 male (71% )
35 female (29% )
Average Years Federal Service: 20.0
SES Pay Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6
52 37 21 7 2 3
Education Level: H.S. A.A. BA/BS M A/M S LLB PhDor=
0 0 38 53 5 36
Rank Awards Received: (N/A; must have minimum o f 3 years
in SES to be eligible for rank awards.)
SES Performance
Awards R eceived:: 0 1 2 3 4 5+
101 15 6 0 0 0
Education/Experience
Background: Enuin. Science/M ed. Law Mgmt/Admin.
54 21 7 13
Account/Fin. Other
6 21
For purposes of this study, the relative frequency values for each form of
recognition are identified below:
Distribution from
Executive Pay Level Table 2 (n = 265)
6
5
4
3
2
1
Total
SES Bonus
Awards Received
5+
4
3
2
1
0
Total
Presidential Rank
Awards Received
Distinguished & Meritorious 18
Distinguished 11
Meritorious 76
None 160
Total 265
This research study will analyze the correlation between the dimensions of mobility
assignment type, timing, and frequency relative to each of the operationalized forms of
executive recognition (i.e.. Executive Pay Level, Bonus Awards, and Presidential
Rank Awards). For purposes of this study, these three “common” measures of
46
27
64
127
39
7
1
265
III
17
37
26
34
40
265
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
executive recognition, taken together, provide the analytical basis by which we will
measure the dependent variable and its relationship to the independent variable.
Research Methodology
Data regarding the research variables was solicited via a research
questionnaire. A "Mobility Assignment Experience Survey Instrument” (MAESI)
was developed and distributed to each career member of the Senior Executive Service
assigned to the three federal civilian research and development agencies included in
the scope of the study.
Appendix D is a sample of the survey instrument cover letter. The researcher
worked closely with representatives of the human resources/executive resources staffs
in each of the three participating agencies. Coordination procedures and distribution
of the survey instrument varied within each organization. Close collaboration by the
researcher was deemed necessary to ensure prompt and accurate survey distribution, as
well as to enhance conditions for favorable rates of return within each agency.
The executives surveyed were asked to complete the questionnaire within
approximately three weeks of receipt. The cover letter stressed both the voluntary
nature of the profile data as well as its potential future value. A postage-paid return
envelope addressed to the researcher was provided with each survey instrument.
Part A of the MAESI consists of ten questions/data fields regarding
demographic profile information, as well as specific data involving the dependent
variable:
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Part A - Demographic Data
Question No. Purpose
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
Agency Identifier
Age
Gender
Number of Years of Civilian Service
Indication of > or < 3 years SES
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
Experience
Pay Level
Highest Education Level Attained
Distinguished or Meritorious Award
Winner
Number of SES Bonus Awards Received
Identification of Discipline/Professional
Background
Question A-5 serves as a control for the dependent variable, since SES career
executives are ineligible for nomination/award of Presidential Rank recognition unless
they have a minimum of three years of SES service. Questions A-6, A-8, and A-9
address a dimension of the dependent variable. Question A-l provides an agency
identifier. And, questions A-2, A-3, A-4, A-7, and A-10 provide demographic data
that has inference for later research.
Part B of the MAESI consists of ten questions/data fields that address specific
types and frequency of mobility assignments experienced by the executive prior to
appointment to the SES:
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Part B - Career Profile Prior to SES Appointment
Question No. Purpose
B-l Type of organization in which executive
began their career (first permanent
position).
B-2 Indicates agency at which executive
began their federal career.
B-3 Indicates number, if any, of federal
agencies in which executive worked prior
to SES appointment.
B-4 Indicates number, if any, of permanent
assignments or transfers experienced by
executive prior to SES appointment.
B-5 Indicates number, if any, of temporary
inter-agencv reassignments or details (of
at least four months duration)
experienced by executive prior to SES
appointment.
B-6 Indicates number, if any, of temporary
intra-agencv reassignments or details (of
at least four months duration).
B-7 Indicates the number, if any, of
Intergovernmental Personnel Act
assignments experienced by the executive
prior to SES appointment.
B-8 Indicates the number, if any, of temporary
assignments or details to a different job
function experienced by the executive
prior to SES appointment.
B-9 Indicates mobility assignments, if any,
that required geographic relocation by the
executive prior to SES appointment.
B-10 Indicates whether the executive
experienced a break in service during
their federal career prior to SES
appointment.
Questions B-l and B-2 provide a base line for the independent variable of mobility
assignment experience. Questions B-3 through B-10 provide data regarding the
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
independent variable and the dimensions of type, frequency, and timing of mobility
assignment experience.
Part C of the MAESI consists of ten questions/data fields that address specific
type and frequency of mobility assignments experienced by the executive subsequent
to their SES appointment:
Part C - Career Profile During SES Service
Question No. Purpose
C-1 Identifies the agency at which the
executive was assigned when appointed
to SES.
C-2 Indicates the number of agencies at
which the executive has served since SES
appointment.
C-3 Indicates number, if any, of permanent
intra-aeencv reassignments experienced
by the executive since SES appointment.
C-4 Indicates the number, if any, of
Intergovernmental Personnel Act
assignments experienced by the executive
since SES appointment.
C-5 Indicates number, if any, of inter-agencv
temporary assignments or details
experienced by the executive since SES
appointment.
C-6 Indicates the number, if any, of intra-
agencv temporary assignments or details
experienced by the executive since SES
appointment.
C-7 Indicates the number, if any, of temporary
assignments to a different functional area
experienced by the executive since SES
appointment.
C-8 Indicates the number, if any, of mobility
assignment experiences that required
geographic relocation by the executive
since SES appointment.
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C-9 Indicates whether the executive has
experienced a break-in-service since SES
appointment.
C-10 Indicates whether the executive has
experienced a career sabbatical since SES
appointment.
Questions C-l and C-2 provide a base line for the independent variable of mobility
assignment experience. Questions C-3 through C-10 provide data regarding the
independent variable and the dimensions o f type, frequency, and timing of mobility
assignment experience.
The Mobility Assignment Experience Survey Instrument was reviewed by
several representatives of the agencies surveyed. These individuals had operational
experience in the programmatic responsibilities of executive development and Senior
Executive Service requirements. This review was followed by field testing of the
instrument for content validation and average time of completion. Modifications,
additions, and deletions of questions including clarity, phrasing, and interpretation
resulted in the final product (Appendix E). Results of time trials regarding completion
of the survey instrument indicated an average completion time of just under eight
minutes, utilizing pen-and-ink responses.
The MAESI was mailed to all career members of the Senior Executive Service
who were active employees of EPA, NASA, and NSF as of July 15, 2000. The cover
letter to each SES member requested completion and return of the survey to the
researcher by September 15,2000; any and all surveys received by October 13,2000
were included in the research study. This was not a published extension, but was an
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
extension allowed by the researcher to accommodate late deliveries, delays, and other
administrative logistic factors.
A total of 714 surveys were distributed; of these 387 (n = 387) completed
surveys were returned to the researcher. All returned surveys were accurately and
thoroughly completed, and all 387 were included in the subsequent data analysis. This
survey rate of return was 54.2%.
The basic demographics of the total career executives surveyed (n = 714)
compared favorably with the demographics of the 387 career executives who
completed and returned surveys to the researcher. The comparative demographics are
as follows:
Total Surveyed (n = 714) Return Sample (n = 387^
Average Age 48.6 52.7
Gender % 77% M / 23% F 75% M / 25% F
Average Years
Federal Service 23.4 23.1
Average Years
SES Experience 12.4 12.3
Thus, the basic demographics of the respondent group (n = 387) is demonstrated to be
consistent with that of the total population surveyed (n = 714). Chapter 4 will analyze
the data as provided by the respondent group {n = 387) relative to the MAESI
questionnaire.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH STUDY DATA
This chapter reports the empirical findings of this study. The hypotheses
established in Chapter 3 are tested here and the resulting analysis presented and
reviewed.
Overview of Responses and Agency Level Data
As indicated. Part A of the MAESI was designed to gather demographic data as
well as to address key data factors relevant to the dependent variable of executive
effectiveness. While Table 2 reflects the summary profile of the total survey results,
Table 3,4, and 5 provide a summary of the demographic data for each of the three
agencies surveyed. Response to MAESI question A-l provided the sort mechanism
for this data. In addition, Appendix F includes comparative demographic data
identified by agency. And, while comparative agency-level data will not be the focus
of this study, several observations should be noted.
Of the 387 survey responses included in the study, 224 were received from
NASA career executives, 127 from EPA career executives, and 36 from NSF career
executives. The response rate for each agency relative to the overall response rate is
depicted below:
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
# of Surveys # of Survey
Distributed Responses Return Rate
NASA 392 224 57.1%
EPA 251 127 50.6%
NSF 71 36 50.7%
Total 714 387 54.2%
The response rate from the career executives exceeded 50% in each of the agencies
surveyed; with representation in both percentage and number o f responses being
highest for the NASA cadre of career executives.
In addition, agency representation as a percentage of survey grouping related to
eligibility for Presidential Rank Award consideration (i.e., > 3 years SES, < 3 years
SES) was as follows:
> 3 YR SES < 3 YR SES TOTAL
NASA 136(61%) 88(72%) 224(100%)
EPA 102(80%) 25(21%) 127(100%)
NSF 27(75%) 9(7% ) 36(100%)
Total 265 122 387
While both EPA and NSF had a higher percentage of responses from career executives
with at least three years of SES than was the case in the NASA sample, the number of
NASA career executives included remains more than adequate, and representative of
NASA’s overall share of the total population surveyed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
NASA ONLY
(« = 224)
Table 3
C areer Executives > 3 Years SES (« = 136) Career Executives < 3 Years SES (n = 88)
Average Age; 55,1
Gender: 110 male (81% )
26 female (19% )
Average Years Federal Experience: 27,5
SES Pav Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 7 39 66 31 16
Education Level: H.S. A.A. BA/BS MA/MS LLB PhDor =
0 2 32 60 6 36
Rank Awards Received: D.E. M.E. D.E.& M.E. NONE
10 37 8 81
SES Performance
Awards Received: 0 1 2 3 4 5+
33 22 16 14 13 38
Education/Experience
Background: Enein. Science/M ed. Law Mumt/Admin.
71 15 8 9
Account/Fin. Other
9 14
Average Age: 48.9
Gender: 66 male (75% )
22 female (25% )
Average Years Federal Service: 20.1
SES Pav Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6
37 28 15 5 2 1
Education Level: H.S. A.A. BA/BS M A/M S LLB PhDor=
0 0 21 42 2 23
Rank Awards Received: N/A
SES Performance
Awards R eceived:: 0 1 2 3 4 5+
87 1 0 0 0 0
Education/Experience
Background: Enein. Science/M ed. Law Mgmt/Admin.
50 10 3 II
Account/Fin. O ther
4 10
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
EPA ONLY
(/i = 127)
Table 4
Career Executives > 3 Years SES (n = 102)
Career Executives < 3 Years SES (n = 25)
Average Age: 53,2
Gender: 74 male (73% )
28 female (27% )
Average Years Federal Experience: 26.4
SES Pay Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 0 16 50 30 6
Education Level: H.S. A.A. BA/BS M A/M S LLB PhDor =
0 0 17 48 16 21
Rank Awards Received: D.E. M.E. D.E.& M.E. NONE
0 31 8 63
SES Performance
Awards Received: 0 1 2 3 4 5+
3 9 6 17 3 64
Education/Experience
Background: Engin. Science/M ed. Law Mumt/Admin.
27 21 22 11
Account/Fin. Other
4 17
Average Age: 48.7
Gender: 15 male (60% )
10 female (40% )
Average Years Federal Service: 18.0
SES Pav Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6
13 8 2 1 0 1
Education Level: H.S. A.A. BA/BS M A/M S LLB PhDor=
0 0 6 10 3 6
Rank Awards Received: N/A
SES Performance
Awards R eceived:: 0 1 2 3 4 5+
22 2 1 0 0 0
Education/Experience
Background: Engin. Science/M ed. Law Mgmt/Admin.
4 6 4 2
Account/Fin. Other
0 9
&
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SUMMARY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
NSF ONLY
(» = 36)
Table 5
C areer Executives > 3 Years SES (/»= 27) C areer Executives < 3 Years SES (n = 9)
Average Age: 57.8
Gender: 19 male (70% )
8 female (30% )
Average Years Federal Experience: 22.9
SES Pav Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 3 5 11 3 5
Education Level: H.S. A.A. BA/BS M A/M S LLB PhDor =
0 0 1 4 1 21
Rank Awards Received: D.E. M.E. D.E.& M.E. NONE
1 8 2 16
SES Performance
Awards Received: 0 1 2 3 4 5+
4 3 4 6 1 9
Education/Experience
Background: Enein. Science/M ed. Law Mumt/Admin.
5 12 I I
Account/Fin. Other Math/Stat.
0 5 3
Average Age: 52.4
Gender: 6 male (67% )
3 female (33% )
Average Years Federal Service: 13,2
SES Pav Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 1 4 1 0 1
Education Level: H.S. A.A. BA/BS M A/M S LLB PhDor=
0 0 1 1 0 7
Rank Awards Received; N/A
SES Performance
Awards R eceived:: 0 1 2 3 4 5+
7 2 0 0 0 0
Education/Experience
Background: Emjin. Science/M ed. Law Mgmt/Admin.
0 5 0 0
Account/Fin. Other
2 2
3
Further review of the data displayed in Appendix F demonstrates several
agency-specific profile data variances. However, any further comparative agency-level
data review will not be conducted, unless evidence indicates statistical bias relative to
a particular element of the survey analysis. Tables 3,4, and 5, as well as Appendix F,
provide for this potentiality.
Part B of the MAESI was designed to capture data regarding mobility
assignment experience gained by the executive prior to SES appointment. Table 6
presents a summary of the total responses, with a breakdown differentiating between
those executives with at least three years of SES experience and those with less than
three years SES experience. This table summarizes the answers to MAESI questions
B-3 through B-10. with an indication o f the number of respondents that answered
“yes” to these questions regarding the various types of mobility assignments
experienced by the executives during their careers prior to SES appointment. The
decimal number within each data box indicates the percentage of those executives in
that data category who experienced one or more of the respective mobility
assignments.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SUMMARY OF MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT
EXPERIENCES PRIOR TO SES APPOINTMENT
(n = 387)
Table 6
Other
Agency
Experience
(B-3)
Perm. Reass.
Or Trans.
(B-4)
Temp. Inter-
Agency
Reassign.
(B-5)
Temp. Intra-
Agency
Reass.
(B-6)
IPA
Assignment
(B-7)
Temp. Reass.
To Diff.
Function
(B-8)
Geographic
Relocation
(B-9)
Exp. “Break”
in Fed.
Service
(B-10)
Y e s -132
No-255
Y e s - 149
N o-238
Yes-9 5
No-292
Y e s - 138
No-249
Yes-21
N o-366
Yes-8 2
No-305
Y e s -157
N o-230
Yes-4 7
N o-340
.34 .39 .25 .36 .05 .21 .41 .12
> 3 Years SES (n = 265)
Yes-9 4
N o - 171
Yes - 103
No - 162
Yes-5 6
N o-209
Yes-81
N o - 184
Y e s - 15
No - 250
Yes-4 2
No - 223
Yes-9 7
N o - 168
Yes-3 5
N o-230
.36 .39 .21 .31 .06 .16 .37 .13
< 3 Years SES (w = 122)
Yes-3 8
N o-8 4
Yes-4 6
N o-7 6
Yes-2 9
No-8 3
Yes - 57
N o-6 5
Yes- 6
N o - 116
Yes-4 0
No-8 2
Yes-6 0
N o-6 2
Y e s -12
No - 110
.31 .38 .24 .47 .05 .33 .49 .10
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SUMMARY OF MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT
EXPERIENCES SINCE SES APPOINTMENT
(« = 387)
Table 7
Other
Agency
Experience
(C-2)
Intra-Agency
Permanent
Reassignment
(C-3)
IPA
Assignment
(C-4)
Tem porary
Intra-Agency
Reassignment
(C-5)
Tem porary
Inter-Agency
Reassignment
(C-6)
Tem porary
Reassignment to
DifF. Function
(C-7)
Geographic
Relocation
(C-8)
Break in
Federal
Service
(C-9)
Career
Sabbatical
(C-10)
Yes-2 5
No-362
Yes-9 3
No-294
Yes- 9
N o-378
Y e s -51
No-336
Yes - 17
N o-370
Yes-51
No-336
Yes-6 2
N o-325
Yes- 2
No - 385
Y e s - 14
N o-373
.06 .24 .02 .13 .04 .13 .16 .01 .04
> 3 Years SES (n = 265)
Y e s -12
No-242
Yes-8 6
N o - 179
Yes- 9
N o-256
Yes-4 6
N o-219
Yes - 15
N o-250
Yes - 44
No-221
Yes-5 7
No - 208
Yes- 2
No-263
Y e s - 14
N o-251
.09 .32 .03 .17 .06 .17 .22 .01 .05
< 3 Years SES (« = 122)
Yes- 2
N o - 120
Yes- 7
N o-115
Y es-0
N o - 122
Yes- 5
N o-117
Yes- 2
N o - 120
Yes- 7
N o - 115
Yes- 5
N o-117
Y es-0
N o - 122
Y es-0
No - 122
.02 .06
•
.04 .02 .06 .04
. -
8
Part C of the MAESI addressed mobility assignment experience that has
occurred since the executive’s appointment to the SES. Table 7 presents a summary of
the total responses, with a breakdown differentiating between those executives with at
least three years of SES experience and those with less than three years SES
experience. This table summarizes the answers to questions C-2 through C-10 with an
indication of the number of respondents that answered yes to these questions regarding
the various types of mobility assignments experienced by the executives during their
careers since being appointed to the SES.. Again, the decimal number within each data
box indicates the percentage of those executives in the data category who experienced
one or more of the respective mobility assignments.
A review of the mobility assignment experiences prior to SES appointment
(Table 6) indicates that the experiences of Geographic Relocation, Permanent
Reassignment/Transfer, Temporary Reassignment Within the Agency, and Experience
in More Than One Agency are the most frequently cited mobility experiences of all
those responding. These four types of mobility assignment experiences are also cited
most frequently by those with at least three years o f SES experience. However, there
appears to be a slight variance in the mobility assignment experiences of those with
less than three years SES experience. Nearly half (49%) of these executives have
experienced at least one Temporary Reassignment Within Agency. In addition, one
out of three of these executives have experienced one or more Temporary
Reassignment to Another Function prior to their SES appointment. While only one in
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
six of the longer tenured SES career executive counterparts cite this type of mobility
assignment experience.
Even a cursory comparison between Table 6 and Table 7 reveals a significant
difference between the number of mobility assignment experiences identified prior to
and the number of mobility assignment experiences identified post SES appointment.
In each category o f mobility assignment experience, the percentage of those
identifying at least one of these post-appointment mobility assignment experiences is
less than the pre-SES counterpart category. For those with at least three years of SES
experience Permanent Reassignment Within Agency and Geographic Relocation are
again cited as the most frequent mobility assignment experienced. However, a much
smaller percentage of these executives cite these and other types of mobility
assignments experienced during their SES tenure. As for those who have less than
three years SES experience, there is a very dramatic drop in the number of executives
citing only mobility assignment experience post SES appointment. However, this
would be expected when compared to their more tenured SES colleagues— if for no
other reason than their more limited amount of SES service to date.
The data in Tables 6 and 7 raises the question: is mobility easier before one
enters the SES? The data may be explained by the fact that individuals may find
mobility assignments more attractive (or less disruptive) during their younger years, or
while they are building the foundations of their careers. However, the data may also
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
support McCall’s6 9 findings regarding executive development experiences that may
cluster earlier in certain careers. Further analysis of mobility experience type and
timing may provide clarification of this point.
Type of Mobility Assignment Experience and Executive Effectiveness;
Statistical Correlation
As postulated in Chapter 2, the first hypothesis (Hi) of this research study
asserts that: the type of mobility assignments experienced is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness.
To determine if the survey results support a relationship between a particular
type of mobility assignment experience and executive effectiveness, we must look at
the responses provided to the questions in Sections B and C of the survey
questionnaire.
Again, considering only the responses provided by those who have at least
three years of SES experience (n = 265), the presence of each type of mobility
assignment experience is correlated with the executive effectiveness dimensions of
Executive Pay Level, SES Bonus Awards Received, and Presidential Rank Awards
Received. For purposes o f this study, correlation tests will be conducted utilizing a
standard social science statistical package. Tables 8 and 9 summarize the results of
these correlations.
6 9 M.M. McCall, op. cit.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS:
TYPE OF MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCE (Pre-SES)
AND EXECUTIVE EFFECTIVENESS
(# » = 265)
Table 8
Other
Agency
Experience
(B-3)
Perm. Reass.
O r Trans.
(B-4)
Temp. Inter-
Agency
Reassign.
(B-5)
Temp. Intra-
Agency Reass,
(B-6)
IPA
Assignment
(B-7)
Temp. Reass. To
DitT. Function
(B-8)
Geographic
Relocation
(B-9)
Exp. “Break” in
Fed. Service
(B-10)
Executive
Pay Level
.1146 .1136 -.007 .064 -.025 -.0064 .083 .023
SES Bonus
Awards
Received
.1342 .0502 -.038 .085 .083 -.019 -.004 .0063
Presidential
Rank Awards
Received
.0591 -.048 .052 .045 .065 .005 .039 .025
$
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS:
TYPE OF MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERINECE (Post-SES)
AND EXECUTIVE EFFECTIVENESS
(w = 265)
Table 9
Other
Agency
Experience
(C-2)
Intra-Agency
Permanent
Reassign.
(C-3)
1PA
Assignment
(C-4)
Temp. Intra-
Agency
Reass.
(C-5)
Temporary
Inter-Agency
Reassignment
(C-6)
Temp. Reass.
To DitT.
Function
(C-7)
Geographic
Relocation
(C-8)
Break in
Fed, Service
(C-9)
Career
Sabbatical
(C-10)
Executive
Pay Level
.207 .1512 -.0107 .0966 -.01 .1287 .1532 .025 -.07
SES
Bonus
Awards
Received
.1222 .1636 -.0385 .0554 -.0103 .0749 .0505 .0416 -.0024
Presidenti
al Rank
Awards
Received
.1268 .1183 .0152 .1603 -.0403 .2059 .1696 .0942 -.0 0 2 9
Considering Executive Pay Level and Type of Mobility Assignment Experience,
the strongest positive correlations prior to SES appointment, are demonstrated with
those of Other Agency Experience (.1146) and Permanent Reassignment or Transfer
Within Agency (.1136); the strongest negative correlation prior to SES Appointment is
that of IPA Assignment (-.025).
In the case of SES Bonus Awards Received, the strongest positive correlation
prior to SES Appointment is with Other Agency Experience (.1342); with the highest
negative correlation prior to SES appointment being that of Temporary Interagency
Reassignment (-.038).
The data further demonstrated no significant correlations between Presidential
Rank Awards Received and any type of mobility assignment experienced prior to SES
appointment.
In analyzing the correlations between the dimensions of the dependent variable
and the mobility assignment experiences post SES appointment (Table 9), we do see
slightly stronger correlations for each of the dimensions of the dependent variable. In
the case of Executive Pay Level, four types o f mobility assignment experience
evidenced positive correlations somewhat higher than the correlation coefficients
evidenced in Table 8: Other Agency Experience (.207), Intra-Agency Permanent
Reassignment (.1512), Geographic Relocation (.1532), and Temporary Reassignment to
a Different Function (.1287). Intra-Agency Permanent Reassignment had the highest
positive correlation (.1636) with SES Bonus Awards Received. Presidential Rank
Awards Received correlated with positive significance relative to Temporary
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reassignment to a Different Function (.2059), Geographic Relocation (.1696),
Temporary Intra-Agency Reassignment (.1603), and Other Agency Experience (.1268).
Although not statistically meaningful, there are several negative correlations
between the dimensions of the dependent variable and several pre and post SES
appointment mobility assignment types. Specifically, the correlations between
Executive Pay Level and Career Sabbatical (-.070), Presidential Rank Awards Received
and Temporary Inter-Agency Reassignment (-.0403), and between SES Bonus Awards
Received and IPA Assignment Experience (-.0385). Since each of these types of
assignments occurs away from the “home” agency, one might speculate some form of
“out-of-sight, out-of-mind” dynamic may be at work. Still another speculation might be
that individuals who pursue or accept mobility assignment experiences of this nature
may be seen as considering career transitions or perhaps experiencing “burn-out.” As
such, these experiences may lead to lack of support for consideration for these forms of
recognition.
By way of further analysis Table 8 demonstrates that certain pre-SES
appointment mobility assignment experiences evidence positive correlations with each
of the dimensions of the dependent variable regarding SES recognition. For example,
Other Agency Experience, Temporary Intra-Agency Reassignments and Break in
Federal Service positively correlate with Executive Pay Level, SES Bonus Awards, and
Presidential Rank Awards. Each of the other types of mobility assignment experiences
measured demonstrate some combination of positive and negative correlation relative to
the three dimensions of the dependent variable.
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9 demonstrates somewhat broader support for the positive relationship
between post-SES mobility assignment experiences and SES recognition. Specifically,
the mobility assignment experiences of Other Agency Experience Intra-Agency
Permanent Reassignment, Temporary Inter-Agency Reassignment, Temporary
Reassignment to Different Functions, Geographic Relocation, and Break In Federal
Service all demonstrate positive correlation with the dimensions of Executive Pay
Level, SES Bonus Awards, and Presidential Rank Award. In addition, two types of
mobility assignment experience, Temporary Inter-Agency Reassignment, and Career
Sabbatical, demonstrate a negative correlation for each of the dimensions of
recognition; IPA Assignment evidences a positive/negative mix. Furthermore, the
relationship demonstrated between each of the ‘’all-positive” correlations is stronger
than the relationship demonstrated by each of the “all-negative” correlations.
Yet while there are numerous positive correlations between each of the
dimensions o f the dependent variable and type o f mobility assignment experiences,
these correlations do not appear to be strong. In all of the correlations performed, the
strongest relationships between the dependent variable and the “type” dimension of the
independent variable were as follows:
Dependent
Variable Dimension Type of Experience Correlation Coefficient
Executive Pay Level Other Agency .207
Experience Post-SES
Rank Awards Received Temporary Reassignment to .2059
A Different Function Post-SES
None of the other dimension correlations reached the .20 or higher correlation level.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In summary, the survey data results demonstrates a positive relationship between
the research study dimensions (Pay Level, Bonus Awards, Presidential Rank Awards) of
executive effectiveness and the independent variable of type of mobility assignment
experience. While the data supports the research hypothesis (Hi), the research data
appears to indicate that there are other factors that play a role in the relationship
between the dependent and independent variables. We will next analyze a second
aspect of mobility assignment experience to determine if the number of mobility
assignment experiences provides stronger evidence of this relationship.
Frequency of Mobility Assignment Experience
And Executive Effectiveness: Statistical Correlation
This study’s second research hypothesis (H2), postulated in Chapter 2. states
that: the frequency o f mobility assignment experience is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness. The second dimension of mobility assignment
experience identified as having a potential positive relationship with executive
effectiveness is that of frequency. In other words: Does the number of mobility
assignments experienced by a career executive have a direct correlation with the level of
recognition achieved by that career executive?
Once again, analysis of the research study data will be limited to the responses
submitted by those career executives with at least three years of SES experience
{n = 265). For purposes of this analysis, the data regarding all number of experiences
achieved will be considered equally. Thus, if a respondent indicates that they have had
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
three pre-SES Temporary Inter-Agency Reassignments, and another respondent
indicates having accomplished one pre-SES Temporary Inter-Agency Reassignment,
one pre-SES IPA Assignment, and one pre-SES Break in Service, the data to be
correlated would count “3” pre-SES mobility assignments for each respondent.
Table 10 indicates the frequency distribution of total mobility assignment
experiences for all survey respondents with at least three years of SES experience
(n = 265). Table 11 isolates the pre-SES appointment mobility assignment experience
frequency; Table 12 isolates the post-SES appointment mobility assignment experience
frequency. It is worthwhile to note that 80% of the frequency distribution for the total
number of mobility assignment experiences fell between zero and seven. Some 55 of
the respondents with at least three years of SES experience evidence no mobility
assignment experience prior to SES appointment; and, 131 evidence no mobility
assignment experience since being appointed to the SES. In addition, the modal average
of both the pre-SES and post-SES mobility assignment experience
frequency is "zero” for this population. However, nearly 90% of those responding
indicated having experienced at least one mobility assignment experience during their
career; with median and mean average being four and five experiences. To determine
whether mobility assignment experience frequency of this survey population has a
positive relationship with the effectiveness of these executives, correlation coefficients
were determined for the executive effectiveness dimensions of Executive Pay Level,
SES Bonus Awards, and Presidential Rank Awards. Table 13 displays the results:
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL MOBILITY
ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCES (MAE)
(it = 265)
Table 10
# of MAE Frequency Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00 27 10.2 10.2
1.00 31 11.7 21.9
2.00 40 15.1 37.0
3.00 22 8.3 45.3
4.00 25 9.4 54.7
5.00 21 7.9 62.6
6.00 30 11.3 74.0
7.00 16 6.0 80.0
8.00 7 2.6 82.6
9.00 7 2.6 85.3
10.00 8 3.0 88.3
I t . 00 8 3.0 91.3
12.00 2
.8 92.1
13.00 3 1.1 93.2
14.00 5 1.9 95.1
15.00 4 1.5 96.6
16.00 2
.8 97.4
17.00 4 1.5 98.9
18.00 1 .4 99.2
19.00 1 .4 99.6
34.00 1 .4 100.0
Total 265 100.0
Mean 5.00
Median 4.00
Modal 2.00
Std. Deviation 4.57
Minimum 0.00
Maximum 34.00
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCE (MAE)
FREQUENCY PRIOR TO SES APPOINTMENT
(« = 265)
Table 11
# of MAE Frequency Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00 55 20.8 20.8
1.00 36 13.6 34.3
2.00 38 14.3 48.7
3.00 26 9.8 58.5
4.00 25 9.4 67.9
5.00 28 10.6 78.5
6.00 16 6.0 84.5
7.00 7 2.6 87.2
8.00 8 3.0 90.2
9.00 6 2.3 92.5
10.00 5 1.9 94.3
11.00 6 2.3 96.6
12.00 3 1.1 97.7
14.00 1 .4 98.1
15.00 3 l.l 99 2
16.00 1 .4 99.6
26.00 1 .4 100.0
Total 265 100.0
Mean 3.57
Median 3.00
Modal 0.00
Std. Deviation 3.65
Minimum 0.00
Maximum 26.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCE (MAE)
FREQUENCY POST SES APPOINTMENT
(n = 265)
Table 12
# of MAE Frequency Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
.00 131 49.4 49.4
1.00 41 15.5 64.9
2.00 43 16.2 81.1
3.00 19 7.2 88.3
4.00 10 3.8 92.1
5.00 8 3.0 95.1
6.00 3 l.l 96.2
7.00 5 1.9 98.1
8.00
2
.8 98.9
10.00 1 .4 99.2
12.00 1 .4 99.6
17.00 1 .4 100.0
Total 265 100.0
Mean 1.41
Median 1.00
Modal 0.00
Std. Deviation 2.16
Minimum 0.00
Maximum 17.00
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS:
FREQUENCY OF ALL MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCE
AND EXECUTIVE EFFECTIVENESS
(#*=265)
Table 13
Effectiveness Dimension Number (Frequency) of All Mobility
Assignment Experiences
Executive Pay Level .2009
SES Bonus Award .1288
Presidential Rank Award .1518
These results reveal that a positive correlation exists between the frequency
(number) of mobility assignments experienced and the effectiveness dimensions of
Executive Pay Level, SES Bonus Awards, and Presidential Rank Awards. However, a
sub-text of this aspect of mobility assignment experience is the extent to which the
number of mobility assignments experienced prior to SES appointment or post SES
appointment correlate with the three dimensions of executive effectiveness. Table 14
displays the results of these correlations:
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS:
FREQUENCY OF PRE AND POST SES MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT
EXPERIENCES AND EXECUTIVE EFFECTIVENESS
(i* = 265)
Table 14
Effectiveness Dimension
Number (Frequency) of
Pre-SES Mobility
Assignment Experiences
Number (Frequency) of
Post-SES Mobility
Assignment Experiences
Executive Pay Level .1286 .2098
SES Bonus Awards .0816 .1416
Presidential Rank Awards .0547 .2279
Unlike the survey data results involving “type”of mobility assignment
experience, the data involving the “frequency” or ’’number” of mobility assignments
experienced indicates an absence of any negative correlations between the variables.
The number of pre-SES and post-SES mobility assignments experienced indicate
positive correlation with each of the dimensions of the dependent variable. Table 14
also indicates that the relative strength o f the correlation appears greater for the
number of post-SES mobility assignment experiences than for the number of pre-SES
mobility assignment experiences, with the number of post-SES mobility assignment
experiences correlating highest with Executive Pay Level (.2098) and Presidential
Rank Award (.2279). The frequency (number) of post-SES mobility assignment
experiences and Presidential Rank Awards now ranks as the strongest of all the
relationships tested thus far in this research study.
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In summary, the results of the correlation between the research study
dimensions (Pay Level, SES Bonus Awards, Presidential Rank Awards) of executive
effectiveness and the independent variable dimension of "frequency” of mobility
assignment experiences does demonstrate support for the study’s second research
hypothesis. And, while the direction is positive and more consistent that the data
demonstrating correlation with “type” of mobility assignment experience, the results
still point to a relatively weak correlation. We will now analyze the dimension of
“timing” of mobility assignment experience to determine what the survey data reveals
relative to the dimension and its relationship to the dependent variable of executive
effectiveness.
Timing of Mobility Assignment Experience
And Executive Effectiveness: Statistical Correlation
The third, and final, research hypothesis (H3 ) to be tested in this study states
that: the timing of mobility assignment experience is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness. Operationalized for this study, timing of
mobility assignment experience is defined as mobility assignment experience that
occurred either prior or subsequent to SES appointment.
Again, analysis of the research study data will focus only on the responses
submitted by those career executives with at least three years of SES experience
(n = 265). For purposes of this analysis, the relationship between the presence o f any
mobility assignment experienced by a career SES executive prior to SES appointment
and their executive effectiveness recognition levels (i.e., Pay Level, SES Bonus
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Awards, Presidential Rank Awards) will be tested statistically. Similarly, the rela
tionship between the presence of mobility assignment experience achieved subsequent
to SES appointment and the dimensions of executive effectiveness will be evaluated.
As noted earlier in this study, while 90% o f those respondents with greater than
three years of SES experience indicate at least one career mobility assignment
experience, 20% indicated no mobility assignment experience prior to SES
appointment and nearly half (49.4%) identified an absence of mobility assignment
experience since their appointment to the SES. In addition, the data demonstrates
rather large ranges within each set of experiences (0-17; 0-26; 0-34), as well as prior
and post-SES assignment experiences having modal averages of “0.”
One explanation for such a diversity of experience patterns may be that this
data lends support to McCall’s research regarding significant developmental
experiences.7 0 The research data does appear to support the premise that
developmental experience may vary from executive to executive.
With such an apparently wide range of difference among our sample
population regarding the absence or presence o f mobility assignment experiences pre-
and post-SES appointment, is there evidence to support a positive relationship between
prior or post appointment mobility experience and any of the study’s dimensions of
executive effectiveness? Table 15 provides an answer:
7 0 M.M. McCall. High Fivers: Developing the Next Generation o f Leaders: op. cit.
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS:
TIMING OF MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCE
AND EXECUTIVE EFFECTIVENESS
(n = 265)
Table 15
Effectiveness Dimension
Pre-SES Mobility
Assignment Experience
Post-SES Mobility
Assignment Experience
Pay Level .2784 .3129
Bonus Awards -.083 -.1271
Presidential Rank Awards .3143 .3227
The data reveals a positive correlation between both pre and post-mobility
assignment experience and the dimensions of Pay Level and Presidential Rank
Awards. However, there is a less strong, but definite negative relationship between
both pre and post-mobility assignment experience and the effectiveness dimension of
Bonus Awards.
One explanation of this dynamic may be the perceived relative value or worth
of the three effectiveness dimensions of Pay Level, Bonus Awards, and Presidential
Rank Awards. Specifically, we know from discussion in Chapter I, that Presidential
Rank Awards have relatively high monetary value as well as external (to the agency)
review and control requirements. Executive Pay Level is determined at the agency
level; however, it incurs a long term cost to the agency (compound annual interest,
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
additional benefit costs, etc.), as well as long term value to the executive (higher
sustained salary base, increased retirement “high 3” calculation, etc.). Executive Pay
Level also carries with it an inferred “rank” aspect: ES-1, ES-2, ES-3, etc. which may
also influence agency specific perquisites such as prestigious assignments,
appointments to honorary boards, peer policy committees and the like. SES Bonus
Awards, however, are controlled at the agency level, have monetary value that is,
generally, significantly less than that accorded Presidential Rank recognition. Unlike
Executive Pay Level designation, an SES Bonus Award is a “lump sum,” one-time
award that does not add to the executive’s base pay and has no long term pay
implications to either the agency or to the executive.
If a practice were made of awarding SES Bonuses to executives who either did
not merit or somehow were unable to receive either higher SES Pay Levels or
Presidential Rank recognition, this might very well explain, at least in part, the
negative correlation we see in Table 15. While this dynamic is beyond the present
scope of this research, it suggests a potentially fruitful area for future research
consideration.
The data relative to “timing” of mobility assignment experience and the
effectiveness dimensions of Pay Level and Presidential Rank Awards evidence the
strongest positive correlations measured in the research study - with Presidential Rank
Awards evidencing positive pre and post-mobility correlations exceeding the .30
threshold for the first time in the study data.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In summary, the correlation data for “timing” o f mobility assignment
experience demonstrated positive and negative relationships relative to the three
measured effectiveness dimensions. We also saw this “mixed” results in the data
regarding “type” of mobility assignment experience; while “frequency” of mobility
assignment experience revealed positive correlations with each effectiveness
dimension. However, the relative strength of the correlation coefficients that
demonstrated a positive relationship between pre and post-SES mobility assignment
experience and SES Pay Level as well as pre and post-SES mobility assignment
experience and Presidential Rank Awards providing support for the study’s last
hypothesis (H 3); indicating a positive relationship between the timing of mobility
assignment experience and (at least two dimensions of) executive effectiveness.
Having completed the analysis of the survey data in the context of the study’s
research hypotheses, we will now look at the findings and conclusions in the context
of current and future policy issues and further research needs.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
This concluding chapter consists of a discussion of the significant findings of
the research study; the strengths and limitations of this study; the implications this
research may have on future executive mobility assignment policy; and suggestions for
future research.
Summary of the Research Findings
As stated in Chapter I, the purpose of this study was to determine if a positive
relationship could be demonstrated between mobility assignment experiences of career
executives in federal civilian research and development agencies and the executive
effectiveness demonstrated by those executives. The scope of the research study was
limited to Career Senior Executive Services (SES) employees assigned to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). A survey
instrument (MAESI) was distributed to all career SES employees within this
population (n = 714); 387 survey questionnaires were returned. A total o f 265 surveys
were returned by career executives with at least three years of SES experience. The
remaining surveys were tabulated separately.
An extensive search of the executive development literature revealed support
for the premise that senior executives could demonstrate certain experiences or
assignments that provided them with the necessary skills required to achieve success in
their executive career. Three hypotheses were developed from the literature review:
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hi: The type of mobility assignments experienced is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness.
H2: The frequency of mobility assignments experienced is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness.
H3: The timing of mobility assignments experienced is directly related to Senior
Executive Service (SES) effectiveness.
For purposes of the study, we operationalized executive effectiveness to
include the three established forms of SES recognition: SES Pay Level; SES Bonus
Awards Received; and SES Presidential Rank Awards Received. The survey response
data was tabulated; data was sorted to comport with the elements and dimensions of
the independent variable (mobility assignment experience) and the dependent variable
(executive effectiveness). Subsequent correlations were executed utilizing an
established statistical research instrument. The results of these calculations were
presented and analyzed in Chapter 4 of this study. From the results of these analysis
the following findings and conclusions are suggested:
1. In federal research and development agencies, the mobility assignment
experiences of career executives vary dramatically. Among the population
surveyed, the type of mobility assignments experience, the frequency (number) of
mobility assignments experienced and the timing of mobility assignments experienced
evidenced significant variances. Specifically, no one “type” o f mobility assignment
experience (of the 17 specific types measured by the survey) was cited by a majority of
the career executives who responded to the survey instrument. In addition, while the
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mean and median average of career mobility assignments experienced for those
respondents with at least three years o f SES experience was 5.0 and 4.0 respectively,
27 respondents indicated “0” career mobility assignments—with the range of
experiences totaling between zero and 34. And, while a full 90% of this population
identified at least one career mobility assignment, 20% had no pre-SES mobility
assignment experience and half o f the population had no post-SES mobility
assignment experience.
2. In federal research and development agencies, there is evidence to support
a positive, albeit weak, relationship between the tvne of mobility assignment
experienced and executive effectiveness. From the data analyzed in Chapter 4 of this
study, there is evidence to indicate a positive relationship between certain types of
mobility assignment experiences and increased recognition in the form of SES Pay
Level, SES Bonus Awards, and SES Presidential Rank Awards. Six o f the nine types
of post-SES mobility assignment experiences measured, and one of the eight pre-SES
mobility assignment experienced (Tables 8 and 9) measured indicated significant
positive slope correlations. However, none of these correlations exceeded R=.207.
Comparatively, "Other Agency Experience” demonstrated consistent positive
correlation of both pre and post SES mobility assignment experiences with each of the
executive effectiveness dimensions. No other type of mobility assignment experience
appears significant regarding pre-SES correlations. The post-SES mobility assignment
experiences of Intra-agency Permanent Reassignment, Geographic Relocation and
Temporary Reassignment to a Different Function also show evidence of consistent
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
positive correlation with each of the dimensions o f executive effectiveness.
3. In federal research and development agencies, there is evidence to support
a positive, albeit weak, relationship between the frequency or number of mobility
assignments experienced and executive effectiveness. The results of the research
survey relative to research hypothesis H2 indicate some support for the premise that the
attainment of additional mobility assignment experience may positively influence
executive effectiveness when measured by the dimensions of SES Pay Level, SES
Bonus Awards, and SES Presidential Rank Awards. O f the three hypotheses tested in
this research study, the “frequency hypothesis” is the only one to evidence positive
correlations for each dimension of executive effectiveness (Table 14). These
correlations suggest that the attainment of one or more mobility assignment experience
subsequent to SES appointment may positively influence, or may be one factor
contributing to, increased recognition levels for career executives in federal research
and development agencies. However, since we must guard against an inference of
causality when analyzing these correlation data, the dynamic at work may very well be
that those who have received various forms of recognition for their executive
effectiveness may be prime candidates for different (mobility, et at) assignments
because of their effectiveness track record.
4. In federal research and development agencies, there is evidence to support
a positive, albeit weak, relationship between the timing of mobility assignments
experienced and executive effectiveness. The correlation coefficients demonstrated
in Table 15 reveal positive relationships between Presidential Rank Awards and both
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
pre and post-SES mobility assignment experience. The correlation coefficients
between SES Pay Level and both pre and post-SES mobility assignment experience,
while slightly less strong, also appear to be among the strongest positive relationships
found in the research study. In addition, the significance of the timing of mobility
assignment experience relative to executive effectiveness is supported by the
correlations found in Tables 9 and 14. In both sets of data, higher positive correlations
coefficients are evidenced relative to both type and frequency of mobility assignments
experienced subsequent to SES appointment.
5. In federal research and development agencies, there appears to be a
stronger positive relationship between mobility assignment experience. post-SES
appointment, and executive effectiveness than between mobility assignment
experience pre-SES appointment and executive effectiveness. The results of this
research study appear rather consistent in demonstrating a positive relationship
between mobility assignments experienced subsequent to SES appointment and the
dimensions of executive effectiveness that include SES Pay Level, SES Bonus
Awards, and SES Presidential Rank Awards. The results of the survey data indicate
that the correlation coefficients of the post-SES mobility assignment experience data
are consistently more positive in slope when compared to similar categorical results
involving the pre-SES mobility assignment experience data. The evidence to support
the potential value of post-SES mobility assignment experience to executive
effectiveness regarding career executives in federal research and development agencies
is perhaps the strongest research evidence to be derived from this study.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Strengths and Limitations of the Research Study
The design, development, and execution of this research study provides
support for the increased role of quantitative research methodology in the field of
executive development. As we have seen in the literature, a more qualitative research
methodology has been the dominant approach involving executive development or
executive effectiveness measurement. Interviews, focus groups, observation
techniques, or telephone responses are quite ofien utilized as the primary means of
data collection, analysis, and interpretation in research studies involving executive
development and the influence of experimental learning. A critique of this
methodology is that it can lead to internal bias regarding the interpretation of executive
effectiveness; or that the "definition” of executive effectiveness becomes grounded in
the subjective criteria of the various organizations being studied.
By comparison, this research study was designed to measure results achieved
against dimensions of an established standard of executive effectiveness that cuts
across organizations. Specifically, the development and testing of the Mobility
Assignment Experience Survey Instrument (MAESI) was guided by both the
recognized descriptions of mobility assignment experiences and the three standard
dimensions of executive effectiveness (Pay Level, SES Bonus Awards, Presidential
Rank Awards) established by the Office of Personnel Management; and thus govern
the activities of all career executives assigned to the three federal research and
development agencies (NASA, EPA, NSF) within the scope of the research study.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Numerous steps were designed to maintain the objectivity and integrity of the
survey data. The survey instrument was distributed directly to all career executives,
employed as such, on July 1,2000 in each of the three agencies surveyed. Each career
executive was provided a self-addressed, stamped envelope with a letter of instruction
stating the purpose of the survey instrument and the desired time frame for its return.
No individual identifier was either affixed or assigned to the survey instrument.
Individual respondents had an option of providing their telephone number or e-mail
address for possible researcher follow-up or information clarification. The overall
response rate to the survey was 54.2%; with a response rate of at least 50% from each
agency. There were no significant differences between the demographics of the
respondents and non-respondents. No survey responses were omitted because of
inconsistencies or failure to follow directions. Data integrity was maintained
throughout the coding and software application process. All hand-coded survey
instrument responses remain in the possession of the researcher.
The results of the survey and the subsequent analysis of the data thus provided
specific information relative to the recognition accomplishments and the corollary
record of mobility assignment experiences for each respondent of an executive cadre
that cuts across organization and geographic dimensions. It should be noted, however,
that the researcher began this project with a desire to include a fourth federal research
and development agency: the Department of Energy (DOE). Unfortunately, numerous
visits to DOE headquarters and several discussions with human resource and executive
personnel officials failed to secure an agreement to have DOE support this research
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
project. As a result, the researcher was denied access to approximately 400 career SES
members serving within the Department of Energy. This cadre would have
represented the largest agency component of the desired research study population.
The inclusion of a significant percentage of the SES career executives at DOE
(certainly any return rate approaching the 50% level of the other three agencies) would
have enhanced the survey results. Combined, the originally targeted four agencies
(DOE, EPA, NASA, and NSF) represent nearly 80% of all SES career executives in
federal civilian agencies whose primary mission is scientific and engineering research
and development. Omission of the DOE data was certainly a lost opportunity.
While the quantitative nature of this study’s research design encouraged the
objective utilization of the survey data results, there was an opportunity for the
researcher to engage in follow-up discussions with the respondents. Approximately
30% of the career executives who returned the MAES I surveys, provided optional
telephone, address, or e-mail information on the form indicating their willingness to
discuss follow-on questions with the researcher. However, it was the researcher’s
decision to forgo any follow-up interviews with the respondents. This decision was
made to ensure that the measurement of mobility assignment experience as interpreted
by each respondent remained the sole source of the independent variable database.
Implications for Future Executive Mobility Policy
As identified in Chapter I of this study, the public policy problem to which this
research has bearing involves the questions of mandating mobility assignment
experience for all career federal executives, as well as the potential exclusion of
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
certain professions or organizations from membership in the Senior Executive Service.
The results of this research survey provide quantifiable data regarding mobility
assignment experience and executive effectiveness. However, while the results of the
research study are encouraging, they do not provide definitive evidence - the
proverbial “smoking gun” - to support the argument for either mandatory mobility
assignments or potential exclusion of career executives in research and development
agencies from inclusion in any federal executive corp.
The research study results indicate that the type, frequency, and timing of
mobility assignments experienced by career executives in federal research and
development agencies do not aggregate towards a definable pattern. The data also
indicate that career executives in federal research and development agencies do receive
a) significant recognition in the form of SES Pay Level designation; b) multiple SES
Bonus Awards; and c) receive significant numbers of both Meritorious and
Distinguished Presidential Rank Awards. The results of the study indicate that
specific types of mobility assignment experiences or increased numbers of mobility
assignment experiences may directly impact upon increased executive effectiveness
recognition. The data also supports a positive relationship between the value of post-
SES appointment mobility assignment experience and executive effectiveness.
However, the relative strength of these relationships appears to indicate that
mobility assignment experience may be but one factor associated with the
effectiveness of career executives in federal research and development agencies. To
change or amend the current policy regarding mobility assignment experience for
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
career executives predicated on the results of this research study would be a mistake.
The implementation of a mandatory mobility assignment experience or experiences for
all executives subsequent to their appointment to the SES would attribute significance
to post-SES mobility assignment experience that would be disproportionate to its
demonstrated value; or, considering the results of this study, infer a conclusion that
cannot be substantiated with existing research data.
Advocates of change to the SES for career executives argue for the exclusion
of certain executives from the ranks of the SES. Specifically, individuals whose
professional affiliation, training, and experience are felt to be too specialized or
technical (science, medicine, engineering, law) to allow them to make the
developmental transition to an executive cadre (SES) designed to provide advanced
managerial leadership skills that may very well require them to cut-across disparate
functions, bureaus, agencies, etc. On the surface, the results of this research study do
not support this argument. In fact, the study data reveals that the career executives in
federal research and development agencies appear quite effective in the execution of
their executive and leadership responsibilities. The study data would seem to indicate
that these career executives are quite formidable competitors when contending for
Presidential Rank Award recognition—when in competition with career executives
from non-research and development agencies.
A significant value of this research study is that it brings quantifiable, non-
anecdotal data to the forefront of the policy debate. Two questions remain to be
answered before public policy changes can be justified; first, is there a fundamental
9 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
difference between the development of career executives in federal research and
development agencies and their counterparts in non-research and development
agencies?; and, secondly, is there data to support any significant difference in the
relationship between mobility assignment experience and executive effectiveness
among career executives in research and development agencies than among career
executives in non-research and development agencies? This research study cannot
answer these questions. It does provide data to support “one side” of the story. It also
establishes a model framework by which additional research can be conducted that
could ultimately guide on informed, fact-based public policy decision.
Suggested Direction of Future Research
In order to build upon the results of this study, there are several elements or
directions that are suggested by the research findings. These include:
1. Research focused on the type, timing, and frequency of mobility
assignment experience evidenced bv career federal executives whose background,
training, and work environment is more administrative or regulatory in nature.
Using the MAESI developed for this study, or similar instrument, collection and
analysis of such data would test the hypothesis that mobility assignment experience
directly influences executive effectiveness within organizational settings not
dominated by the engineering, science, and medical professions. If such research were
conducted across several administrative or regulatory agencies, and if the findings
indicate significantly different results from the present study, the summary conclusions
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
would have a direct bearing on the “exclusionary” line of reasoning concerning
executive development and effectiveness.
2. A second research consideration would be to survey a broad cross-section
of the “most effective” career federal executives (those who have achieved
Presidential Rank Award recognition, multiple SES Bonus Awards, etc.). Both
quantitative and qualitative research could be directed toward the identification of
experiential data, or other factors that are identified by this sample population. The
results may provide data to substantiate or modify existing SES Core Qualifications or
Leadership Competencies that ultimately influence access to and effectiveness within
the federal career service.
3. Another research direction could be one that attempts to cluster
recognized effective executives bv professional affiliation and organization
mission. An example would be to identify and survey the most effective executives in
law enforcement agencies, administrative agencies, regulatory agencies, research and
development agencies, etc. A professional affiliation identifier might be considered as
the filter variable. Within this research scheme, developmental experiences would be
surveyed. The resulting “cluster distinctions” might then serve to influence the
direction of career SES policy to stratify executive development models more along
functional/professional affiliation lines.
4. A fourth direction of suggested research that could flow from this study
would be an effort to test the premise that executive effectiveness can be
measured and quantified bv gradations of effectiveness. For example, in the
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
population sample surveyed in the current research study, certain career executives
have achieved the highest SES Pay Level, received multiple SES Bonus Awards, and
have been recognized with one or more Presidential Rank Awards. Yet others have
received only some - or none - of these recognitions. It would appear on the surface at
least that certain of these career executives would be considered to have achieved
greater “executive success” or exhibit greater “executive effectiveness.” The value of
research in this area would be to bolster the case for a more consistent interpretation or
measurement of terms such as executive success. This research would also facilitate
further explanation of causality in the field of executive development. Research
efforts to date in the field of executive development have been unable or unwilling to
measure effectiveness across organizational, functional, or sector lines. Additional
research that helps quantify accomplishment and recognition o f executives would
better enable comparative study and enhance the generalizeability or research results.
5. Still another direction for future research would be to collect qualitative
data to help answer such questions as; What factors lead individuals to seek or
avoid mobility assignment experiences? Whv does frequency of mobility
assignment decrease for career executives in R&P agencies (or for career
executives in other agencies) nost SES appointment?
In addition, qualitative research techniques could also be utilized to explore the
factors that govern the Presidential Rank Award nomination process at the agency
level to ascertain any criteria-screening similarities or differences between R&D and
non-R&D agencies. In other words, are demonstrated leadership skills and
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
competencies the primary criteria for Presidential Rank Award nomination
consideration—or are technical accomplishments more influential in R&D agencies
than in non-R&D agencies? The results, again, would have a bearing on any policy
that advocates exclusion or decoupling of a segment or a sub-cadre of specific
technical executive positions from the general executive corps.
Conclusion
This research study was undertaken to help better understand the relationship
between mobility assignment experiences and the development of effective executives
in the career federal service. For over twenty years, the “will of the people” (as
evidenced by law) has deemed, by inference or assumption, that an experiential
building bloc of mobility assignment experiences is essential to the overall
development of an effective executive cadre. By design, this research study looked at
a particular segment of the federal environment: that of the civilian research and
development domain. Of the 714 career executives solicited for inclusion in this
study, 387 provided data on their careers, accomplishments, and mobility assignment
experiences to date. Many of these executives have received repeated - and no doubt
well deserved - recognition for their contributions toward the achievement of effective
governance at the federal level in this country. Together, the career executives in these
three agencies are responsible for the effective and purposeful stewardship of over
forty billion of federal tax dollars annually. The development and nurturing o f the
skills and competencies required to ensure that this cadre remains at a high level of
effectiveness is essential to the sound governance of this republic.
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The results and findings o f this research study provide some support for the
value of experiential development to the overall effectiveness of career executives in
the federal research and development sector. While the results of this study are
encouraging, they are by no means definitive. And, while we are not yet able to isolate
the experiential dimensions of development as predictors or enablers of executive
effectiveness, this study demonstrates the need to continue to expand the research
efforts in the field of executive development. We owe it to the cadre of men and
women who serve in the career Senior Executive Service. And, we owe it to ourselves
to ensure continued efficient and effective leadership of our public service.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free
Press.
Boyatizis, R. 1982. The Competent Manager. New York: Wiley.
Bums, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Cameron, K. and D. Whetten, eds. 1983. Organizational Effectiveness: A
Comparison of Multiple Models. Florida: Academic Press.
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454. 5USC 3131.
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454. 5USC 3396.
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454. 5USC 1101, section 3.6.
Denhardt, R. B. 1993. The Pursuit of Significance: Strategies for managerial Success
in Public Organizations. California: Wadsworth.
__________ . 1990. Public administration theory: The state of the discipline. Public
Administration: The State of the Discipline, ed. N. M. Lynn and
A. Wildowsky. New Jersey: Chatham House.
Fiedler, F.E. 1967. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. E. and J. E. Garcia. 1987. New Approaches to Leadership: Cognitive
Resources and Organizational Performance. New York: Wiley.
Hart, S. L. and R. E. Quinn. 1993. Roles Executives Play: CEO's, Behavioral
Complexity, and Firm Performance. Human Relations. May, 543-575.
House, R. J. and T. R. Mitchell. 1974. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business. 3, 81-97.
Jago, A. G. 1982. Leadership: Perspective in theory and research. Management
Science. 28(3), 315-336.
Kaplan, R.E., W.H. Drath, and J.R. Kofomidos. 1991. Beyond ambition: How driven
managers can lead better and live better. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Katz, R. 1974. Skills of an Effective Administrator. Harvard Business Review.
September/October, 90-101.
Kotter, J. 1982. The General Managers. New York: Free Press.
__________ . 1982. What Do Effective General Managers Really Do? Harvard
Business Review. November/December, 156-167.
__________ . 1988. The Leadership Factor. New York: Free Press.
Leslie, J.B. and E. Van Velsor. 1996. A look at derailment today: North America
and Europe. (Rep. No. 169) Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Lombardo, M.M. and C.D. McCauley. 1988. The dynamics of management
derailment. (Rep. No. 34) Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.
Lombardo, M.M., M.N. Ruderman, and C.D. McCauley. 1988. Explorations of
success and derailment in upper-level management positions. Journal of
Business and Psychology. 2, 199-216.
Lord, R. G., C. L. DeVader, and G. M. Alliger. 1986. A meta-analysis of the relation
between personality trait and leadership perceptions: An application of validity
generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 71,402-410.
Luthans, F., S. Rosenkrantz, and H. Hennessey. 1985. What Successful
Managers Really Do. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. August
255-270.
__________ . 1995. Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mann, R. D. 1959. A review of the relationship between personality and
performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin. 56,241-270.
McCall, M., M. Lombardo, and A. Morrison. 1988. The Lessons o f Experience.
Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
McCauly, C. and M. Lombardo. 1989. Designing management development
needs: An instrument based on how managers develop. Journal of
Management. 15,389-404.
McGinnis, P. 1998. A vision for the Senior Executive Service. PPM message to the
Senior Executive Service. SES 99-02,4-8.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mintzberg, H. 1972. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper and Row.
__________ . 1975. The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business
Review. July/August, 49-61.
__________ . 1996. Managing government, governing management. Harvard
Business Review. May/June, 75-83.
National Performance Review. 1993. Strengthening the Senior Executive Service so
that it becomes a key element in the government-wide culture change. The
Accompanying Report of the National Performance Review. HRM 11.
Government Printing Office, 73-76.
Northouse, P. G. 1997. Leadership: Theory and Practice. California: Sage
Publications.
Perry, J. L. and L. R. Wise. 1990. The motivational basis of public service.
Public Administration Review. May/June, 367-373.
Redmund, M. R. and M. D. Mumford. 1993. Putting Creativity to Work: Effects of
Leader Behavior on Subordinate Creativity. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes. June. 120-151.
Stogdill, R. M. 1948. Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology. 25, 35-71.
__________ . 1974. Handbook of Leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York: Free Press.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 1994. Senior executive service mobility. The
SES Bulletin. 94-09.
Weiss, N.A. 1995. Introductory Statistics: Fourth Edition. New York: Addison-
Wesley, 547-632.
Whetten, D. A. and K. S. Cameron. 1991. Developing Management Skills. New
York: Harper Collins.
YukI, G. A. 1981. Leadership in Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
SES
Executive Core Qualifications
1. Leading Change
The ability to develop and implement an organizational vision which integrates
key national and program goals, priorities, values, and other factors. Inherent to it
is the ability to balance change and continuity — to continually strive to improve
customer service and program performance within the basic Government
framework, to create a work environment that encourages creative thinking, and to
maintain focus, intensity, and persistence, even under adversity.
2. Leading People
The ability to design and implement strategies which maximize employee potential
and foster high ethical standards in meeting the organization's vision, mission, and
goals.
3. Results Driven
The ability to stress accountability and continuous improvement, to make timely
and effective decisions, and to produce results through strategic planning and the
implementation and evaluation of programs and policies.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Business Acumen
The ability to acquire and administer human, financial, material, and information
resources in a manner which instills public trust and accomplishes the
organization's mission, and to use new technology to enhance decision making.
5. Building Coalitions/Communication
The ability to explain, advocate, and express facts and ideas in a convincing
manner, and negotiate with individuals and groups internally and externally. It
also involves the ability to develop an expansive professional network.
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
LEADERSHIP COMPETENCY DEFINITIONS
LEADING CHANGE
Continual Learning - Grasps the essence of new information; masters new technical
and business knowledge; recognizes own strengths and weaknesses; pursues self
development; seeks feedback from others and opportunities to master new knowledge.
Creativity and Innovation - Develops new insights into situations and applies
innovative solutions to make organizational improvements; creates a work
environment that encourages creative thinking and innovation; designs and
implements new or cutting-edge programs/processes.
External Awareness - Identifies and keeps up to date on key national and
international policies and economic, political, and social trends that affect the
organization. Understands near-term and long-range plans and determines how best to
be positioned to achieve a competitive business advantage in a global economy.
Flexibility - Is open to change and new information; adapts behavior and work
methods in response to new information, changing conditions, or unexpected
obstacles. Adjusts rapidly to new situations warranting attention and resolution.
Resilience - Deals effectively with pressure; maintains focus and intensity and remains
optimistic and persistent, even under adversity. Recovers quickly from setbacks.
Effectively balances personal life and work.
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Service Motivation - Creates and sustains an organizational culture, which
encourages others to provide the quality of service essential to high performance.
Enables others to acquire the tools and support they need to perform well. Shows a
commitment to public service. Influences others toward a spirit of service and
meaningful contributions to mission accomplishment.
Strategic Thinking - Formulates effective strategies consistent with the business and
competitive strategy of the organization in a global economy. Examines policy issues
and strategic planning with a long-term perspective. Determines objectives and sets
priorities; anticipates potential threats or opportunities.
Vision - Takes a long-term view and acts as a catalyst for organizational change;
builds a shared vision with others. Influences others to translate vision into action.
LEADING PEOPLE
Conflict Management - Identifies and takes steps to prevent potential situations that
could result in unpleasant confrontations. Manages and resolves conflicts and
disagreements in a positive and constructive manner to minimize negative impact.
Cultural Awareness - Initiates and manages cultural change within the organization
to impact organizational effectiveness. Values cultural diversity and other individual
differences in the work force. Ensures that the organization builds on these differences
and that employees are treated in a fair and equitable manner.
Integrity/Honesty - Instills mutual trust and confidence; creates a culture that fosters
high standards of ethics; behaves in a fair and ethical manner toward others, and
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
demonstrates a sense of corporate responsibility and commitment to public service.
Team Building - Inspires, motivates, and guides others toward goal accomplishments.
Consistently develops and sustains cooperative working relationships. Encourages
and facilitates cooperation within the organization and with customer groups; fosters
commitment, team spirit, pride, trust. Develops leadership in others through coaching,
mentoring, rewarding, and guiding employees.
RESULTS DRIVEN
Accountability - Assures that effective controls are developed and maintained to
ensure the integrity of the organization. Holds self and others accountable for rules
and responsibilities. Can be relied upon to ensure that projects within areas of specific
responsibility are completed in a timely manner and within budget. Monitors and
evaluates plans; focuses on results and measuring attainment of outcomes.
Customer Service - Balancing interests of a variety of clients; readily readjusts
priorities to respond to pressing and changing client demands. Anticipates and meets
the need of clients; achieves quality end-products; is committed to continuous
improvement or services.
Decisiveness - Exercises good judgment by making sound and well-informed
decisions; perceives the impact and implications o f decisions; makes effective and
timely decisions, even when data is limited or solutions produce unpleasant
consequences; is proactive and achievement oriented.
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Entrepreneurship - Identifies opportunities to develop and market new products and
services within or outside of the organization. Is willing to take risks; initiates actions
that involve a deliberate risk to achieve a recognized benefit or advantage.
Problem Solving - Identifies and analyzes problems; distinguishes between relevant
and irrelevant information to make logical decisions; provides solutions to individual
and organizational problems.
Technical Credibility - Understands and appropriately applies procedures,
requirements, regulations, and policies related to specialized expertise. Is able to make
sound hiring and capital resource decisions and to address training and development
needs. Understands linkages between administrative competencies and mission needs.
BUSINESS ACUMEN
Financial Management - Demonstrates broad understanding of principles of financial
management and marketing expertise necessary to ensure appropriate funding levels.
Prepares, justifies, and/or administers the budget for the program area; uses cost-
benefit thinking to set priorities; monitors expenditures in support of programs and
policies. Identifies cost-effective approaches. Manages procurement and contracting.
Human Resources Management - Assesses current and future staffing needs based
on organizational goals and budget realities. Using merit principles, ensures staff are
appropriately selected, developed, utilized, appraised, and rewarded; takes corrective
action.
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Technology Management - Uses efficient and cost-effective approaches to integrate
technology into the work place and improve program effectiveness. Develops
strategies using new technology to enhance decision making. Understands the impact
of technological changes on the organization.
BUILDING COALITIONS/COMMUNICATION
Influencing/Negotiating - Persuades others; builds consensus through give and take;
gains cooperation from others to obtain information and accomplish goals; facilitates
"win-win" situations.
Interpersonal Skills - Considers and responds appropriately to the needs, feelings,
and capabilities of different people in different situations; is tactful, compassionate and
sensitive, and treats others with respect.
Oral Communication - Makes clear and convincing oral presentations to individuals
or groups; listens effectively and clarifies information as needed; facilitates an open
exchange o f ideas and fosters an atmosphere of open communication.
Partnering - Develops networks and builds alliances, engages in cross-functional
activities; collaborates across boundaries, and finds common ground with a widening
range of stakeholders. Utilizes contacts to build and strengthen internal support bases.
Political Savvy - Identifies the internal and external politics that impact the work of
the organization. Approaches each problem situation with a clear perception of
organizational and political reality; recognizes the impact of alternative courses of
action.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Written Communication - Expresses facts and ideas in writing in a clear, convincing,
and organized manner.
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
PRESIDENTIAL RANK AWARDS EVALUATION CRITERIA
The Presidential Rank Awards were established to recognize a select group of
career Senior Executives who have demonstrated exceptional performance over an
extended period of time. The law provides that a Distinguished Rank Award be given
for "sustained extraordinary accomplishment." A Meritorious Executive Rank Award
is for "sustained accomplishment."
Distinguished and Meritorious Executives are outstanding leaders; nominees
must consistently demonstrate strength, integrity, industry, and a relentless
commitment to public service. Through their personal conduct and their results-
oriented program management, they will have established and maintained a high
degree o f public confidence and trust.
Presidential Rank Awards are reserved for executives who have a record of
achievement which is recognized throughout the agency and/or is acknowledge on a
national or international level. The following criteria are used to evaluate nominees.
Leading Change: Displayed the highest high level of creativity, initiative, flexibility
and innovation to produce results that are important to the American people. (Show
how the nominee displayed unusual vision in leading organizations or projects which
thrived over time and are consistently recognized as extraordinary.)
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Results Driven: Has an exceptional record of achieving important program results.
(Provide specific examples o f how the nominee improved program operations,
strengthened customer service, cut red tape, and/or produced other notable results.)
Leading People: Demonstrated unusual success in building and maintaining a
workforce that is diverse, well-trained, highly motivated, and productive. (Show how
the nominee leveraged the capacities of employees and other people to build a shared
vision, aligned support for that vision, and motivated and encouraged people to
produce significant results.)
Business Acumen: Managed the program's human, financial, material, and
information resources in a manner which instilled the utmost public trust and advanced
the organization's mission. (Show how the nominee optimized use of financial
resources through cost reductions or cost avoidance; applied merit principles to
develop, select, and manage a productive and diverse workforce; and/or used
information technology systems to make significant program improvements.)
Building Coalitions/Communication: Showed an unusual level of cooperative effort
with others, including those in Federal agencies, other government jurisdictions, and
the private and non-profit sectors. (Demonstrate how the nominee took the initiative
to reach out to all stakeholders and involve them in activities that affect them.)
(Note: The above evaluation criteria were extracted from the OPM website:
http://www.opm.gov/awards/criteria.htm updated 9/30/99.)
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
Dear Federal Executive:
The enclosed survey instrument is part of a research study involving the nature of
the developmental assignments and experiences of the career SES members within the
civilian research and development agency community. The purpose of this study is to
identify and analyze development patterns or dimensions exhibited by a cadre of
government's most effective leaders. The research results will be made available to help
guide future SES development policy and practice.
The scope of this study is the career SES cadre within the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
and the National Science Foundation (NSF). As such, we are asking for your assistance
in completing this questionnaire.
Field tests indicate that it will take less than ten minutes of your valuable time to
complete this survey instrument. (Pen-and-ink responses are quite sufficient.) And, as
you know, the validity of the research results depends largely on the accuracy of the data
provided, and the success rate of the return sample. Your cooperation is strictly
voluntary— but deeply appreciated!
The survey instrument is divided into three parts: Part A requests demographic
data; Part B asks for experiential profile data prior to your appointment to the SES; Part
C asks for experiential data since joining the SES ranks. Your input will be aggregated
for purposes of this research study. No unique identifiers are being used. However, if you
would like to receive an executive summary of the research survey upon completion,
please notify the researcher via e-mail (as indicated below).
Upon completion, please place your survey responses in the envelope provided
and return to __________ by___________.
Thank you again for your cooperation and support in this study!
Jim Gorman
Research Analyst
NASA
Jim.Gorman@hq.nasa.gov
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
MOBILITY ASSIGNMENT EXPERIENCE
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
PART A
Demographic Data
A -l. At which of the following agencies are you currently employed? (circle one)
EPA NSF NASA
A-2. What is your present age? ________
A-3. Please indicate your gender: M F
A-4. How many years of total civilian federal service do you currently have?______
A-5. When were you appointed to the Senior Executive Service (SES)? (check one)
Within the last 3 years.
3 or more years ago.
A-6. What is your current SES pay level? (circle one)
1 2 3 4 5 6
A-7. Please circle the highest education level you have attained.
HS AA BA M LLB PhD (or equiv)
A-8. Have you received recognition as either a Distinguished or Meritorious
Presidential Rank
Award winner?
YES NO
If yes, which rank award(s) have you received?
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A-9. Have you received an SES Performance Award (bonus)?
YES NO
If yes, how many SES Performance Awards (bonuses) have you received?
I 2 3 4 5 or more
A-10. Prior to your appointment to the SES, which of the following
disciplines/professional fields would best categorize your technical education,
experience, and training?
(Please check the one most appropriate.)
Science or Medicine (Natural or Physical)
Engineering (all fields)
Law
Computer Science
Accounting/Finance
Human Resources
Procurement
Logistics
Health and Safety
Education
Mathematics/Statistics
Other: _____________________
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PART B
Career Profile Prior to SES Appointment
(Please answ er the follow ing questions relative to y o u r career p rio r to y o u r appointm ent to the SE S.)
B-l. In which type o f organization did you begin your career—i.e., first permanent
position: (Check one most appropriate.)
______ Federal Agency
______ State/Local Government
Private Sector
______ Academia
______ Non-Profit Sector
U.S. Military
Other: ____________________
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B-2. With which agency did you begin your federal career (first permanent
appointment):
B-3. In addition to the above agency, were you employed with other federal
agencies prior to your appointment to the SES? (circle)
YES NO
If yes, please indicate the total number of other agencies in which you held
permanent positions prior to your appointment to the SES:
1 2 3 4 5 or more
B-4. Prior to your appointment to the SES, did you ever accept a permanent
reassignment or transfer to a different bureau, administration, field installation,
or other major component of your permanent agency or organization?
YES NO
If yes, how many such reassignments or transfers did you experience?
1 2 3 4 5 or more
B-5. Prior to your appointment to the SES, did you accept any temporary
reassignment or detail—of at least four months in duration—to an agency or
organization other than that to which you were permanently assigned?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments or details did you experience?
1 2 3 4 5 or more
B-6. Prior to your appointment to the SES, did you accept any temporary
reassignment or detail—of at least four months in duration—to another major
component (Bureau, Field Center, Laboratory, etc.) of your permanent agency
or organization?
YES NO
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
If yes, how many such assignments or details did you experience?
1 2 3 4 5 or more
B-7. Prior to your appointment to the SES, did you participate in any work
assignments under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IP A)?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments did you experience.
1 2 3 4 5 or more
B-8. Prior to your appointment to the SES, did you accept any temporary
assignment or detail—of at least four months in duration—to any position
where the primary function differed from your established area of expertise or
training (e.g. biology to contract management; engineering to resources
management; accounting to human resources; etc.)?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments or details did you experience?
I 2 3 4 5 or more
B-9. Prior to your SES appointment, did any of your position changes,
reassignments, transfers, or details require geographic relocation (i.e., involved
a household move or extended TDY)?
YES NO
If yes, how many assignments involving moving or extended travel expenses
did you experience?
1 2 3 4 5 or more
B-10. Prior to your appointment to the SES, did you experience a "break” in federal
service in which you pursued other career opportunities before returning to
federal service? (If your appointment to the SES was your first organization,
please circle "NO".)
YES NO
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
If yes, please indicate the type(s) of experience gained during this “break” in
federal service. (Check all that apply.)
State/Local Government ________
Private Sector______________________
Academia ________
Non-Profit Sector ________
Other ________
********************************************************************
PART C
Career Profile Purine SES Service
(P lease answ er the follow ing questions relative to yo u r service sin c e y o u r a ppointm ent to th e SE S).
C -l. When you were first appointed to the SES, to which agency were you
assigned?
Did your appointment to the SES actually mark the beginning of your federal
service?
YES NO
C-2. In addition to this agency, have you been employed at other federal agencies
since your appointment to the SES?
YES NO
If yes, please indicate the total number of other federal agencies to which you
have been permanently assigned as a member of the SES:
I 2 3 4 5 or more
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C-3. Since your appointment to the SES, have you accepted a permanent assignment
to a different bureau, administration, field installation, or other major
component within your agency?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments have you experienced?
I 2 3 4 5 or more
C-4. Since your appointment to the SES, have you participated in any work
assignments under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IP A)?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments have you experienced?
1 2 3 4 5 or more
C-5. Since your appointment to the SES, have you accepted any temporary
assignment or detail—of at least four months in duration—to another major
component (Bureau, Field Center, Laboratory, etc.) of your permanent agency?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments or details have you experienced?
I 2 3 4 5 or more
C-6. Since your appointment to the SES, have you accepted any temporary
assignment or detail—of at least four months in duration—to a federal agency
other than that to which you are or were permanently assigned?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments or details have you experienced?
1 2 3 4 5 6 or more
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C-7. Since your appointment to the SES, have you accepted any temporary
assignment or detail—of at least four months in duration—to any position
where the primary function differed from your established area of expertise or
training (e.g. biology to resource management; engineering to strategic
planning; etc.)?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments or details have you experienced?
1 2 3 4 more than 4
C-8. Since your appointment to the SES, have you experienced any position
changes, reassignments, transfers, or details that have required geographic
relocation (i.e., involved a household move or extended TDY)?
YES NO
If yes, how many such assignments have your experienced?
1 2 3 4 5 or more
C-9. Since your appointment to the SES, have you experienced a “break” in federal
service in which you pursued other career opportunities before returning to the
federal sector?
YES NO
If yes, please indicate the type(s) of experience gained during this break in
federal service. (Check all that apply.)
State/Local Government ________
Private Sector
Academic
Non-Profit Sector
Other
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C-l 0. Since your appointment to the SES, have you experienced a career sabbatical?
YES NO
If yes, what was the nature and length of this sabbatical?
Nature of Assignment:
Length of Assignment: ____________________________________________
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND PATIENCE
IN COMPLETING THIS RESEARCH SURVEY!
(OPTIONAL)
If you would be interested in being interviewed further by this researcher to discuss
additional aspects of your career history, please indicate below by printing your name
and complete work telephone number.
Name: ______________________________________
Work Phone Number: ____ _________________ _
If you would like to receive an Executive Summary of the results of this survey, please
provide a postal mailing address or e-mail address below:
Postal:_______ e-mail:
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX F
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES BY AGENCY
SECTION A - SUMMARY - ALL SURVEYS
G e n d e r
M ale Fem ale
ti % ti %
N SF 25 69% II 31%
EPA 89 70% 38 30%
N A SA 176 79% 48 21%
T T L 290 75% 97 25%
A v erag e A ge
N SF 56.5
EPA 52.3
NASA 52.7
TTL 52.9
T T L S u rv e y s
N SF 36 9%
EPA 127 33%
N A SA 224 58%
T T L 387 100%
A ppL to S E S
<3 years >3 years
ti % ti %
N SF 9 25% l l 75%
EPA 25 20% 102 80%
N A SA 88 39% 136 61%
TTL 122 32% 265 68%
A vg Y rs S e rv
N SF 20.4
EPA 24.8
N A SA 25.1
T T L 24.6
S E S Levels
Lvll % Lvl2 % Lvl3 % Lvl4 % Lvl5 % Lvl6 % TTL# TTL%
NSF
2
6% 4 11% 9 25% 12 33% 3 8% 6 17% 36 100%
EPA 13 10% 8 6% 18 14% 51 40% 30 24% 7 6% 127 100%
NASA 38 17% 32 14% 33 15% 71 32% 33 15% 17 8% 224 100%
TTL 53 14% 44 11% 60 16% 134 35% 66 17% 30 8% 387 100%
Hli>hest E d u c a tio n Levels
HS % AA % BA % M % LLB % PHD % TTL# TTL%
NSF 0 0% 0 0%
2
6% 5 14% 1 3% 28 78% 36 100%
EPA 0 0% 0 0% 23 18% 58 46% 19 15% 27 21% 127 100%
NASA* 0 0% 0 0% 53 24% 102 46% 8 4% 59 26% 222 99%
TTL 0 0% 0 0% 78 20% 165 43% 28 7% 114 29% 385 99%
'T w o employees at NASA did not indicate education level or they were below HS.
R a n k A w a rd s
ti
R ec’vd
%
R ec’vd
ti N ot
R ec’vd
% N o t
R ec’vd D ist.#
D ist.
%
M erit.
ti
M erit.
%
Both
ti
Both
%
N SF 11 31% 25 69% 1 3% 8 22%
2
6%
EPA 39 31% 88 69% 0 0% 31 24% 8 6%
N A SA 56 25% 168 75% 11 5% 37 17% 8 4%
T T L 106 27% 281 73% 12 3% 76 20% 18 5%
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX F (Continued)
Performance Awards
Rec. Rcc.
Not
Rec.
Not
Rec. I %
2
% 3 % 4 % 5+ %
TTL
&
NSF 25 69% 11 31% 5 14% 4 11% 6 17% 1 3% 9 25% 36
EPA 102 80% 25 20% 11 9% 7 6% 17 13% 3 2% 64 50% 204
NASA 125 56% 99 44% 39 17% 21 9% 14 6% 13 6% 38 17% 250
TTL 252 65% 135 35% 55 14% 32 8% 37 10% 17 4% 111 29% 504
SECTION A - SUMMARY
Category of Education, Experience, and Training
NSF EPA NASA Total
# # # #
Science or Medicine 17 27 25 69
Engineering 5 31 121 157
Law I 26 1 1 38
Computer Science 1 1 6 8
Accounting/Finance 2 4 13 19
Human Resources 1 3 6 10
Procurement 0 1 7 8
Logistics 0 0 1 1
Health & Safety 1 0 4 5
Education 0
2 4 6
Math/Statistics 3 3
2
8
Social Sciences 3 0 I 4
Management I 10 10 21
Economics I 5 0 6
Public Policy 0 j I 4
Political Science 0 1 0 I
Environmental 0 1 1
2
Administrative 0 3 10 13
Evaluation/Analysis 0 1 0 I
English Literature 0 1 0 1
Urban Planning 0 3 0 3
Psychology 0 I 0 I
Criminal Justice 0 0 1 1
36 127 224 387
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX G
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES BY AGENCY
SECTION A - SUMMARY G reater Than 3 Years of Service
G e n d e r
M ale Fem ale
# % # %
NSF 19 70% 8 30%
EPA 74 73% 28 27%
NASA 110 81% 26 19%
TTL 203 77% 62 23%
A vg Y rs S e r
N SF 22.9
EPA 26.4
N A SA 27.5
T T L 26.7
A v erag e A ge
N SF 57.8
EPA 53.2
N A SA 55.1
T T L 54.7
T T L S u rv e y s
# %
N SF 27 10%
EPA 102 38%
N A SA 136 51%
T T L 265 100%
S E S L evels
Lvll % Lvl2 % Lvl3 % Lvl4 % Lvl5 % Lvl6 % TTL# TTL%
NSF 3 11% 5 19% 11 41% 3 11% 5 19% 27 100%
EPA 16 16% 50 49% 30 29% 6 6% 102 100%
NASA I 1% 4 3% 18 13% 66 49% 31 23% 16 12% 136 100%
TTL 1 0% 7 3% 39 15% 127 48% 64 24% 27 10% 265 100%
Hi Ehcst E d u c a tio n L evels
HS % AA % BA % M % LLB % PHD % TTL# TTL%
NSF 1 4% 4 15% I 4% 21 78% 27 100%
EPA 17 17% 48 47% 16 16% 21 21% 102 100%
NASA 2 1% 32 24% 60 44% 6 4% 36 26% 136 100%
TTL
2
1% 50 19% 112 42% 23 9% 78 29% 265 100%
R a n k A w a rd s
#
R ec’vd
%
R ec’vd
# N o t
R ec’vd
% N ot
R ec’vd D ist.#
Dist.
%
M erit.
#
M erit.
%
Both
#
Both
%
N SF 11 41% 16 59% 1 4% 8 30%
2
7%
EPA 39 38% 63 62% 31 30% 8 8%
N A S A 55 40% 81 60% 10 7% 37 27% 8 6%
T T L 105 40% 160 60% 11 4% 76 29% 18 7%
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX G (Continued)
Performance Awards
Rec. Rec.
Not
Rec.
Not
Rec. 1 %
2
% 3 % 4 % 5+ %
TTL
#
NSF 23 85% 4 15% 3 11% 4 15% 6 22% 1 4% 9 33% 27
EPA 99 97% 3 3% 9 9% 6 6% 17 17% 3 3% 64 63% 198
NASA* 103 76% 33 24% 22 16% 16 12% 14 10% 13 10% 38 28% 206
TTL 225 85% 40 15% 34 13% 26 10% 37 14% 17 6% H I 42% 450
SECTION A - SUMMARY
Category of Education, Experience, and Training
NSF EPA NASA Total
# # # #
Science or Medicine 12 21 15 48
Engineering 5 27 71 103
Law 1 22 8 31
Computer Science 4 4
Accounting/Finance 4 9 13
Human Resources I 3 3 7
Procurement 5 5
Logistics 1 1
Health & Safety 3 3
Education 1 4 5
Math/Statistics 3 3 I 7
Social Sciences 3 1 4
Management 1 9 6 16
Economics 1 4
Public Policy
2 I 3
Political Science I 1
Environmental 1 1
Administrative
2
3 5
English Literature 1 I
Urban Planning 2
2
Psychology 1 I
27 102 136 265
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX H
SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES TO AGENCY
SECTION A - SUMMARY Less Than 3 Years of Service
G e n d e r
M ale Fem ale
U
r r % # %
N SF 6 67% 3 33%
E P A 15 60% 10 40 %
N A SA 66 75% 22 25%
T T L 87 71% 35 29%
A v erag e A ge
N SF 52.4
EPA 48.7
NA SA 48.9
T T L 49.1
T T L S u rv ey s
N SF 9 7%
EPA 25 20%
N A SA 88 72%
T T L 122 100%
A p p t. to S E S
<3 years >3 years
# % %
N SF 9 100%
EPA 25 100%
N A SA 88 100%
TTL 122 100%
A vg Y rs S erv
N SF 13.2
EPA 18.0
N A SA 21.4
T T L 20.1
S E S Levels
Lvll % Lvl2 % Lvl3 % Lvl4 % Lvl5 % Lvl6 % TTL# TTL%
NSF 22% 1 11% 4 44% I 11% I 11% 9 100%
EPA 13 52% 8 32%
2
8% I 4% 1 4% 25 100%
NASA 37 42% 28 32% 15 17% 5 6%
2
2% 1 1% 88 100%
TTL 52 43% 37 30% 21 17% 7 6% 2 2% 3 2% 122 100%
H i Ehest E d u c a tio n L evels
HS % AA % BA % M % LLB % PHD % TTL# TTL%
NSF I il% 1 11% 7 78% 9 100%
EPA 6 24% to 40% 3 12% 6 24% 25 100%
NASA* 21 24% 42 48% 2 2% 23 26% 88 100%
TTL 28 23% 53 43% 5 4% 36 30% 122 100%
•Two employees at NASA did not indicate education level or they were below HS.
R a n k A w a rd s
#
R ec’vd
%
R ec’vd
# N ot
R ec’vd
% N o t
R ec’vd Dist.#
D ist.
%
M erit.
#
M erit.
%
Both
#
Both
%
N SF 9 100%
EPA 25 100%
N A SA 1 1% 87 99% 1 1%
T T L 1 1% 121 99% 1 1%
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX H (Continued)
Performance Awards
Rec’vd Rec’vd
Not
Rec’vd
Not
Rec’vd I %
2
% 3 % 4 % 5
+
%
TTL
#
NSF
2
22% 7 78%
2
22% 9
EPA 3 12% 22 88%
2
8% I 4% 6
NASA 22 25% 66 75% 17 19% 5 6% 44
TTL 27 22% 95 78% 21 17% 6 5% 54
SECTION A - SUMMARY
Category of Education, Experience, and Training
NSF EPA NASA Total
# # # #
Science or Medicine 5 6 10 21
Engineering 4 50 54
Law 4 3 7
Computer Science 1 1 2 4
Accounting/Finance
2
4 6
Human Resources 3 3
Procurement I 2 3
Health & Safety I 1
2
Education I I
Math/Statistics 1 1
Management 1 4 5
Economics
2 2
Public Policy 1 I
Environmental 1 1
Administrative 1 7 8
Evaluation/Analysis I I
Urban Planning I 1
Criminal Justice 1 1
9 25 88 122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Do uses of human resource information technology (HRInT) tools in federal organizations improve their human resource management productivity?
PDF
An organizational history of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: A critical comparison of administrative decision making in two pivotal eras
PDF
Internal venturing in public agencies
PDF
Getting 'how' and 'why' straight: A critical discourse analysis of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government's ideological discourse on information and communication technologies
PDF
Comparative study of organizational commitment in the public and private sectors: The case of transportation agencies in Thailand
PDF
Executive spending power: Flexibility in obligation and outlay timing as a measure of federal budgetary and policy control
PDF
A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government
PDF
"Focused free thinking" in military intelligence analysis: Lessons from best practices
PDF
An analysis of third -party regulatory audit systems for medical device safety
PDF
Federal mentor -protege programs: A pilot study on protege survival and growth
PDF
Adapting and applying a mission-focused strategic framework for emergency management
PDF
Determining acceptable seismic risk: A community participation-based approach
PDF
Bridled boldness: Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lessons learned
PDF
Ideologies and champions: Universal Service from Congress to your telephone bill
PDF
An analysis of health risk selection and quality of care under Medicare fee -for -service and Medicare managed care health care systems
PDF
Conversion of health care organizations from non -profit to for -profit status
PDF
"Are we really in charge?": An analysis of the principal -agent relationship
PDF
Detecting the effects social and business pressures on small California trucking firm tax compliance
PDF
Assessing United States information assurance *policy response to computer -based threats to national security
PDF
A search for theory: Performance management to improve transportation safety
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gorman, James Joseph, Jr.
(author)
Core Title
Executive development and effectiveness: A study of mobility assignment experiences of career executives in federal research and development agencies
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Public Administration
Degree Program
Public Administration
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Myrtle, Robert (
committee chair
), [illegible] (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-219075
Unique identifier
UC11339121
Identifier
3073783.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-219075 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3073783.pdf
Dmrecord
219075
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gorman, James Joseph, Jr.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA