nps_hr gap analysis_final report_130603

National Park ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior

Human Resources Career Field Competency Gap Analysis Study Report

June 2013

Report

Jo Robinson Training Manager,

Administration and

Business Practices,

Commercial Services and

Specialty Fields

National Park Service

Nancy Wilson Chief,

WASO HR Operations

Division

Workforce Management


Stephen A. Wolter

Executive Director

Christy McCormick

Project Team

Nona Capps

Project Team

Eppley Institute for Parks & Public Lands

Indiana University Research Park

501 N. Morton Street, Suite 101

Bloomington, IN 47404

812.855.3095

Acknowledgements

The following individuals contributed to the development of this document:


Angela Hargrove

Jo Robinson

Nancy Wilson

Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands

Jeff Bransford

Melanie Brezniak

Nona Capps

Austin Hochstetler

Christy McCormick

Katy Patrick

Steve Wolter

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 1

Survey Population and Response ............................................................................................... 3

Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Stakeholder Survey ............................................................................................................... 3

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 5

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 6

Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 7

Survey Development ................................................................................................................. 11

Employee Survey ................................................................................................................. 11

Supervisor Survey ................................................................................................................. 12

Stakeholder Survey ............................................................................................................. 12

Survey Deployment ............................................................................................................. 12

Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 12

Research Methodology ............................................................................................................. 13

Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Response Rate ..................................................................................................................... 15

Quantitative Results .................................................................................................................... 16

Example IP Grid with Plotted Data ........................................................................................... 19

Attention to Detail ...................................................................................................................... 20

Client Engagement/Change Management .......................................................................... 21

Customer Service ....................................................................................................................... 23

Decision Making ......................................................................................................................... 24

Flexibility ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Influencing/Negotiating ............................................................................................................ 26

Integrity/Honesty ......................................................................................................................... 27

Interpersonal Skills ....................................................................................................................... 28

Oral Communication ................................................................................................................. 29

Organizational Awareness ........................................................................................................ 30

Problem Solving .......................................................................................................................... 31

Project Management ................................................................................................................ 32

Reading ....................................................................................................................................... 33

Reasoning ................................................................................................................................... 34

Self-Management ...................................................................................................................... 35

Stress Tolerance .......................................................................................................................... 36

Teamwork .................................................................................................................................... 37

Writing .......................................................................................................................................... 38

Classification ............................................................................................................................... 39

Compensation ............................................................................................................................ 40

Employee Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 41

Employee Development ........................................................................................................... 42

Employee Relations .................................................................................................................... 43

HR Information Systems .............................................................................................................. 44

Information Management/Systems ......................................................................................... 45

Labor Relations ........................................................................................................................... 46

Legal, Government, and Jurisprudence ................................................................................. 47

Performance Management ..................................................................................................... 48

Planning and Evaluating ........................................................................................................... 49

Recruitment/Placement ............................................................................................................ 50

Technical Competence ............................................................................................................ 51

Workforce Planning .................................................................................................................... 52

Competency Breakdown by GS Level .................................................................................... 53

Competency Breakdown by Region....................................................................................... 70

Stakeholder Survey ..................................................................................................................... 87

Qualitative Results ............................................................................................................... 88

General Qualitative Responses ................................................................................................ 92

Supervisor Survey ................................................................................................................. 92

Employee Survey ................................................................................................................. 92

Stakeholder Survey ............................................................................................................. 92

Demographics ............................................................................................................................ 94

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 96

Observations ........................................................................................................................ 96

General Recommendations .............................................................................................. 97

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 98

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ 100

Appendix C ............................................................................................................................... 102

Supervisor Survey - Qualitative Responses ............................................................................ 102

Employee Survey – Qualitative Responses ........................................................................... 104

Stakeholder Survey – Qualitative Responses ........................................................................ 113

Figures Figure 1: IP Grid ............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Perceived Reliability of Guidance Received by Stakeholders .............................. 4 Figure 3: Stakeholder Reasons for Not Seeking HR Guidance .............................................. 5 Figure 4: Example IP Grid with Intersection Point ................................................................... 14 Figure 5: Qualitative Responses to Stakeholder Survey ........................................................ 89 Figure 6: Qualitative Stakeholder Response ........................................................................... 91

Tables Table 1: Competency Definitions ............................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Mean Importance, Mean Preparation, and Gaps for Supervisor and Employee

Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 3: GS 5 Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps .................................................... 54 Table 4: GS 7 Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps .................................................... 56 Table 5: GS 9 Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps .................................................... 58 Table 6: GS 11 Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps.................................................. 60 Table 7: GS 12 Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps.................................................. 62 Table 8: GS 13 Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps.................................................. 64 Table 9: GS 14 Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps.................................................. 66 Table 10: General Competency Employee Reported IP Gaps by GS Level ..................... 68 Table 11: Technical Competency Employee Reported IP Gaps by GS Level ................... 69 Table 12: Southeast Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps ........................... 71 Table 13: Northeast Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps ........................... 73 Table 14: Midwest Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps ............................. 75 Table 15: Intermountain Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps ................... 77 Table 16: Pacific West Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps ...................... 79 Table 17: Alaska Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps ................................ 81 Table 18: WASO Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps ................................. 83 Table 19: General Competency Employee Reported IP Gaps by Region ........................ 85 Table 20: Technical Competency Employee Reported IP Gaps by Region...................... 86 Table 21: Stakeholder Questions .............................................................................................. 87 Table 22: Survey Responses by Region .................................................................................... 94 Table 23: Length of Time in NPS ................................................................................................ 94 Table 24: Number of Employees at Eact GS Level Represented by Supervisor Surveys .. 95 Table 25: Length of NPS HR Employment ................................................................................ 95 Table 26: Top 10 Reported Competency Gaps (sorted by employees) ............................ 96

HR Competency Gap Analysis Report 2013

1

The goal of the National Park Service Human Resources Career Field Competency Gap

Analysis is to determine any gaps in general competencies and human resource

technical competencies for employees who work in the NPS Human Resources career

field. This study consisted of five stages: determination of the research methodology;

development of the survey instrument; collection of data; analysis of data; and

reporting of findings. This report documents the findings.

Methodology The research methodology employed in this study is based on modified Importance-

Performance (IP) Analysis. IP can best be described as an easily applied technique for

measuring attribute importance and performance and, in this case, competency

importance and performance. Data were collected from NPS employees, supervisors,

and a stakeholder group (NPS employees who work in career fields other than HR but

who use HR services) in order to assess the degree of competency and preparedness of

NPS Human Resources employees. The Importance-Performance analysis approach

was chosen because it provides a simple and convenient form of measurement and

because data are presented in an easily interpreted, two-dimensional grid that

suggests possible courses of action.

Importance-Performance comparison results are generally translated into a priority

action grid as shown in Figure 1 below. In this case, the vertical axis of the grid indicates

the perceived importance of the Human Resource competencies to the survey

respondent, while the horizontal axis of the grid indicates the employee survey

respondent perceived proficiency in the specified competency. Additionally,

stakeholder comments regarding each competency were documented and

incorporated below the priority action grid to supplement the quantitative data. The

grand mean values for each importance and preparation competency were

calculated, and then plotted on the IP grid. The grand mean was selected as the set

point for the intersection of the IP measure rather than the mathematic intersection

because it allowed for a more objective alignment and easily definable IP grid

quadrants. The use of the grand mean statistic allowed for a more comprehensive

method for determining competency gaps and identifying potential training areas. In

addition, competency gaps were delineated by respondent GS level and region. Once

plotted, these values were interpreted according to their location on the grid as

described below.

Formalized Knowledge Training Required – Respondents believe that

competencies located in this area are very important; however, they perceive

themselves as being not well prepared to complete competency-related tasks.

Training curriculum and resources should focus on items found in this quadrant.

On-the-Job Training Required – Respondents rank competencies located in this

area as high in importance and likewise feel well prepared to perform them. NPS

training should attempt to maintain current effort and performance through field

experiences and onsite training.

2013 HR Competency Gap Analysis Report

2

No Training Required – This area characterizes competencies that the

respondents believe are low in importance and for which they are also not very

well prepared. No action is suggested for competencies located in this quadrant

since both ratings are low.

Training Unwise – Respondents judged competencies located in this quadrant to

be less important to their overall duties, but high in perceived preparation.

Training resources committed to competencies in this quadrant should possibly

be reallocated to competencies located in the “Formal Knowledge Training

Required” quadrant.

Figure 1: IP Grid

A gap analysis was then conducted using the IP grids for both general and technical

competencies. Utilizing the various mean scores for each item from supervisors and

employees, numeric gaps can be calculated between:

Perceived HR competency and preparedness by employee including further

analysis by years in field, years worked in NPS, and region

HR employee and supervisor by HR competency, as well as perceived ability

of HR employees by stakeholders

1 3 2 4 5

3

2

1

4

Performance

Importance

Formal

Knowledge

Training

Required

On-the-Job

Training

Required

No Training

Required

Training Unwise

Intersection point of

importance-

performance scale


3

These gaps were calculated using the IP grid responses in each of the quadrants so

they can be compared and prioritized for consideration by NPS HR Leaders.

Survey Population and Response Three groups of employees were surveyed as part of this study: HR employees,

supervisors, and stakeholders. The groups were surveyed to determine the level of

employee proficiency in 14 technical competencies and 19 general competencies

defined by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Out of 301 distributed

employee surveys, 180 completed responses were received; 32 completed responses

were received out of 56 distributed supervisor surveys; and 180 completed responses

were received out of 459 distributed stakeholder surveys. The response rate for all three

surveys exceeded the recommended sample sizes for statistically valid results.

Findings 1) There was agreement between supervisors and employees on 16 of the 19

general competencies that continued on-the-job training was required.

Responses on the remaining competencies were closely related and fell into the

formal knowledge training required and on-the-job training required quadrants.

2) There was agreement between supervisors and employees on nine of the 14

technical competencies that formal knowledge training was required. Responses

on the remaining competencies were closely related and fell mostly into the

formal knowledge training required and on-the-job training required quadrants.

3) Employee responses were also analyzed separately to further define

competency gaps by GS levels and competency gaps by region. GS 5

employees have the overall highest general competency gaps among the

reported GS levels. GS 7 and GS 9 positions indicated having gaps as well. GS 14

positions only indicated a gap for the Project Management competency.

4) GS 5 employees also have the highest technical competency gaps among the

reported GS levels. GS 7 through GS 11 positions indicated having gaps as well.

GS 14 positions did not indicate any gaps for all technical competencies,

representing that their performance meets or exceeds the competency’s

importance.

5) The Southeast, Pacific West, and Alaska regions reported having the most overall

general competency gaps. The WASO region reported having the least general

competency gaps. There are more technical competency gaps by region than

there are general competency gaps. The Southeast, Pacific West, Alaska, and

Intermountain regions show the most technical competency gaps.

Stakeholder Survey

Stakeholders were surveyed as well, and both quantitative and qualitative data were

collected. Both data sets collected regarding employee performance in both general

and technical competencies support the data collected in the employee and

supervisor surveys for formal knowledge training and on-the-job training requirements.

Stakeholders were also asked if they had sought guidance from HR employees


4

regarding technical competency issues and, if so, how reliable and accurate they

perceived the guidance to be. If they had not sought guidance, they were asked to

respond with a reason why. The qualitative data are summarized below.

Findings

Two factors were measured by stakeholder response: 1) reliability of the HR staff in

giving guidance to stakeholders, and 2) if stakeholders had not sought guidance for a

competency area from HR staff, why they had not done so. Guidance sought

regarding Performance Management issues was judged to be the most accurate and

reliable, while guidance sought regarding Planning and Evaluating issues was judged to

be the most unreliable. Stakeholders indicated that they were most unsure about

guidance received regarding Legal, Government, and Jurisprudence issues.

Stakeholders also indicated that they received the most varied guidance regarding

Recruitment and Placement issues. Guidance received regarding Labor Relation issues

was judged to be most correct, but stakeholders received poor service.

Stakeholders’ perceptions of the reliability of guidance from HR staff in specific

competencies vary, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Perceived Reliability of Guidance Received by Stakeholders

Stakeholders indicated a wide variety of reasons why they had not sought guidance

from NPS HR staff. Figure 3 below shows the competencies on which stakeholders had

not sought guidance and reasons why they had not done so.

Reliable Guidance

Less Reliable Guidance

Legal,

Government, and

Jurisprudence;

Planning and

Evaluating

Performance

Management

and

Labor Relations

Varied Guidance

Recruitment/

Placement


5

Figure 3: Stakeholder Reasons for Not Seeking HR Guidance

Conclusions and Recommendations While the findings in this report for the HR Gap Analysis do not provide specific

recommendations, the intent is to provide the training manager and Human Resources

leadership with a summary of the competencies that require training or developmental

events to improve efficiency in the HR workforce. To that end, data from all three

surveys indicate that gaps in performance in general competency areas can almost all

be resolved through on-the-job training, and gaps in performance in technical

competency areas can be resolved through more formal knowledge training. It is

recommended that on-the-job training continues at the current level in cooperation

with supervisors, and formal knowledge training is provided as funds and appropriate

training are available.

No Need for Guidance

Labor Relations

Too Busy, No Opportunity, or Not a Priority

Classification

Did Not Know Who to Contact

Planning and Evaluating

Poor Service

Recruitment-Placement


6

A competency gap analysis determines the difference between actual job

performance and ability and needed performance and ability in competency areas

for a specific career field. The National Park Service (NPS) Human Resources (HR) career

field recently updated the competencies for the various levels of employees in the

career, and a gap analysis was needed.

Additionally, several years ago a segment of the NPS Human Resources career field

completed a needs assessment offered by the Office of Personnel Management

(OPM). This needs assessment is only offered every other year, and the deadline had

passed once Human Resources management decided they wanted to do a needs

assessment in 2012. This competency gap analysis approach was proposed in its stead.

This HR Competency Gap Analysis study consisted of five stages: 1) determination of

the research methodology; 2) development of the survey instrument; 3) collection of

data; 4) analysis of data; and 5) reporting of findings. The results from the surveys are

reported here and will be used by the NPS to prioritize and design training events to

meet the needs of HR professionals in the NPS.


7

There are 33 competencies, 19 general and 14 technical, defined by OPM that are

necessary for employees in the HR career field. General competencies apply to all

federal employees, and technical competencies apply specifically to the HR career

field. The definition for each competency is listed in Table 1 below. In order to

determine the level of employee proficiency in these competencies, surveys were

distributed. Three groups of employees were surveyed as part of this study: HR

employees, supervisors, and stakeholders.

Table 1: Competency Definitions

Competency Definition Competency Type

Attention to Detail Is thorough when performing work

and conscientious about attending to

detail

General

Creative Thinking Uses imagination to develop new

insights into situations and applies

innovative solutions to problems;

designs new methods where

established methods and procedures

are inapplicable or are unavailable

General

Client Engagement/

Change Management

Knowledge of impact of change on

people, processes, procedures,

leadership, and organizational culture;

knowledge of change management

principles, strategies, and techniques

required for effectively planning,

implementing, and evaluating

change in the organization

General

Customer Service Works with clients and customers (that

is, any individual who uses or receives

the services or products that their work

unit produces, including the general

public, those who work in the agency,

other agencies, or organizations

outside the government) to assess

their needs, provide information and

assistance, resolve their problems, or

satisfy their expectations; knows about

available products and services; and

commits to providing quality products

and services

General

Decision Making Makes sound, well-informed, and

objective decisions; perceives the

impact and implications of decisions;

commits to action, even in uncertain

situations, to accomplish

General


8

organizational goals; causes change

Flexibility Is open to change and new

information; adapts behavior or work

methods in response to new

information, changing conditions, or

unexpected obstacles; effectively

deals with ambiguity

General

Influencing/Negotiating Persuades others to accept

recommendations, cooperate, or

change their behavior; works with

others toward an agreement;

negotiates to find mutually

acceptable solutions

General

Integrity/Honesty Contributes to maintaining the

integrity of the organization; displays

high standards of ethical conduct,

and understands the impact of

violating these standards on an

organization, self, and others; is

trustworthy

General

Interpersonal Skills Shows understanding, friendliness,

courtesy, tact, empathy, concern,

and politeness to others; develops

and maintains effective relationships

with others; may include effectively

dealing with individuals who are

difficult, hostile, or distressed; relates

well to people with varied

backgrounds and different situations;

is sensitive to cultural diversity, race,

gender, disabilities, and other

individual differences

General

Oral Communication Expresses information (for example,

ideas and facts) to individuals or

groups effectively, taking into

account the audience and nature of

the information (for example,

technical, sensitive, controversial);

makes clear and convincing

presentations; listens to others, attends

to nonverbal cues, and responds

appropriately

General

Organizational

Awareness

Knows the organization’s mission and

functions and how its social, political,

and technological systems work, and

operates effectively within them; this

includes the programs, policies,

procedures, rules, and regulations of

the organization

General

Problem Solving Identifies problems; determines

accuracy and relevance of

information; uses sound judgment to

General


9

generate and evaluate alternatives

and to make recommendations

Project Management Knowledge of the principles, methods,

or tools for developing, scheduling,

coordinating, and managing projects

and resources, including monitoring

and inspecting costs, work, and

contractor performance

General

Reading Understands and interprets written

material, including technical material,

rules, regulations, instructions, reports,

charts, graphs, or tables; applies what

is learned from written material to

specific situations

General

Reasoning Identifies rules, principles, or

relationships that explain facts, data,

or other information; analyzes

information and makes correct

inferences or draws accurate

conclusions

General

Self-Management Sets well-defined and realistic

personal goals; displays a high level of

initiative, effort, and commitment

toward completing assignments in a

timely manner; works with minimal

supervision; is motivated to achieve;

demonstrates responsible behavior

General

Stress Tolerance Deals calmly and effectively with high-

stress situations (for example, tight

deadlines, hostile individuals,

emergency situations, dangerous

situations)

General

Teamwork Encourages and facilitates

cooperation, pride, trust, and group

identify; fosters commitment and

team spirit; works with others to

achieve goals

General

Writing Recognizes or uses correct English

grammar, punctuation, and spelling;

communicates information (for

example, facts, ideas, or messages) in

a succinct and organized manner;

produces written information that may

include technical material and that is

appropriate for the intended

audience

General

Classification Knowledge of classification concepts,

principles, and practices related to

structuring organizations and positions

and determining the appropriate pay

systems, occupational grouping, title,

and pay level of positions

Technical


10

Compensation Knowledge of compensation

concepts, principles, and practices,

including pay and leave

administration and compensation

flexibilities

Technical

Employee Benefits Knowledge of HR concepts, principles,

and practices related to retirement,

insurance, injury compensation, and

other employee benefits programs

Technical

Employee Development Knowledge of employee

development concepts, principles,

and practices related to planning,

evaluating, and administering training,

organizational development, and

career development initiatives

Technical

Employee Relations Knowledge of laws, rules, regulations,

case law, principles, and practices

related to employee conduct,

performance, and dispute resolution

Technical

HR Information Systems Knowledge of HR management

concepts, principles, and practices

related to identifying and analyzing

HR processes, translating functional

requirements into technical

requirements, and delivering and

maintaining HR information systems

Technical

Information

Management/

Systems

Identifies a need for and knows where

or how to gather information;

organizes and maintains information

or information management systems

Technical

Labor Relations Knowledge of laws, rules, regulations,

case law, principles, and practices

related to negotiating and

administering labor agreements

Technical

Legal, Government, and

Jurisprudence

Knowledge of laws, legal codes, court

procedures, precedents, legal

practices and documents,

government regulations, executive

orders, agency roles, government

organization and functions, and the

democratic political process

Technical

Performance

Management

Knowledge of performance

management concepts, principles,

and practices related to planning,

monitoring, rating, and rewarding

employee performance

Technical

Planning and Evaluating Organizes work, sets priorities, and

determines resource requirements;

determines short- or long-term goals

and strategies to achieve them;

coordinates with other organizations

or parts of the organization to

Technical


11

Survey Development The survey questions were developed by the Eppley Institute with input from the NPS

Chief of the WASO HR Operations Division, the NPS Chief of the Office of Human

Resources, and the Administration and Business Practices, Commercial Services, and

Specialty Fields Training Manager, as well as additional Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).

All employees, supervisors, and stakeholders invited to participate were determined by

the National Park Service.

Employee Survey

This survey was distributed to human resources employees, specifically those who

provide human resource services directly to the field and including employees who

generally work in the Servicing Human Resource Offices (SHRO) or Regional or

Washington Area Support Office (WASO) Human Resource equivalent offices. Those

employees whose collateral duties may include human resource job functions were not

included in the employee survey population.

The employee survey was a self-reporting opportunity for employees to rate themselves

in specific competencies using the statements listed below.

I can apply this competency in the simplest situations.

I can apply this competency in somewhat difficult situations.

I can apply this competency in difficult situations.

I can apply this competency in considerably difficult situations.

I can apply this competency in exceptionally difficult situations.

accomplish goals; monitors progress

and evaluates outcomes

Recruitment/Placement Knowledge of HR concepts, principles,

and practices related to identifying,

attracting, and selecting individuals

and placing them into positions to

address changing organizational

needs

Technical

Technical Competence Uses knowledge that is acquired

through formal training or extensive

on-the-job experience to perform

one’s job; works with, understands,

and evaluates technical information

related to the job; advises others on

technical issues

Technical

Workforce Planning Knowledge of HR concepts, principles,

and practices related to determining

workload projections and current and

future competency gaps to align

human resources with organizational

goals

Technical


12

Employees were also asked about the importance of each competency to their job

performance, attendance at training and importance of training for each

competency, and frequency of performance using each competency.

Supervisor Survey

The supervisor survey was distributed to employees who supervise Human Resource

employees who provide HR services directly to the field. Supervisors were asked to rate

the level of proficiency their employees demonstrate in the technical competencies.

They were also asked about the importance of each competency in employee job

performance, importance of training, and frequency of performance using each

competency.

Stakeholder Survey

The stakeholder survey was distributed to NPS employees who are not employed in the

Human Resources series, but who may use HR services or require the assistance of an HR

employee. These stakeholders were asked to rate their experiences with HR employees

based on both general and technical competencies.

Survey Deployment

Invitations to participate in the survey were sent via email to NPS employees by the

Eppley Institute Project Manager. An announcement was sent the week prior to the

survey deployment to each survey population by the NPS and featured a

memorandum from David Vela, Associate Director for Workforce Management, to

encourage participation. An article was also published on InsideNPS, which was

accessible to all NPS employees (a copy of this article is available in Appendix A).

Angela Hargrove, NPS Chief, Office of Human Resources, also alerted Human Resource

Council members to ensure that HR employees and stakeholders were aware of the

survey.

Email invitations asked employees to click on a link to access the survey. The specific

emails are included in Appendix B.

A two-week response period for data collection was monitored by the Eppley Institute.

A reminder email was sent by the Eppley Institute five days prior to the due date. An

additional reminder was sent the day before the survey closed, and a final reminder

was sent the day the survey closed. Data analysis was an iterative process with a review

and feedback loop initiated by the Eppley Institute and shared with the NPS. A draft

report with preliminary findings was completed for review and comment. This final

report was then presented to the NPS.

Data Collection

The surveys were published online using the Eppley Institute and Indiana University’s

online survey tool, Qualtrics. All data were collected automatically through the online

survey system. The Eppley Institute monitored, maintained, and backed up the data as

necessary to ensure confidentiality and security.


13

Research Methodology The research methodology employed in this study is based on modified Importance-

Performance (IP) Analysis. IP can best be described as an easily applied technique for

measuring attribute importance and performance1 and, in this case, competency

importance and performance. Organizations adapt the IP methodology to measure

and compare the importance of specific job competencies with the degree of

performance. This study collected data from NPS employees, supervisors, and a

stakeholder group in order to assess the degree of competency and performance of

NPS Human Resources employees. The Importance-Performance analysis approach

was chosen because it provides a simple and convenient form of measurement and

because data are presented in an easily interpreted, two-dimensional grid that

suggests possible courses of action. In addition, this data analysis methodology is

extremely practical, and data can be acted upon quickly.

Importance-Performance comparison results are generally translated into a priority

action grid as shown in Figure 4 below. In this case, the vertical axis of the grid indicates

the importance of the Human Resource competencies, while the horizontal axis of the

grid indicates employees’ and supervisors’ perceived performance in the specified

competency. Additionally, stakeholder comments regarding each competency are

documented and incorporated below the priority action grid to supplement the data

derived from employees and supervisors.

The grand mean values for each importance and preparation competency are

calculated, and then plotted on the IP grid. The grand mean was selected as the set

point for the intersection of the IP measure rather than the mathematical intersection,

because it allowed for a more objective alignment and easily definable IP grid

quadrants. The use of the grand mean set point also allowed for a more realistic

reflection of the prioirites reflective of the HR employees in the NPS. This approach

helped to better determine more valid competency gaps and identify potential

training areas. In addition, competency gaps were delineated by respondent GS level

and region. Once plotted, these values were interpreted according to their location on

the grid as described below.

Formalized Knowledge Training Required – Respondents believe that

competencies located in this area are very important; however, they perceive

themselves as being not well prepared to complete competency-related tasks.

Training curriculum and resources should focus on items found in this quadrant.

On-the-Job Training Required – Respondents rank competencies located in this

area as high in importance and likewise feel well prepared to perform them. NPS

training should attempt to maintain current effort and performance through field

experiences and onsite training.

No Training Required – This area characterizes competencies that the

respondents believe are low in importance and for which they are also not very

well prepared. No action is suggested for competencies located in this quadrant

since both ratings are low.

1 Martilla, J.A., and James, J.C., 1997. Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing,

41(1), pp. 77-79.


14

Training Unwise – Respondents judged competencies located in this quadrant to

be less important to their overall duties, but high in perceived preparation.

Training resources committed to competencies in this quadrant should possibly

be reallocated to competencies located in the “Formal Knowledge Training

Required” quadrant.

Figure 4: Example IP Grid with Intersection Point

Also provided is an additional analysis using IP, a gap analysis. Utilizing the various mean

scores for each item from supervisors and employees, numeric gaps can be calculated

between:

Perceived HR competency and performance by employee including further

analysis by years in field, years worked in NPS, and region

HR employee and supervisor by HR competency, as well as perceived ability

of HR employees by stakeholders

These gaps are calculated using the IP grid responses in each of the quadrants so they

can be compared and prioritized for consideration by NPS HR Leaders.

1 3 2 4 5

3

2

1

4

Performance

Importance

Formal

Knowledge

Training

Required

On-the-Job

Training

Required

No Training

Required

Training Unwise

Intersection point of

importance-

performance scale


15

This section displays the results for each of the 33 competencies. The first 19 are general

competencies. The remaining 14 are technical competencies.

Response Rate

The survey was disseminated to 301 NPS employees, 56 supervisors, and 459

stakeholders. In order to produce statistically valid results, the following responses were

required.

Employee Survey

For a population of 301, approximately 169 respondents is the recommended sample

size. There were 231 actual responses received, for a response rate of 76.7%.

Supervisor Survey

For a population of 57, approximately 48 respondents is the recommended sample size.

There were 37 responses received, for a response rate of 64.9%.

Stakeholder Survey

For a population of 460, approximately 210 respondents is the recommended sample

size. There were 240 responses received, for a response rate of 52.2%.

In terms of confidence level and confidence interval (or margin of error), it is assumed

that responses for both employees and stakeholders are within 4–5% of the true

population. The supervisor responses were a little lower than expected, but can still be

used. Here is some more information at a 95% confidence level:

Employee: Confidence interval = 3.1%

Supervisor: Confidence interval = 9.6%

Stakeholder: Confidence interval = 4.4%

The above confidence levels translate into the following:

Employee

It can be stated with 95% confidence that the survey answers are within 3.1% of the

actual population mean. That is, the data presented below for each competency are

generally +/- 3.1% accurate to how the entire employee population would feel about

the competency.

Supervisor



generally +/- 9.6% accurate to how the entire supervisor population would feel about

the competency.


16

Reviewing results for the Supervisor survey reveals that the responses have a close

agreement with a very low standard deviation for each question. An additional 11

responses will generally not change the overall analysis of the responses received, even

though there is a larger margin of error. If the Supervisor survey results had had a large

disagreement in responses, then the project team would have needed to solicit more

responses; however, this does not appear to be the case here.

Stakeholder



generally +/- 4.4% accurate to how the entire stakeholder population would feel about

the competency.

Quantitative Results Data analysis for this training needs assessment was initiated by calculating the mean

importance and performance responses for each competency. In addition to

calculating the estimated means for importance and performance, the employee and

supervisor data were also analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) to determine the upper and lower bounds utilizing the mean standard error for

the importance and preparation aspects of each competency. Calculating the

standard error for each competency’s importance and performance scores allows the

data to be visually represented by a rectangle or square. The standard error represents

the bounds in which the data represent the true relationship to the total population. By

utilizing this statistic, we are able to see how much variance was in the survey data

while at the same time understanding where the limit of the true relationship to the total

population resides.

The upper and lower bounds of the standard error for importance and preparation for

each competency were then plotted on the IP Grids. The result was a box plotted on

the IP Grid within which the actual mean lies. Utilization of standard error to analyze the

data allows for a more accurate interpretation of the importance and preparation of

select competencies in the various IP quadrants. Once again, by having bounds and

representing the data in this way, it is easier to see the variance in survey responses

while at the same time understanding what the relationship is to the total population.

Utilizing the standard error creates a broader use of the data and facilitates decision

making that is based more firmly on the represented data.

The employees' and supervisors' estimated means for importance and preparation for

each competency were plotted on the same IP grid in order to observe trends in

competencies and to compare responses.

In the cases where there is a great deal of variance and the plotted response box is

very large, wide, or long, the reviewer can interpret that the ratings of importance and

preparation varied considerably between Employees and/or Supervisors. This variance

may be due to various factors such as experience, tenure in current position,

background, agency orientation, and other factors not measured by the survey.


17

The estimated means for importance and preparation for employees and supervisors

are represented in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Mean Importance, Mean Preparation, and Gaps for Supervisor and Employee

Surveys

General

Competencies Mean Importance Mean Preparation Gap

Employee Supervisor Employee Supervisor Employee Supervisor

Attention to

Detail 3.88 3.88 3.68 3.53 0.20 0.35

Creative

Thinking 3.21 3.18 3.54 3.15 -0.33 0.03

Client

Management/

Change

Management

3.49 3.41 2.82 2.85 0.67 0.56

Customer

Service 3.9 3.97 3.83 3.76 0.07 0.21

Decision

Making 3.53 3.68 3.44 3.24 0.09 0.44

Flexibility 3.58 3.53 3.81 3.21 -0.23 0.32

Influencing/

Negotiating 3.2 3.3 3.27 3 -0.07 0.3

Integrity/

Honesty 3.92 3.97 4.31 4.09 -0.39 -0.12

Interpersonal

Skills 3.8 3.85 3.71 3.82 0.09 0.03

Oral Communi-

cation 3.7 3.76 3.49 3.47 0.21 0.29

Organizational

Awareness 3.36 3.24 3.31 3.26 0.05 -0.02

Problem

Solving 3.59 3.53 3.38 3.5 0.21 0.03

Project

Management 3.01 2.53 2.82 2.29 0.19 0.24

Reading 3.65 3.71 3.73 3.82 -0.08 -0.11

Reasoning 3.6 3.56 3.42 3.56 0.18 0

Self-

Management 3.72 3.71 4.21 3.65 -0.49 0.06

Stress

Tolerance 3.62 3.47 3.9 3.38 -0.28 0.09

Teamwork 3.6 3.79 3.36 3.85 0.24 -0.06

Writing 3.44 3.35 3.48 3.42 -0.04 -0.07


18

Technical

Competencies Mean Importance Mean Preparation Gap

Employee Supervisor Employee Supervisor Employee Supervisor

Classification 2.75 2.74 2.49 2.53 0.26 0.21

Compensation 2.94 3.15 2.99 3.15 -0.05 0

Employee

Benefits

2.8 2.56 2.69 2.65 0.11 -0.09

Employee

Development

2.75 2.65 2.39 2.26 0.36 0.39

Employee

Relations

2.94 2.91 2.4 2.58 0.54 0.33

HR Information

Systems

3.22 3.24 2.68 2.68 0.54 0.56

Information

Management/

Systems

3.22 3.12 2.78 2.85 0.44 0.27

Labor Relations 2.56 2.32 1.91 1.91 0.65 0.41

Legal,

Government,

and

Jurisprudence

3.38 3.29 2.76 2.65 0.62 0.64

Performance

Management

2.94 3.06 2.8 2.97 0.14 0.09

Planning and

Evaluating

3.28 3.12 3.55 2.91 -0.27 0.21

Recruitment

and Placement

3.27 3.56 3.12 3.62 0.15 -0.06

Technical

Competence

3.69 3.85 3.45 3.62 0.24 0.23

Workforce

Planning

2.89 2.85 2.46 2.41 0.43 0.44


19

Example IP Grid with Plotted Data

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TA

NC

E

PREPARATION

No Training Required

On-the-Job Training Required

Training Unwise

Example 1 -

This box represents "On-the-Job Training Required" for the example competency. This

means that the competency is viewed as highly important and employees are highly

prepared for this competency.

Example 2 -

This box represents a potential split between "On-the-Job Training Required" and "Formal

Knowledge Training Required." This means that the competency is viewed as highly

important; however, there is a discrepancy between how well prepared employees are for

this competency.

Example 3 -

This box represents "No Training is Required." This means that the competency is viewed as

neither highly important nor highly prepared for.

Formal Knowledge Training Required


20

Attention to Detail

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee

The mean for importance from the employee survey is 3.88, and the mean for preparation

is 3.68.

Supervisor

The mean for importance from the supervisor survey is 3.88, and the mean for preparation

is 3.53.

Stakeholder

The majority of stakeholders indicated that HR employees are able to perform in this

competency area, with 55% answering strongly agree or agree. 25% neither agreed nor

disagreed, and 19% disagreed or strongly disagreed that HR employees are able to

perform in this competency area.

Formal Knowledge Training

Required


21

Client Engagement/Change Management

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee

The mean for importance from the employee survey is 3.49, and the mean for

preparation is 2.82.

Supervisor

The mean for importance from the supervisor survey is 3.41, and the mean for


Stakeholder

27% of stakeholders either agreed or strongly agreed that HR employees could perform

in this competency area; 34% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 39% either disagreed or

strongly disagreed that HR employees could perform in this competency area.


Required


22

Creative Thinking

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor

The mean for importance from the surpervisor survey is 3.18, and the mean for


Stakeholder

18% of stakeholders surveyed strongly agreed or agreed that HR employees can

perform this competency. 36% answered neither agree nor disagree. The majority of

stakeholders, 46%, indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed that HR employees

could perform in this competency area.


Required


23

Customer Service

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.83.

Supervisor


is 3.76.

Stakeholder

26% of stakeholders indicated that they either agreed or strongly agreed that HR

employees can perform in this competency area; 46% neither agreed nor disagreed; and

27% responded that they either disgreed or strongly disagreed that HR employees can

perform in this competency.


Required


24

Decision Making

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.44.

Supervisor


is 3.24.

Stakeholder


employees could perform in this competency area; 37% neither agreed nor disagreed;

and 25% either disagreed or strongly disagree that HR employees could perform in this

competency area.


Required


25

Flexibility

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor


is 3.21.

Stakeholder


employees could perform in this competency area; 40% neither agreed nor disagreed;

and 37% indicated they either disagreed or strongly disagreed that HR employees could

perform in this competency area.


Required


26

Influencing/Negotiating

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.27.

Supervisor

The mean for importance from the supervisor survey is 3.3, and the mean for preparation is

3.

Stakeholder

33% of stakeholders indicated they either agreed or strongly agreed that HR employees

could perform in this competency area; 41% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 25%

either strongly disagreed or disagreed that HR employees could perform in this

competency area.


Required


27

Integrity/Honesty

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor



Stakeholder


could perform in this competency area; 27% neither agreed nor disagreed; and only 9%

indicated they either disagreed or strongly disagreed that HR employees could perform

in this competency area.


Required


28

Interpersonal Skills

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.71.

Supervisor


is 3.82.

Stakeholder



indicated they either strongly disagreed or disagreed that HR employees could perform in

this competency area.


Required


29

Oral Communication

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.49.

Supervisor


is 3.47.

Stakeholder





Required


30

Organizational Awareness

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee

The mean importance from the employee survey is 3.36, and the mean for preparation is

3.31.

Supervisor


is 3.26.

Stakeholder




this competency area.


Required


31

Problem Solving

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor


is 3.5.

Stakeholder



indicated they either strongly disagreed or disagreed that HR employees could perform

in this competency area.


Required


32

Project Management

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor


is 2.29.

Stakeholder

27% of stakeholders indicated they agreed or strongly agreed that HR employees could

perform in this competency area; 54% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 20% indicated

that they strongly disagreed or disagreed that HR employees could perform in this

competency area.


Required


33

Reading

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.73.

Supervisor


is 3.82.

Stakeholder

42% of stakeholders indicated they agreed or strongly agreed that HR employees could


they strongly disagreed or disagreed that HR employees could perform in this

competency area.


Required


34

Reasoning

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.42.

Supervisor


is 3.56.

Stakeholder

36% of stakeholders indicated they agreed or strongly agreed that HR employees can


they strongly disagree or disagree.


Required


35

Self-Management

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor



Stakeholder

27% of stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed that HR employees can perform in this

competency area; 55% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 19% indicated they

disagreed or strongly disagreed that HR employees can perform in this competency

area.


Required


36

Stress Tolerance

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


preparation is 3.9.

Supervisor



Stakeholder

38% of stakeholders indicated they strongly agreed or agreed that HR employees can

perform this competency; 48% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 14% indicated they

disagreed or strongly disagreed that HR employees can perform this competency.


Required


37

Teamwork

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.36.

Supervisor


is 3.85.

Stakeholder





Required


38

Writing

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.48.

Supervisor


is 3.42.

Stakeholder

55% of stakeholders indicated they strongly agree or agree that HR employees can




Required


39

Classification

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor


is 2.53.

Stakeholder

65% of stakeholders strongly agreed or agreed that HR employees can perform in this

competency area; 26% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 9% disagreed or strongly

disagreed.

74% of stakeholders have sought guidance from HR employees on issues related to this

competency. 26% of stakeholders have had questions related to this competency, but

did not know whom to ask for answers.


Required


40

Compensation

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE


Required



Training Unwise

Employee


is 2.99. Supervisor


is 3.15.

Stakeholder

71% of stakeholders indicated they strongly agreed or agreed that HR employees could

perform in this competency area; 23% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 5% disagreed or

strongly disagreed.


competency. 61% have had questions, but did not know whom to ask for answers.


41

Employee Benefits

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE


Required



Training Unwise

Employee


is 2.69.

Supervisor


is 2.65.

Stakeholder


perform in this competency area; 31% neither agreed nor disagreed; and only 7%

indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed.


competency. 25% of stakeholders have had questions, but did not know whom to ask for

answers.


42

Employee Development

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE


Required



Training Unwise

Employee


is 2.39.

Supervisor


is 2.26.

Stakeholder


perform in this competency area; 43% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 14% disagreed

or strongly disagreed.


competency. 20% have had questions related to this competency, but did not know

whom to ask for answers.


43

Employee Relations

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE


Required


On-the-Job Training

Required

Training Unwise

Employee


is 2.4.

Supervisor


is 2.58.

Stakeholder



strongly disagreed.


competency. 14% of stakeholders have had questions about issues related to this

competency, but did not know whom to ask for answers.


44

HR Information Systems

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE


Required



Training Unwise

Employee


preparation from the supervisor survey is 2.68.

Supervisor


is 2.68.

Stakeholder

46% of stakeholders indicated they either strongly agreed or agreed that HR employees

can perform in this competency area; 46% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 7%

disagreed or strongly disagreed.


competency. 18% have had questions related to this competency, but did not know

whom to ask.


45

Information Management/Systems

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor



Stakeholder







Required


46

Labor Relations

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee



Supervisor


is 1.91.

Stakeholder



disagreed. No one strongly disagreed.

19% of stakeholders have sought guidance on issues related to this competency. 9%

have had questions, but did not know whom to ask for answers.


Required


47

Legal, Government, and Jurisprudence

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 2.76.

Supervisor


is 2.65.

Stakeholder



strongly disagreed.

16% of stakeholders have sought guidance on issues related to this competency from HR

employees. 10% have had questions, but did not know whom to ask for answers.


Required


48

Performance Management

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 2.8.

Supervisor


is 2.97.

Stakeholder



disagreed or strongly disagreed.




Required


49


1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.55.

Supervisor


is 2.91.

Stakeholder


perform in this competency area; 61% neither agreed nor disagreed; and 14% disagreed.

No one strongly disagreed.




Required


50

Recruitment/Placement

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.12.

Supervisor


is 3.62.

Stakeholder







Required


51

Technical Competence

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 3.45.

Supervisor


is 3.62.

Stakeholder



strongly disagreed.


competency.


Required


52

Workforce Planning

1

3

1 3 5

IMP

OR

TAN

CE

PERFORMANCE



Training Unwise

Employee


is 2.46.

Supervisor


is 2.41.

Stakeholder





competency. 15% have had questions, but did not know whom to ask.


Required


53

Competency Breakdown by GS Level Employee responses were analyzed separately to further expose competency gaps by

GS levels. There were a total of seven GS levels reported by employees: GS 5, 7, 9, 11,

12, 13, and 14. Results indicate that there are decreasing degrees of overall

competency gaps as employees move from GS 5 positions to GS 14 positions.

The following tables represent the competency gaps for each GS level. A positive IP

gap indicates that the employees reported the competency as more important than

what their current level of performance is. A negative IP gap indicates that the

competency is reported as being less important than what their current level of

performance is. An IP gap of zero indicates that employees reported their level of

performance as commensurate with the competency’s importance. All tables are

organized in descending order starting with the highest reported IP gap. Additionally,

positive IP gaps are shaded and a line is drawn that separates the positive and

negative IP gaps.


54

Table 3: GS 5 Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps

Competency Performance Importance IP Gap

Legal, Government, and Jurisprudence 1.29 3.13 1.84

Technical Competence 1.62 3.31 1.69

Problem Solving 1.87 3.5 1.63

Customer Service 2.13 3.75 1.62

Compensation 1.33 2.94 1.61

Employee Relations 1.14 2.75 1.61

Employee Benefits 1.21 2.81 1.6

HR Information Systems 1.8 3.38 1.58

Client Engagement/Change Management 1.57 3.13 1.56

Recruitment and Placement 1.08 2.62 1.54

Classification 1.13 2.63 1.5

Workforce Planning 1.09 2.56 1.47

Information Management/Systems 1.93 3.31 1.38

Labor Relations 1.21 2.56 1.35

Interpersonal Skills 2.27 3.62 1.35

Oral Communication 2.13 3.44 1.31

Attention to Detail 2.53 3.81 1.28

Employee Development 1.29 2.5 1.21

Performance Management 1.64 2.81 1.17

Teamwork 2.2 3.31 1.11

Reasoning 2.33 3.38 1.05

Reading 2.47 3.5 1.03

Project Management 1.73 2.69 0.96

Organizational Awareness 2.4 3.31 0.91

Planning and Evaluating 2.47 3.25 0.78

Influencing/Negotiating 1.93 2.56 0.63

Writing 2.4 3 0.6

Decision Making 2.33 2.88 0.55

Integrity/Honesty 3.27 3.75 0.48

Creative Thinking 2.33 2.75 0.42

Flexibility 3.07 3.25 0.18

Self-Management 3.64 3.56 -0.08

Stress Tolerance 3.67 3.5 -0.17

Formal Knowledge Training Required No Training Required

On-the-Job Training Required Performance Is Greater Than Importance


55

The top five competency gaps for GS 5 employees are:

1. Legal, Government, and Jurisprudence

2. Technical Competence

3. Problem Solving

4. Customer Service

5. Compensation

If the above GS 5 competencies were plotted on the IP grid, 29 competencies would

require formal knowledge training. Legal, government, and jurisprudence is shown to

require the most attention due to its large IP gap. GS 5 employees largely feel that their

performance is below the importance of the general and technical competencies

studied and that formal training is required to reconcile the difference.

GS 5 employees reported a higher performance level than importance level for self-

management and stress tolerance. Although both competencies reside in the “on-the-

job training required” quadrant, the lack of a competency gap for GS 5 employees

indicates a low priority for training in these areas.


56













Problem Solving 2.61 3.61 1

Reasoning 2.43 3.43 1






Teamwork 3.04 3.71 0.67

Reading 2.93 3.57 0.64



Compensation 2.43 3 0.57





Writing 3 3.32 0.32




Self-Management 3.68 3.71 0.03

Stress Tolerance 3.61 3.61 0

Creative Thinking 3.11 3 -0.11




57



2. Recruitment and Placement

3. Employee Relations

4. Classification

5. Labor Relations


require formal knowledge training (five fewer than GS 5 positions). Legal, government,

and jurisprudence is shown again to require the most attention in the form of formal

knowledge training efforts. It should be noted that labor relations was split between two

quadrants (on the overall IP grid for supervisors and employees), with supervisors

believing that no training is required but employees reporting the need for formal

knowledge training. GS 7 positions support the overall employee-reported need for

labor relations formal knowledge training. The top five GS 7 competency gaps are all

technical competencies as opposed to general competencies.

GS 7 employees reported a higher performance level than (or one equal to)

importance level for stress tolerance and creative thinking. Although both

competencies reside in the “on-the-job training required” quadrant, the lack of a

competency gap for GS 7 employees indicates a low priority for training in these areas.


58



Teamwork 2.53 3.71 1.18








Classification 2 2.68 0.68





Reasoning 2.82 3.43 0.61




Reading 3.18 3.57 0.39









Flexibility 3.71 3.68 -0.03

Writing 3.41 3.32 -0.09

Integrity/Honesty 4.18 3.96 -0.22

Planning and Evaluating 3.38 3.04 -0.34


Stress Tolerance 4 3.61 -0.39

Creative Thinking 3.47 3 -0.47




59


1. Teamwork


3. Information Management Systems

4. Labor Relations

5. HR Information Systems


require formal knowledge training (seven fewer than GS 7 positions). Teamwork is shown

to require the most attention in the form of formal knowledge training efforts. On the

overall IP grid (representing all employees and supervisors), teamwork was in the “on-

the-job training required” quadrant. Further exploration of the increased need for

formalized teamwork training for GS 9 positions is required.


importance level for seven competencies, an increase from two for GS 5 and GS 7

positions. This may be indicative of the trend for more individual capacity as an

employee gains higher positions.


60







Client Engagement/Change Management 3 3.41 0.41


Project Management 2.65 3 0.35


HR Information Systems 3 3.29 0.29


Attention to Detail 3.71 4 0.29



Customer Service 3.9 4 0.1




Teamwork 3.4 3.41 0.01

Writing 3.37 3.35 -0.02


Information Management/Systems 3.38 3.29 -0.09

Influencing/Negotiating 3.29 3.12 -0.17

Interpersonal Skills 4 3.82 -0.18

Reasoning 3.81 3.59 -0.22

Organizational Awareness 3.48 3.24 -0.24

Reading 3.86 3.59 -0.27

Compensation 3.43 3.12 -0.31


Creative Thinking 3.71 3.06 -0.65


Employee Benefits 3.33 2.65 -0.68






61


1. Workforce Planning

2. Classification

3. Decision Making

4. Labor Relations

5. Client Engagement/Change Management

If the above GS 11 competencies were plotted on the IP grid, nine competencies

would require formal knowledge training (a rather substantial decrease from 17 for GS 9

positions). Workforce planning is shown to require the most attention in the form of

formal knowledge training efforts. Additionally, GS 11 positions are the first to have

workforce planning identified in the top five competency gaps. It should be noted,

however, that the largest IP gap reported for GS 11 positions is 0.59, which is exactly half

the gap of the highest reported GS 9 positions. Labor relations, although exhibiting a

top five competency gap, still falls into the “No Training Required” quadrant and thus

should not be a focus for training for this position level.


importance level for 15 competencies, an increase from GS 5, GS 7, and GS 9 positions.

This may be indicative of the trend for more individual capacity as an employee gains

higher positions.


62








Workforce Planning 2.67 3 0.33

Employee Relations 2.73 3 0.27

Teamwork 3.44 3.67 0.23





Reasoning 3.69 3.71 0.02

Interpersonal Skills 3.87 3.86 -0.01


Decision Making 3.69 3.62 -0.07

Writing 3.65 3.52 -0.13


Problem Solving 3.84 3.62 -0.22

Classification 2.94 2.7 -0.24

Performance Management 3.1 2.86 -0.24

Technical Competence 3.96 3.67 -0.29

Customer Service 4.2 3.9 -0.3




Recruitment and Placement 3.82 3.43 -0.39

Reading 4.1 3.71 -0.39




Compensation 3.44 3 -0.44





63


1. Labor Relations





If the above GS 12 competencies were plotted on the IP grid, six competencies would

require formal knowledge training (a decrease from nine for GS 11 positions). Out of the

top five competency gaps, two competencies (client engagement/change

management and legal, government, and jurisprudence) can be addressed through

on-the-job training.


importance level for over half of the competencies, an increase from GS 5, GS 7, GS 9,

and GS 11 positions. This may be indicative of the trend for more individual capacity as

an employee gains higher positions.


64








Legal, Government, and Jurisprudence 3.79 3.65 -0.14

Employee Relations 3.5 3.29 -0.21



Attention to Detail 4.29 3.88 -0.41

Oral Communication 4.29 3.88 -0.41

Workforce Planning 3.54 3.08 -0.46





Project Management 3.87 3.33 -0.54

Writing 4.3 3.75 -0.55

Performance Management 3.88 3.29 -0.59

Teamwork 4.39 3.79 -0.6








Reading 4.62 3.79 -0.83

Reasoning 4.67 3.79 -0.88








65



2. Labor Relations


4. Employee Development


If the above GS 13 competencies were plotted on the IP grid, four competencies would

require formal knowledge training (a decrease from six for GS 12 positions). Information

management systems was reported as having the biggest IP gap. It should be noted

that the GS 13 position is the first to have the employee development competency

identified in its top five. Although employee development ranks fourth, GS 13

employees may benefit from formal knowledge training in this competency, as they

may have greater employee development responsibilities than do other GS levels.

GS 13 employees only reported a competency gap for five competencies. Moreover,

one of the five top competencies, client engagement/change management, only

requires on-the-job training as opposed to formal knowledge training.


66




Labor Relations 2.57 2.57 0

Client Engagement/Change Management 3.71 3.71 0

Legal, Government, and Jurisprudence 3.71 3.67 -0.04

Information Management/Systems 3.57 3.29 -0.28


Employee Relations 3.43 3.14 -0.29

HR Information Systems 3 2.71 -0.29

Employee Development 3.14 2.71 -0.43

Workforce Planning 4 3.57 -0.43

Influencing/Negotiating 4 3.57 -0.43

Oral Communication 4.29 3.86 -0.43

Teamwork 4.43 4 -0.43

Writing 4.29 3.86 -0.43

Attention to Detail 4.43 3.86 -0.57









Reasoning 4.71 3.86 -0.85

Customer Service 4.86 4 -0.86


Performance Management 4.57 3.57 -1

Planning and Evaluating 4.71 3.71 -1

Flexibility 4.86 3.86 -1

Integrity/Honesty 5 4 -1

Compensation 4.14 3 -1.14

Reading 4.86 3.71 -1.15





67

GS 14 employees only reported a competency gap for one area – project

management. Project management was split between formal knowledge training and

no training required on the overall IP grid. But for GS 14 positions, the project

management competency gap lies in the “on-the-job training” quadrant. GS 14

employees exhibit the highest performance/importance ratio for all competencies

compared to all other GS levels.


68

Table 10: General Competency Employee Reported IP Gaps by GS Level

General Competency GS 5 GS 7 GS 9 GS 11 GS 12 GS 13 GS 14

Attention to Detail 1.28 0.59 0.61 0.29 0.03 -0.41 -0.57

Creative Thinking 0.42 -0.11 -0.47 -0.65 -0.42 -0.75 -0.72

Client

Engagement/Change

Management 1.56 1.11 0.88 0.41 0.4 0.03 0

Customer Service 1.62 0.78 0.37 0.1 -0.3 -1.04 -0.86

Decision Making 0.55 0.62 0.17 0.49 -0.07 -0.62 -0.57

Flexibility 0.18 0.36 -0.03 -0.46 -0.36 -0.66 -1

Influencing/Negotiating 0.63 0.04 0.16 -0.17 -0.34 -0.47 -0.43

Integrity/Honesty 0.48 0.1 -0.22 -0.82 -0.43 -0.79 -1

Interpersonal Skills 1.35 0.32 0.22 -0.18 -0.01 -0.46 -0.57

Oral Communication 1.31 0.75 0.13 0.07 0.14 -0.41 -0.43

Organizational

Awareness 0.91 0.44 0.21 -0.24 -0.06 -0.71 -0.86

Problem Solving 1.63 1 0.55 0.04 -0.22 -0.63 -0.71

Project Management 0.96 0.47 0.06 0.35 0.08 -0.54 0.14

Reading 1.03 0.64 0.39 -0.27 -0.39 -0.83 -1.15

Reasoning 1.05 1 0.61 -0.22 0.02 -0.88 -0.85

Self-Management -0.08 0.03 -0.35 -0.77 -0.46 -1.04 -0.57

Stress Tolerance -0.17 0 -0.39 -0.06 -0.39 -0.5 -0.62

Teamwork 1.11 0.67 1.18 0.01 0.23 -0.6 -0.43

Writing 0.6 0.32 -0.09 -0.02 -0.13 -0.55 -0.43

## Biggest IP Gap by Competency

Importance Greater Than Performance

Performance Greater Than or Equal To Importance

According to Table 10 (see above), GS 5 employees have the overall highest general

competency IP gaps among the reported GS levels. GS 7 and GS 9 positions indicated

having overall positive IP gaps as well. GS 14 positions only indicated a positive IP gap

for the project management competency. It makes sense that, as GS levels increase,

more IP gaps are negative, as higher positions require a more robust set of knowledge,

skills, and abilities (KSAs).


69

Table 11: Technical Competency Employee Reported IP Gaps by GS Level

Technical

Competency

GS 5 GS 7 GS 9 GS 11 GS 12 GS 13 GS 14

Classification 1.5 1.22 0.68 0.57 -0.24 -0.91 -0.85

Compensation 1.61 0.57 0.47 -0.31 -0.44 -0.67 -1.14

Employee Benefits 1.6 1.1 0.61 -0.68 -0.34 -0.38 -0.29

Employee

Development 1.21 0.82 0.59 0.33 0.21 0.17 -0.43

Employee Relations 1.61 1.29 0.73 0.4 0.27 -0.21 -0.29

HR Information

Systems 1.58 0.97 0.89 0.29 0.48 0.37 -0.29

Information

Management/Systems 1.38 0.82 1.03 -0.09 0.48 0.5 -0.28

Labor Relations 1.35 1.21 0.91 0.42 0.59 0.41 0

Legal, Government,

and Jurisprudence 1.84 1.58 1.08 0.29 0.33 -0.14 -0.04

Performance

Management 1.17 1.1 0.61 0.23 -0.24 -0.59 -1

Planning and

Evaluating 0.78 0.25 -0.34 -0.66 -0.2 -0.96 -1

Recruitment and

Placement 1.54 1.34 0.23 0.14 -0.39 -0.37 -1.29

Technical

Competence 1.69 1.17 0.65 0.09 -0.29 -0.51 -0.72

Workforce Planning 1.47 1.12 0.8 0.59 0.33 -0.46 -0.43




According to Table 11 (see above), GS 5 employees have the highest technical

competency IP gaps among the reported GS levels. GS 7 through GS 11 positions

indicated having overall positive IP gaps as well. GS 14 positions indicated a negative IP

gap for all technical competencies, representing that their performance meets or

exceeds the competency’s importance. It makes sense that, as GS levels increase,

more IP gaps are negative, as higher positions require a more robust set of knowledge,

skills, and abilities (KSAs). This table shows that there is a greater IP gap in technical

competencies than general competencies when analyzed by GS level.


70

Competency Breakdown by Region Employee responses were analyzed separately to further expose competency gaps by

region. A total of seven regions were reported by employees: Southeast, Northeast,

Midwest, Intermountain, Pacific West, Alaska, and WASO. No employee responses were

recorded for the National Capital region. Results indicate varying degrees of overall

competency gaps depending on the region in which the employee works.

The following tables represent the competency gaps for each region. A positive IP gap

indicates that the employee reported the competency as more important than what

their current level of performance is. A negative IP gap indicates that the competency

is reported as being less important than what their current level of performance is. An IP

gap of zero indicates that employees reported their level of performance as

commensurate with the competency’s importance. All tables are organized in

descending order starting with the highest reported IP gap. Additionally, positive IP

gaps are shaded and a line is drawn that separates the positive and negative IP gaps.


71

Table 12: Southeast Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps






HR Information Systems 2.47 3.47 1











Teamwork 3.05 3.63 0.58






Reasoning 3.16 3.58 0.42


Reading 3.26 3.63 0.37



Stress Tolerance 3.58 3.74 0.16

Writing 3.26 3.42 0.16



Self-Management 3.63 3.74 0.11

Creative Thinking 3.16 3.26 0.1





72

The top five competency gaps for Southeast region employees are:

1. Labor Relations





The top five identified competency gaps require formal knowledge training to reconcile

the gap. After examining the reported IP gaps on the IP grid, it was determined that the

Southeast region requires at least on-the-job training for all reported competencies.

Influencing/negotiating reported a lower IP gap; however, this competency resides in

the “formal knowledge training required” quadrant on the IP grid. Although the gap is

somewhat low compared to others, it still requires formal knowledge training to

reconcile the competency gap.


73

Table 13: Northeast Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps





Teamwork 3.26 3.67 0.41







Reasoning 3.58 3.75 0.17

Project Management 3 3.13 0.13





Writing 3.59 3.67 0.08






Employee Relations 3.17 3.17 0

Reading 3.87 3.75 -0.12



Performance Management 3 2.83 -0.17










74

The top five competency gaps for Northeast region employees are:


2. Employee Development

3. Information Management/Systems

4. Teamwork

5. Recruitment and Placement

Four of the top five identified competency gaps require formal knowledge training to

reconcile the gap; teamwork requires on-the-job training. It should be noted that the

top five competency gaps are substantially lower than the Southeast’s top five

competency gaps. Additionally, the Northeast reported their performance to meet or

exceed importance for 11 competencies.

HR information systems reported a lower IP gap; however, this competency resides in

the “formal knowledge training required” quadrant on the IP grid. Although the gap is

somewhat low compared to others, it still requires formal knowledge training to

reconcile the competency gap.


75

Table 14: Midwest Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps








Employee Relations 2.5 3 0.5


Customer Service 3.6 4 0.4






Reasoning 3.3 3.5 0.2


Teamwork 3.6 3.7 0.1

Oral Communication 3.8 3.8 0

Project Management 3 3 0

Reading 3.7 3.7 0


Performance Management 3 2.9 -0.1


Influencing/Negotiating 3.1 3 -0.1


Employee Development 2.6 2.3 -0.3


Writing 3.8 3.4 -0.4




Integrity/Honesty 4.8 4 -0.8





76

The top five competency gaps for Midwest region employees are:



3. Labor Relations



All top five identified competency gaps require formal knowledge training to reconcile

the gap for the Midwest region. The Midwest region reported having their performance

meet or exceed importance for 16 competencies. It should be noted that the

classification competency is in the top 10 according to competency gap; however,

when placed in the IP grid, classification resides in the “no training required” quadrant.

There is almost an even split between formal knowledge training required and on-the-

job training required to reconcile the reported competency gaps for the Midwest

region.


77

Table 15: Intermountain Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps













Project Management 2.79 3 0.21



Teamwork 3.28 3.41 0.13




Reasoning 3.41 3.45 0.04

Employee Benefits 2.55 2.55 0







Reading 3.83 3.55 -0.28

Writing 3.55 3.14 -0.41









78

The top five competency gaps for Intermountain region employees are:



3. Classification



Four of the top five identified competency gaps require formal knowledge training to

reconcile the gap for the Intermountain region; technical competence requires on-the-

job training. The Intermountain region reported having their performance meet or

exceed importance for 14 competencies. It should be noted that the labor relations

competency is in the top 10 according to competency gap; however, when placed in

the IP grid, labor relations resides in the “no training required” quadrant. The

Intermountain region also requires more formal knowledge training than on-the-job

training to reconcile its reported competency gaps.


79

Table 16: Pacific West Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps


Legal, Government, and Jurisprudence 2.05 3.05 1

Teamwork 2.9 3.81 0.91
















Reasoning 3 3.43 0.43


Writing 2.8 3.19 0.39

Reading 2.95 3.29 0.34










Creative Thinking 3.05 3.05 0

Integrity/Honesty 3.9 3.9 0





80

The top five competency gaps for Pacific West region employees are:


2. Teamwork




All five of the top five identified competency gaps require formal knowledge training to

reconcile the gap for the Pacific West region. There is a noticeable need for formal

knowledge training to reconcile the majority of reported competency gaps. The Pacific

West region did, however, report having their performance meet or exceed

importance for three competencies. It should be noted that the employee

development competency shows a rather big competency gap; however, when

placed in the IP grid, employee development resides in the “no training required”

quadrant.


81

Table 17: Alaska Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps





Attention to Detail 2.89 4 1.11



Decision Making 2.33 3.33 1




Labor Relations 1.25 2 0.75




Performance Management 2 2.56 0.56




Reasoning 2.89 3.44 0.55

Teamwork 2.67 3.22 0.55



Writing 2.67 3.11 0.44


Creative Thinking 3 3.33 0.33


Reading 3.22 3.44 0.22

Stress Tolerance 3 3.11 0.11



Integrity/Honesty 3.89 3.89 0

Self-Management 3.44 3.44 0

Planning and Evaluating 3.22 3 -0.22




82

The top five competency gaps for Alaska region employees are:




4. Attention to Detail

5. Interpersonal Skills

All of the top five identified competency gaps require formal knowledge training to

reconcile the gap for the Alaska region. The Alaska region is also the only region to

have attention to detail and interpersonal skills be represented in the top five.

Additionally, there is a substantially noticeable need for formal knowledge training to

reconcile the competency gap differences. The Alaska region did, however, report

having their performance meet or exceed importance for three competencies.

It should be noted that three competencies (employee development, employee

relations, and labor relations) have a big competency gap; however, when placed in

the IP grid, the three competencies reside in the “no training required” quadrant.


83

Table 18: WASO Region Employee Reported IP Competency Gaps






Client Engagement/Change Management 3 3.48 0.48









Project Management 3 3.02 0.02

Writing 3.67 3.69 0.02

Reasoning 3.73 3.73 0



Teamwork 3.67 3.62 -0.05






Reading 4.12 3.83 -0.29












84

The top five competency gaps for WASO region employees are:

1. Labor Relations





All of the top five identified competency gaps require formal knowledge training to

reconcile the gap for the WASO region. Additionally, there is a substantially noticeable

need for formal knowledge training to reconcile the competency gap differences. The

WASO region did, however, report having their performance meet or exceed

importance for 18 competencies – the most for any region.


85

Table 19: General Competency Employee Reported IP Gaps by Region

General Competency SE NE MW INTERMNTN. PW AK WASO

Attention to Detail 0.56 0.17 0.1 0.07 0.76 1.11 0.04

Creative Thinking 0.1 -0.25 -1.1 -0.62 0 0.33 -0.44

Client

Engagement/Change

Management 0.9 0.7 1.2 0.41 0.89 1.33 0.48

Customer Service 0.53 0.05 0.4 -0.28 0.76 0.56 -0.23

Decision Making 0.47 0.04 -0.1 -0.13 0.53 1 -0.09

Flexibility 0.13 -0.13 -0.7 -0.52 0.11 0.66 -0.42

Influencing/Negotiating 0.37 -0.32 -0.1 -0.14 0.25 0.55 -0.3

Integrity/Honesty 0.11 -0.29 -0.8 -0.65 0 0 -0.52

Interpersonal Skills 0.63 0.04 0.2 -0.24 0.46 1.11 -0.15

Oral Communication 0.57 0.04 0 0.14 0.77 0.67 0.06

Organizational

Awareness 0.05 0.08 0.2 -0.07 0.58 0.44 -0.29

Problem Solving 0.16 0.02 0.2 0.31 0.62 0.67 0.09

Project Management 0.63 0.13 0 0.21 0.29 0.45 0.02

Reading 0.37 -0.12 0 -0.28 0.34 0.22 -0.29

Reasoning 0.42 0.17 0.2 0.04 0.43 0.55 0

Self-Management 0.11 -0.67 -0.7 -0.9 -0.09 0 -0.54

Stress Tolerance 0.16 0.09 -0.6 -0.83 0.11 0.11 -0.35

Teamwork 0.58 0.41 0.1 0.13 0.91 0.55 -0.05

Writing 0.16 0.08 -0.4 -0.41 0.39 0.44 0.02




According to Table 19 (see above), the Southeast, Pacific West, and Alaska regions

reported having the most overall positive general competency gaps. The WASO region

reported having the most negative general competency IP gaps. This table shows that

required knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) do in fact vary by region.


86

Table 20: Technical Competency Employee Reported IP Gaps by Region

Technical Competency SE NE MW INTERMNTN. PW AK WASO

Classification 0.9 0.22 0.3 0.51 0.52 0.34 -0.02

Compensation 0.21 -0.14 -0.1 0.11 0.2 0.22 -0.4

Employee Benefits 0.79 -0.44 0.5 0 0.27 0.89 -0.04

Employee Development 0.74 0.5 -0.3 0.45 0.4 1.06 0.28

Employee Relations 1.05 0 0.5 0.52 0.61 0.83 0.63

HR Information Systems 1 0.12 0.8 0.38 0.64 1.44 0.5

Labor Relations 1.38 0.29 0.8 0.41 0.67 0.75 0.79

Information

Management/Systems 0.69 0.46 0.6 0.13 0.81 0.55 0.39


Jurisprudence 1.21 0.09 0.3 0.48 1 0.95 0.7

Performance

Management 0.59 -0.17 -0.1 0.11 0.31 0.56 0.12

Planning and Evaluating 0.42 -0.59 -0.27 -0.21 0.13 -0.22 -0.52

Recruitment and

Placement 0.58 0.4 0.4 0.28 0.29 0.06 -0.27

Technical Competence 0.58 0.21 -0.3 0.52 0.86 0.06 0.03

Workforce Planning 1.05 0.28 0.67 0.48 0.51 1.25 0.2




According to Table 20 (see above), there are more technical competency gaps by

region than there are general competency gaps. The Southeast, Pacific West, and

Alaska regions again show the most competency gaps; however, the Intermountain

region can now be categorized in the same group. This table shows that there is a

greater IP gap in technical competencies than general competencies when analyzed

by region.


87

Stakeholder Survey

Additional questions were asked on the stakeholder survey to gauge how much

respondents knew about the structure of the Human Resources offices in the NPS. The

following table shows the results.

Table 21: Stakeholder Questions

Question Yes No

Do you know what a Servicing Human

Resources Office (SHRO) is?

203 22

Do you know what SHRO serves your

park/office?

177 43

Do you know who your SHRO lead is? 136 79

Do you know what the Human Resources

Operations Center (HROC) is and where it’s

located?

158 54


88

Qualitative Results

Qualitative data were collected in addition to asking if stakeholders agreed that HR

employees could perform in technical competency areas. These data were analyzed

using a qualitative data analysis software program called NVivo 10. Stakeholders were

asked if they had sought guidance from HR employees regarding technical

competency issues and, if so, how reliable and accurate they perceived the guidance

to be. If they had not sought guidance, they were asked to respond with a reason why.

Responses to the reliability question were grouped into the following categories:

Yes

No

Varies

Unsure

Correct Info, Poor Service

“Yes” indicates that stakeholders felt the guidance they received was reliable and

accurate. “No” indicates that stakeholders did not perceive the guidance to be

reliable or accurate. “Varies” indicates that stakeholders sometimes received reliable

and accurate information and sometimes did not. “Unsure” indicates that stakeholders

were not sure how accurate or reliable the guidance they received was. Finally,

“Correct Info, Poor Service” includes responses in which stakeholders indicated that

they received accurate guidance, but their experience working with HR employees

was not positive, e.g., guidance was very late, employees were very rude, etc.


89

Figure 5: Qualitative Responses to Stakeholder Survey

72% 67%

61% 60% 60% 58% 57% 56% 55% 53% 51% 50% 41%

37%

8% 10%

14% 15% 7% 13% 17% 18% 20% 26%

21% 22%

54% 63%

3% 2%

1% 9%

4%

8% 5% 4% 5%

16%

5% 2%

14% 15%

16%

10%

18%

21% 19% 20% 18%

5%

16% 26%

5% 3% 6% 8% 6% 11%

2% 2% 2% 7%

Yes No Unsure Varies Correct Info, Poor Service


90

Responses to the question of why stakeholders had not sought guidance were also

grouped into categories. These categories include:

No Need

Too Busy, No Opportunity

Don’t Know Who to Talk To

Not a Priority

Poor Service

Responses in the “No Need” category include those where stakeholders indicated that

they hadn’t had questions or were able to find answers to their questions without

consulting an HR employee. Responses in the “Too Busy” category include those where

stakeholders indicated that they did not consult HR because they felt that HR was too

busy to answer their questions. Responses in the “No Opportunity” category include

those where stakeholders indicated that they had questions but had not yet had the

opportunity to seek guidance from HR employees. “Don’t Know Who to Talk To”

responses include those where the stakeholder was not sure whom in HR to contact for

guidance or was not aware that HR was responsible/available to provide guidance in

that competency area. Responses in the “Not a Priority” category include those where

stakeholders had questions but felt it was not currently a priority to seek out guidance

from HR employees. Finally, responses in the “Poor Service” category include those

where stakeholders were not seeking guidance because of poor service they had

previously received. This category also includes responses where stakeholders felt that

previously sought guidance was not accurate or reliable and therefore weren’t

currently seeking HR guidance, as well as responses where stakeholders didn’t feel that

HR employees had the expertise to answer their questions and therefore weren’t

currently seeking their guidance.


91

Figure 6: Qualitative Stakeholder Response

99% 93% 92%

85% 83% 82% 80% 78% 76% 72%

64% 64% 57%

51%

2% 2% 8% 7% 7% 9%

9% 10%

8% 16%

26%

23%

15%

6% 4% 6% 9%

5% 8%

6% 13%

8%

14%

29%

2% 4% 1% 5% 3%

6%

1% 3%

1% 5% 4% 2% 2% 3% 2%

2% 3% 6%

6% 3% 3% 4% 2% 3% 1%

No Need Poor Service Don't know Who to Ask Too Busy No Opportunity Not a Priority


92

General Qualitative Responses Respondents to all three surveys were given an open-ended question where they could

record their opinions about the survey, their experiences, their recommendations for this

study or further training, or just general information they wanted to share. A complete

list of the qualitative responses received is available in Appendix C. Note that all

responses have been edited to remove any identifying information.

Supervisor Survey

Several supervisors indicated in their qualitative responses that they found the survey

too broad to complete accurately, because they supervise multiple employees at

different levels of knowledge and experience.

Some supervisors also mentioned that cost is an issue when sending employees to

training. Almost all supervisors indicated that all employees could benefit from training.

It was suggested by several supervisors that establishing a mentor program would be

highly beneficial for new employees.

Employee Survey

Several employees also indicated that completing the survey was difficult due to

unclear wording and that they felt the survey didn’t address all gaps. Others felt that

the survey was not a true representation of training, because it did not ask where

training was received. Some employees indicated that they actually received training

outside of the NPS, but there was nowhere on the survey to enter that information.

Several employees indicated that current training is not effective and does not address

specific needs, but virtually all employees who entered qualitative responses indicated

that structured, formal training is needed. Employees also suggested implementing a

mentor program.

Stakeholder Survey

Many stakeholders indicated that they found the survey difficult to complete because

of its broadness. They felt that the survey did not allow them to differentiate between

HR employees who are knowledgeable and capable and those who are not. Many

stakeholders also indicated that their experiences differ based on which HR office they

are working with: SHRO, HROC, or WASO. Again, the survey did not allow them to

differentiate between offices. Some stakeholders also responded that it was difficult to

complete the survey, because they don’t interact with HR employees and therefore did

not know how to respond.

Negative qualitative responses indicate that the SHRO is viewed as less competent than

HROC, and that there is a disconnect between the SHROs and the parks. HR employees

in general are seen as rule-bound and bureaucratic, with no real understanding of the

needs of parks. HR employees are also perceived as inflating their own authority but

often not being knowledgeable about what they are talking about. Many stakeholders

indicated that hiring officials need better certs, because certs will often include people

with no applicable skills. Some stakeholders explained that they believe this happens

because the HR employee grading the applications does not have a real


93

understanding of what the job requires. Stakeholders also indicated that everything

with HR, particularly advertising and hiring for new positions, takes far longer than it

should, to the detriment of the park. Stakeholders also believe that HR offices are

understaffed and overworked. Many negative responses indicated that HR employees

in general are not customer-service oriented and are rude and difficult to work with.

There were far fewer positive qualitative responses to the stakeholder survey. Positive

responses often referred to specific HR employees by name. Some stakeholders

indicated that their overall experiences have been negative, but that working with a

specific HR employee has been positive. Other positive responses indicated that HR

employees do follow-up and are easy to work with.


94

Demographic data was collected from respondents to all surveys. That information is

presented here.

Table 22: Survey Responses by Region

Survey

Region

Number of

Invites

Number of

Responses

Employee

Survey

Southeast 32 19

National Capital 0 0

Northeast 41 24

Midwest 23 10

Intermountain 56 29

Pacific West 50 21

Alaska 11 9

Washington Support

Office (WASO)

88 52

Supervisor

Survey

Southeast 5 2


Northeast 5 3

Midwest 4 2

Intermountain 14 7

Pacific West 8 3

Alaska 1 1

Washington Support

Office (WASO)

19 14

Stakeholder

Survey

Southeast 64 21


Northeast 64 23

Midwest 56 24

Intermountain 62 25

Pacific West 63 24

Alaska 44 18

Washington Support

Office (WASO)

58 18

Table 23: Length of Time in NPS

Survey Time in NPS Number of Responses Percent

Employee Survey 0–5 years 75 44%

6–10 years 21 12%

11–15 years 26 15%

16 years or more 47 28%

Supervisor Survey 0–5 years 15 47%

6–10 years 3 9%


95

11–15 years 3 9%


Stakeholder Survey 0–5 years 24 14%

6–10 years 14 8%

11–15 years 26 15%


Supervisors were asked to indicate the grade(s) of their HR employees. That information

is listed below.

Table 24: Number of Employees at Eact GS Level Represented by Supervisor Surveys

Pathways

Interns/Students

GS 4 GS 5 GS 6 GS 7 GS 9 GS 11 GS 12 GS 13 GS 14

2 4 24 10 88 40 30 58 22 4

The positions of HR employees represented by supervisors in this survey include Ethics

Program Managers, Workers Compensation Program Managers, HR Specialists, HR

Assistants, Supervisory HR Specialists, Supervisory HR Assistants, Employee Relations

Specialists, EEO Managers, Regional Employee Relations Program Managers, Regional

Staffing and Placement Program Managers, and SHRO Leads.

Employees were asked to indicate how long they had worked in Human Resources in

the NPS.

Table 25: Length of NPS HR Employment

Length of Time Number of Responses Percent

0–5 years 84 50%

6–10 years 25 15%

11–15 years 25 15%


They were also asked to describe their position as a generalist (i.e., performing work in

three or more technical competency areas) or a specialist (i.e., performing work in two

competency areas). 51% indicated that their positions are generalists, and 49%

indicated that their positions are specialists.


96

While the intent of this report is not to provide specific recommendations, this section

provides general recommendations based on the results of the three surveys.

The following table presents the top areas of training focus as expressed by IP gap.

Additionally, the method of training to reconcile the IP gap is presented in the right

column.

Table 26: Top 10 Reported Competency Gaps (sorted by employees)

Competency Type of

Competency

IP Gap Recommended Action

Emp. Sup.

Client

Management/Change

Management

General .67 .56 Formal Knowledge Training

Labor Relations Technical .65 .41 Formal Knowledge

Training*


Jurisprudence

Technical .62 .64 Formal Knowledge Training

HR Information Systems Technical .54 .56 Formal Knowledge Training

Employee Relations Technical .54 .33 Formal Knowledge Training

Information

Management/Systems

Technical .44 .27 Formal Knowledge Training

Workforce Planning Technical .43 .44 Formal Knowledge Training

Employee Development Technical .36 .39 Formal Knowledge Training

Classification Technical .26 .21 Formal Knowledge Training

Teamwork General .24 -.06 On-the-Job Training

*The IP grid shows a split between the “Formal Knowledge Training Required” and “No

Training Required” quadrants. Employees indicated formal knowledge training whereas

supervisors indicated that no training is required.

As denoted by the above table, there is a more apparent need for formal knowledge

training regarding technical competencies. Teamwork and client

management/change management were the only general competencies

represented in the top 10. Additionally, only the teamwork competency resided in the

“On-the-Job Training Required” quadrant on the IP grid.

Observations

There were a few competencies that did not fall completely into a single IP grid

quadrant:

Compensation

Influencing/Negotiating

Labor Relations

Performance Management



97

Project Management

There were observed discrepancies for the above competencies. In most cases,

supervisors and employees reported differing importance and performance levels. This

discrepancy can be resolved when examining the competency gaps by both GS level

and region. Addtionally, it may be prudent for training managers to utilize smaller

surveys or focus groups to determine the best method for addressing these

competency gaps.

General Recommendations

Highest-priority training should focus on GS 5, GS 7, GS 9, and GS 11 levels.

o Higher performance levels do not seem to need the same level of training

that the entry levels need.

Based on many qualitative responses from supervisors and employees,

developing a mentor program may help address competency gaps at the lower

levels.

Highest-priority training should focus on the Southeast, Pacific West, and Alaska

regions.

o These regions reported the most technical competency gaps. It is

therefore recommended that higher priority be given to training in

technical competencies.

Training managers should refer to the competency gaps as presented by both

GS level and region to help determine the highest-priority training needs.

The NPS should maintain the current level of on-the-job training through field

experiences.

Further analysis of the performance of employees in SHROs versus HROCs is

necessary.

o Stakeholders reported that SHRO employees need more training than

HROC employees.

More analysis is required to reconcile the discrepancy regarding the

performance of the creative thinking competency.

o Employees report performing much better than what supervisors reported.

Additionally, 46% of stakeholders indicated they disagreed or strongly

disagreed that HR employees could perform in this competency area.

Further analysis is required to examine the competency gap relationship

between GS 9 positions and below and GS 11 positions and above.

o GS 11 positions and above report substantially smaller competency gaps

than the preceding levels.


98

Inside NPS article announcing survey, available via

http://inside.nps.gov/index.cfm?handler=viewnpsnewsarticle&type=Announcements&i

d=13411

OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES

Human Resources Skill Gap Analysis Underway

Six years ago, the National Park Service began a concerted effort to transform its

human resources programs and services. The Service’s 74 human resources offices have

now been consolidated to 23 Servicing Human Resources Offices (SHROs) and a

significant amount of work has been done – and continues – on process and procedure

enhancements, including streamlining and consistency in the way human resources

services are delivered.

In August 2011, the "Call to Action" was released. Under item 30, "Tools of the Trade," it

calls for “enhancing professional and organizational excellence” and directs the

Service to “provide employees the tools, training and development opportunities to

reach their full career potential…”

In support of the Human Resources Transformation and this "Call to Action" item, the

National Park Service HR community has identified the need to assess and identify gaps

in proficiency within its existing workforce and to strategically plan a structured training

and development program for the human resources staff of the future.

As a first step in this process, the National Park Service Office of Human Resources, in

partnership with the Eppley Institute for Parks and Public Lands at Indiana University and

the Office of Learning and Development, have developed three assessment survey

tools (stakeholders, human resource practitioners, and supervisors of human resources

practitioners) that will be issued electronically on February 18th. These surveys will be

sent to a group of 450 stakeholders and all human resources practitioners and their

supervisors.

Participation is integral to gaining a valid assessment and we ask that selectees join us

by completing the survey within the established timelines. All participants will be notified

directly via electronic mail from the Eppley Institute ([email protected]) of their

selection and how to participate. Please do not delete this email!

The results of this survey will be used to identify current skill gaps that will enable us to

strategically plan the use of funds to focus on areas where the greatest need exists. It

will also be used to develop a human resources bootcamp that will provide a

structured, professional employee development program for HR practitioners that will

enhance our abilities to better meet the needs of our customers throughout the

National Park Service.


99

The results will also further enhance the human resources community’s ability to

become a strategic partner in meeting the needs of our other customers throughout

the National Park Service.

Questions regarding the survey may be directed to Nancy Wilson, Chief WASO Human

Resources Operations Division at 202-354-1963 or [email protected].

The past three years have been difficult for all those in the HR community and our

customers. There is still much work to be done to create a 21st Century HR organization.

We will be looking to you, our stakeholders, to evaluate ideas and suggestions and to

collaborate with us in building this organization.

Contact Information

Name: Nancy Wilson

Phone Number: 202-354-1963

Email: [email protected]


100

The following text was used for the stakeholder survey:

Good morning,

On February 14, Associate Director for Workforce Management, David Vela, issued a

memorandum announcing a stakeholder survey that would be issued today, February

18, 2013. You have been randomly selected to participate. Your participation in this

survey is critical and will assist the National Park Service in assessing the current skill sets

of human resources practitioners that provide services to your organization. It will also

assist the Service in planning and realizing an HR Bootcamp employment development

program that will be designed to build entry through expert levels of human resources

skills within the human resources community. This will further enhance the NPS HR

community’s ability to provide the best possible services to you, their customers.

The survey will take you approximately 15–20 minutes to complete, and you can save

and return to the survey later if you are unable to complete it in one sitting. All of your

responses are confidential and anonymous. To access the survey, click this link:

https://iuhealth.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_5beVAgGFh8KIAWV. Please complete the

survey by midnight on March 4, 2013. If you have any technical issues with the survey,

please contact Eppley Institute Project Manager Nona Capps at [email protected]

or 812-855-0864.

Thank you so much for your time and participation.

The following text was used for the HR employee survey:

Good morning,

As a human resources practitioner within a National Park Service Servicing Human

Resources Office or other office primarily focused on human resources programs, you

have been chosen to participate in the Human Resources Gap Analysis survey for

practitioners. Your input is critical to helping the NPS HR community strategically plan

employee development offerings and to develop the HR Bootcamp. The HR Bootcamp

will provide a structured, professional employee development program for HR

practitioners from the entry to expert level of skills.




https://iuhealth.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_eDrhHU5RzaXSTSB. Please complete the

survey by midnight on March 4, 2013. If you have any technical issues with the survey,

please contact Eppley Institute Project Manager Nona Capps at [email protected]

or 812-855-0864.


101


The following text was used for the HR supervisor survey:

Good morning,

As a supervisor of a human resources practitioner within a National Park Service

Servicing Human Resources Office or other office primarily focused on human resources

programs, you have been chosen to participate in the Human Resources Gap Analysis

survey for supervisors. Your input regarding the performance of your employee(s) is

critical in helping the NPS HR community strategically plan employee development

offerings and to develop the HR Bootcamp. The HR Bootcamp will provide a structured,

professional employee development program for HR practitioners from entry level to

expert level of skills.




https://iuhealth.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_8ji1M4lB9Ue1261. Please complete the survey

by midnight on March 4, 2013. If you have any technical issues with the survey, please

contact Eppley Institute Project Manager Nona Capps at [email protected] or 812-

855-0864.



102

Supervisor Survey - Qualitative Responses My staff is at full performance level and could train in many of the topics listed.

We do have a student who is about to complete her education and does have

a need for various levels of training both formal and on the job. The issue is cost

of training and time.

Would like to see a clear set of basic training requirements set up for HR staff at

the various levels. Most staff are generalists, and having staff in satellite offices

sometimes makes team building difficult. Having HR staff in locations where they

are by themselves often does not allow them to gain knowledge as easily as if

they were in a larger office. Training needs to reflect those situations as well.

Technology is used on an ad hoc basis to make connections, I think the HR

community could invest more in technology to use it to bring staff together and

to train. The level of technology a SHRO has is dependent on the budget/non HR

manager willingness to buy into the SHRO needs. Technology doesn't replace

actual classes and face to face but we need to be creative as budget keep

shrinking. Also, some attention should be given to the fact SHROs co-located in

parks, are still treated as park SPOs in many cases and asked to take on non

SHRO duties for the co-located park. HR staff really need to learn how to

balance those demands and workloads. I also see a lack of growth

opportunities for HR Assistants as the NPS does not have a good mentor program

to grow their skills. As an agency we need to find a way to grow our HR staff and

to keep them. I have seen other agencies with a formalized HR training program

that we need to think about in the future. Right now skills for our current staff is a

need but as many of those staff get close to retirement, hiring replacements or

getting HR assistants enough knowledge to replace them is a concern as well.

Centralization's downfall is that the skills that are centralized are lost in the field as

non HR managers who approve budgets and training costs don't understand

that field staff still need to be trained so the products they send to HROC are

quality. Many of my GS-12 specialists end up spending 50% of their time doing

assistant work, because the processing is still required of them. Time has not been

freed up by the centralization process to work on the other areas of HR. So we

can train, but if the person has no time to put that training into effect the training

become another manual to sit on the shelf gathering dust. While the boot camp

is great for the initial phase, I would like to see how the HR community is also

going to implement continued training. It would be nice to have refresher

training offered in various areas, not just taking a basic class again, but

acknowledging the participants have the basics but need to know the changes

and reminders on topics that may show a trend NPS wide that seem to have


103

difficulties. Maybe instead of one boot camp you have two boot camps, one

that address more basic knowledge and one that address those with

intermediate knowledge. I know those who have been HR professionals for a

long time would feel insulted to have to go to a back to basics boot camp.

While their knowledge may not be where it should be, we have to respect our

employees and acknowledge they do know something about HR. Supervisors

show know who to nominate for each type of boot camp. As we streamline

process, I think an acknowledgement has to be made in many cases we are

working with less than optimal staff and how do we keep stress, workload, etc.

reasonable. Many specialist are so bogged down in keeping the day to day

operations going that planning/workforce management/etc. is something that

they put off unless it becomes an absolute necessity.

I supervise employees at various grade levels with various degrees of proficiency

levels. Some are in remote offices and it is difficult to monitor their daily activities

and to assist in the skills gap areas. Formal training would benefit all employees.

I support that every employee should have an IDP. I meet with my staff every first

Friday of the Pay Period and train on one or more of the Competencies in this

survey which I first learned of in these 201 competencies mentioned in the CHCO

Council memorandum dated 4/28/2006. From this memorandum, I created my

staff's IDP - This IDP is to be used in conjunction with the following: NPS HR

Advisory #55, your PD, and FY12 Performance Plan. Their growth is dependent

on their own initiative, formal, informal, and OJT methods.

We have staff that have had specialties and newer staff that have a lot to learn.

I'm not sure that a generic study like this will help my SHRO. In this I had to do a

lot of generalizing...like ER we have one some but others generally familiar who

don't touch it. It is really all over the board so I hope you can take this and make

it meet our need. I'm currently very discouraged but will remain hopeful for the

NPS.

It was very difficult to generalize my answers to this survey for all of my SHRO. As

a SHRO Lead, I have employees who range from Awareness to Expert on any

given competency. Some need a lot of work and some could teach a class in

many of these topics. I ended up mentally averaging my perception of my

employees' competency level as a group across all of my employees. Hope my

responses are helpful.

Having basic budget training would be beneficial when advising managers on

staffing options.

I must state that this is one of the more useless surveys I have ever done with

regard to skill evaluation. It is impossible to use a one word description to

evaluate multiple employees of different grade/skill levels.

My responses are based on an average skill level of my employees. Their actual

levels range from Basic to Expert.


104

I have four employees: two Human Resources Specialists, two Human Resources

Assistants. My HR Specialists work with Staffing and Placement mainly, with

OWCP being the next most performed duty. Because of the HROC, my HR

Specialists perform consulting duties generally for Benefits, Employee Relations,

Employee Development, etc. Of my two HR Assistants, one has been in the

position less than a year, so experience levels are less. But, she is learning quickly

with online courses and on-the-job training. While my other HR Assistant has

been in the position for several years and has progressed in those technical

duties to the point that she is ready to begin training in Staffing and Placement.

This survey grouped everyone into one category or answer. I feel this survey is a

disservice to my employee’s ability and training levels.

It is difficult to rate a large staff with varying degrees of responsibility and ability. I

tried to focus on the group as a whole and on average.

I manage a SHRO and most of the work is focused on recruitment and staffing.

However, the HR Specialists would benefit from a solid understanding of all facets

of HR work especially ER. So much of the work is conducted over the phone. I

am sure our SHRO would benefit from training regarding oral communications

and customer service.

All HR professionals must be trained to perform the work the same way to ensure

consistency.

Difficult to complete the survey for several different individuals at different levels

and in different jobs. Not sure how useful this information is in the aggregate.

My employees have noted that self-study/distance courses are the hardest for

them to learn from and complete – they much prefer in-person training.

There appears to be lack of understanding of the basic HR functions throughout

our HR Community. There needs to be a formal training plan with established

competencies/timelines that are reviewed by a senior level HR Specialist. There

also needs to be accountability and a timeline to get an HR Specialist to the

journeyman level. Bottom line, we are only as knowledgeable as who trained us

and our own desire to learn. If something we are taught seems "off", then ask

why and don't accept the answer unless it is conveyed (shown) through law,

regulation or policy. We need to learn how to communicate as one united HR

team.

Employee Survey – Qualitative Responses No offense but we have no money and the people who need to really go will

never get the chance because NER takes all the money and slots.

Advanced HR Information Systems Training is greatly needed. I have a master's

degree in Human Resources-Organizational Development and Change

Management. I came into this position with a varied background. It is very

important to keep up with the changing technology and the ability to use it to its

greatest advantage.


105

I have had most training required in my field and can teach most of those topics.

I do believe it is important to have continuing updates to the training as so many

things change in the HR field so short, on-line or group discussions are effective

for the type of training I need on a continuing bases. Several types are available

in our field from MSPB and EEOC and from the Solicitor's office plus the training

we do internally when we gather like-minded specialists together for a round

table discussion on current events and changes to our field of employee

relations.

It's very hard to know where to start! First and foremost it's baffling that an

organization the size of the National Park Service doesn't have a formal,

structured, training infrastructure. As a new employee, there's basically no

systematic training vehicle to equip us with the skills necessary to perform to the

fullest extent. Instead, our training needs are left up to our various direct

supervisors, many of whom do not have the skills necessary to conduct sound skill

assessments. Therefore, training and development are at the mercy of our own

supervisors' judgment, rather than a strategic organizational undertaking. The

result of this unstructured system is significant variation in skill set to the detriment

of the overall organizational performance. Many times – perhaps too many – I

feel that performance, training, and development are not organizational

priorities. At least in my case, for example, I do not have an Individual

Development Plan (IDP). The Federal performance management system is

based upon the principle of constant monitoring of performance elements. An

IDP is a powerful tool to ensure that we possess the skills necessary to perform at

our grade levels, or, in turn, to take corrective actions when that's not the case.

Thus, a Competency Gap Analysis that is not supported by a change in

perspective and approach to job performance is a futile exercise. Indeed, it will

only reveal what we (and management) already know: "the great gap that

exists in our knowledge base." The bigger question, which I hope will be

addressed, is what's the NPS going to do in order to instill a culture of learning

and constant development --which is currently absent. Too often the NPS relies

on pre-packaged training solutions that do not address, sometimes even

indirectly, our training needs. This becomes a problem when we assume training

with disdain simply because of its format. But the root cause of this attitude is the

abuse of this mode of training, rather than utilizing a variety of training formats

and venues. I realize that now budgets are more slim than ever before, but we

need to use creativity at allocating existing resources (including people) to

ensure training is successful; not just a check-the-box exercise to presume

compliance. Finally, it is utterly discouraging to hear management say: "we don't

take adverse actions." I have learned, and observed, that this is sort of the

"culture" of the National Park Service. However, to hear this abominable phrase

from HR folks is astonishing. What message does it send when poor performers


106

"get away" with sloppy, careless work? What does that say to employees who

work hard and run the extra mile to make sure we all succeed? Competency

gaps do not occur in a vacuum, rather they are fueled and allowed by a kind of

management ideology that does not care about performance management.

And yes, I don't want to see adverse actions taken against my colleagues, but

when they are necessary they should be management imperative. Tolerance of

poor performance without taking corrective actions, providing needed training,

constant feedback or input, or when necessary taking adverse actions, is in large

part the cause of our current state.

Being a new, and senior HR professional to the NPS, my personal observation is

that the SHRO'ing aspect of HR has/is contributing to the lack of knowledge and

skill of the NPS HR workforce. As a SHRO manager, my employees are arguably

robots who post vacancy announcements via USAJOBs and develop certs and

really do not engage in other important HR work thus limiting their knowledge

and the honing of the skill necessary to be a 'complete' HR Specialist.

This survey should measure participants' opinions regarding the level of these

competencies in the total organization, not just in their personal attributes.

This questionnaire is difficult. For some of the skills, an employee could be highly

qualified, but if he/she is not operating at the WASO-level, he/she could not be

rated at the highest level in accordance with the language in the questionnaire.

As far as the training needed – the questionnaire says "for my job." Does that

mean for me, personally, or for someone/anyone in the job?

More creative ways need to be come up with to allow training at home sites.

Travel is a big issue due to budget and because of limited staff. Field is showing

lack of knowledge in areas that HROC now services and I feel that details to

classification, processing, benefits are needed so basic questions can be

answered and quality reviews can be done so items forwarded to HROC are

good quality products. No real training program to build HR assistants into HRO

specialist. Many HR Specialist transitioned to higher level positions without

changing what they are doing, mainly staffing and a lot of lower level work. No

real understanding what is the difference and lack of time to really do higher

level work because concentrating on getting daily processes completed.

Some of the statements do not address the gap issues that I see in the HR field,

e.g. basic computer skill competency deficits.

Would suggest training in basic advisory services and position management.

I selected formal training for all training as each item would enhance most

anyone's performance and I believe is the preferred method of training. Formal

training by itself would not adequately fulfill the training required to make a good

HR specialist. OJT is restricted by the time given to it and the technical

competence of the person providing the training. Sometimes the way we

did/do things is not the best method. Formal training usually provides outsider


107

input and fosters networking and new ideas. It also allows us to concentrate on

the training at hand rather than trying to fit it in amongst our daily work. I

understand OJT has its place but I think that the lack of formal training has

caused a drop in technical competence across HR in Federal government. As a

local intern, I had at least two weeks of formal training each quarter,

supplemented by OJT and strong mentoring program. I think this was an

outstanding method. Currently, the OJT method is not formalized in any fashion

and reflects a "trial by fire" approach to learning. In fact, there is no central

formal training plan for HR interns. The survey does not allow us to pick both

formal and OJT. With regard to job performance, workload management is

inconsistently applied. This negatively impacts HR training in a very distinct way.

The lead specialists carry so much workload, yet they are expected to train and

oversee several other HR interns and junior specialists. If the lead is expected to

oversee subordinate HR staff work, then some consideration should be made in

reducing the direct serviced accounts to allow time for the mentoring of

subordinate staff. This workload would then be pushed down to the subordinate

staff, because in essence, the lead would be responsible for overseeing the work

anyway. I believe in this respect the NPS does not fully utilize my knowledge and

skills as a senior HR Specialist. Although I would love to pass my experience on to

others, I am guilty in that I am more concerned about getting my own work

done rather than facilitating the work of others because that is what I am held

most accountable for and I have too much of it to do much of anything else. I

see this as perpetuating poor HR operations in that the junior staff is not being

adequately trained as they should. I believe my knowledge will be lost when I

leave thus leaving a gap. With all of that being said, I would also encourage you

to add leadership development courses as part of the HR curriculum. It is not

even part of your survey and is one of the most vital aspects of HR workforce

planning. If you don't build tomorrow's leaders today, where will you be? Back

to square one.

This is a very difficult survey to complete. I have expertise in benefits but the

possible responses indicated there weren't certain levels of expertise at the SHRO

level when in fact those levels of expertise are in the SHRO. Is there a training

that will teach HR Professionals how to deal with the fact we can no longer

answer customer questions on certain subjects because of HROC

implementation? How to explain to our customers that we are no longer

allowed to help them? How to explain to our customers why HROC and in some

cases SROC take so long to respond. And how to deal with the resulting

frustration? Is there a class to teach us how to deal with the feeling that the

employees, our customers, no longer matter to those setting up these policies?

So, yes, stress management training is very much needed. Further suitability

adjudication training and staffing MPP and DE is needed.


108

I agree with the need for an HR "Bootcamp" however, I feel there is also a need

for an intermediate Assistant to Specialist type training. Thank you.

On the job training is limited in that high skills are not expected of me and I can't

advance my knowledge because the people with the information are too busy

to share information in a consistent manner.

The level of skill seemed skewed toward higher level is only for beyond the SHRO

level. / Succession planning and position management training would be helpful

Formal Training in FPPS, Datamart, and Suitability would greatly enhance my skills

and abilities.

Insulted by the Employee Benefits question..."expertise not found in SHRO". I beg

your pardon, but did all the HR Benefit specialists prior to HROC just vanish or we

lose our memories.....Why is Employee Benefits and Employee Relations mixed for

technical competencies? They are not mixed with HROC nor were they

automatically mixed with SPOs....Very hard to answer that question. Training

Questions. No answer for "Training not necessary as competency is fully

proficient" yet, you wanted us to state what "we" the surveyor needed to be

trained in that competency....very poorly put together.

Most of the training that I have received in the last year with regards to labor

relations, employee benefits and compensation, employee training and

development were through my HR certificate classes. Classes/on the job training

would be most helpful with HR systems such as datamart, FPPS, etc. Also any

trainings related to advanced processing, and pay setting would be helpful. As

someone who is fairly new to HR, within the last 2 years, a fundamentals training

that pertains to basic federal HR would be helpful as part of an orientation.

Having a basic understanding of budget and how positions are funded would

be beneficial when advising managers on making staffing decisions.

Management where I work likes to speak to the idea of training, but the training

that they provide is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. Favored

employees, regardless of need or potential benefit, are selected for training; the

rest are neglected or refused training. At some point the NPS has to realize that

no amount of training is going to make some bad managers into good

managers, and that is the source of the problem. Focusing on training needs is

good; however you never ask explicitly if there are a substantial number of

employees and managers who will not improve with training. Many of the HR

functions are failing because poor management of well-trained employees will

still result in a poor product. Organizational awareness is important, particularly in

the NPS. One great problem I observe is that a lot of the HR staff came from

outside the NPS. This is good in that it brings experience in HR technical detail,

but problematic in that many HR staff have little knowledge of or interest in the

parks. They often view their jobs as gatekeepers or wardens, rather than

facilitators of park function.


109

It would be nice to have funds for training. We are limited by extremely tight

budgets and I would like to do some training for myself as a SHRO Lead, but feel

our extremely limited training funds are better spent on my staff's training needs.

I would like to attend training on the more basic foundations of HR, such as the

laws and regulations that run our world.

There needs to be more consistency in training of all HR employees nationwide.

Continue training classes for not only HR Specialists, but for HR Assistants as well.

Thank you.

If the training to be taken in a more reasonably time frame, so it can be applies

to the position you are working in.

Wasn't sure how to answer some of the questions about "training". I have

received little to no formal or on the job training in many areas through work, but

am in graduate school (paying for it myself as there is no tuition reimbursement

offered) pursuing a Masters in Human Resources with coursework that focuses on

Human Resource and Organizational Development. Similarly, the experience

that I have in those areas is not related to my actual job duties, but relates to

projects and work I am performing on my own time in relation to my coursework.

So I am applying the techniques on the job, but not because my position

requires it.

I feel that more opportunities for training need to be made available for all HR

staff to continue learning and developing the skills necessary to perform their

jobs.

I believe any amount of training will improve one's capability, capacity, and

performance. Training is needed to maintain, upgrade and update skills

throughout one's working life.

Most of the training I've received has been independent study or from other

areas I've worked. With so many changes in HR and how we are now structured,

it's hard to maintain a variety of specialties when I'm only working at one level. It

is difficult to prepare for the next level when the opportunity to apply a newly

learned skill is not here.

I believe that as HR Specialists it is beneficial to the agency to be cross trained in

all aspects of HR Management.

I think it is a good idea to provide training to HR Specialists as there are many

changes that occur in this type of position. It would be helpful to receive

professional training that you can use as a tool to perform the duties of this

position.

I don't believe that training can equip a person to successfully perform in some

of the areas previously mentioned, e.g., Integrity/Honesty. That is more of a

moral trait that you were either instilled with in one's upbringing or not.


110

The ability to be mentored in any capacity to be able to learn would be

wonderful. I have many capabilities that aren't being utilized in my current job

and would love to have the opportunity to use them.

I strongly feel that training should be already in place before new hires on board.

Critical training should not be given via books; such as, USA Staffing, Basic

Staffing, Pay Setting, Classification, Compensation, etc.

Let me start with this is a TERRIBLE survey. This will not give you the actual gap

analysis necessary based on this "assessment type" of survey. It just keeps

everyone in a box and doesn’t get to the core of the problem in HR skill training.

These questions are similar to the terrible assessment questions on Federal

Government Jobs vacancies. This will NOT capture what we are looking for in

regard to needed training. I came to Federal Govt 4 1/2 years ago from 31 years

of HR, Headhunting, the Staffing industry as a Senior Manager in the Private

Sector. All my skills were learned in my 31 years in corporate America. This survey

does not give an applicant the ability, except in this section, to say WHERE they

may have gotten their experience, or not. I checked many boxes as EXPERT due

to my tenure in HR in private industry NOT because of any training in the Govt or

at NPS. I had standard basic training at USDA when I first got here (lucky me as

they don’t even give that training to their new HR employees now. Instead they

get books and online sessions...worthless. You need interaction to truly train

anyone.) This is very disappointing. You may have someone who checks they

have had training but it was at another agency. Will they tell you that in this

portion?? There is no training...very few managers have "expert" knowledge in HR

Operations much less decision making skills, time management skills,

accountability, etc. There is a HUGE skill gap at the SHRO level; there is a bigger

skill gap at the management level and you ask NO questions regarding an HR

Generalist ability to get knowledge from their SHRO lead, HR Officer or HR

Manager. IF this is only focused on the GS-7-12 or 13 HR Generalist you will not

get to the "meat" of the problem. There is no understanding of standardization,

and certainly not when HR Managers put the SHRO concept together...that

should have been part of the strategic plan. When I asked about the SHRO

"business plan" and "standardization", 6 months into my tenure as a new govt

employee (with 31 years’ experience opening HR offices in the staffing industry

all over the US and in Canada) I was told by the "Senior" HR employee setting up

the SHRO's..."this was NOT necessary and there was no business plan". I told her...

it is necessary to make sure all your HR employees know the basics of hiring, pay

setting, etc; without putting that in place first it will come back to bite us in the

end, and NO business plan??. She scoffed...this is just one example of a manager

that had no strategic thinking ability, no deep HR understanding, no insight into

the systems HR generalist use and no project management skills. This starts at the

TOP and needs to trickle down. It starts with making sure you have managers


111

that can think strategically (we don’t), make decisions (they don’t) and can hire

the appropriate leader for each SHRO..(much turnover). The SHRO lead should

be the "teach the teacher" as should the HR Managers. If they are not

knowledgeable then they cannot train their employees, but again without

standardization there will always be problems. This survey should have had

questions with basic skill answers and a box to give an addendum to their answer

so you can appropriately understand where the training lacks, where they have

gotten training, who they go to for answers if they don’t know something, etc. It

would take more time to complete a more comprehensive survey, but it is

important enough to require the time. HR Managers, SHRO Leads and HR

Generalists/Assistants need skills training, customer service training, strategic

thinking, communication, writing skills, oral presentation skills and basic HR

knowledge. There is this "pie in the sky" thinking that our SHRO's can provide

consultative services to program managers in all directorates. I would say it is

safe to say the actual managers cannot do that and they hire individuals that

don’t have those skill sets and don’t train them to see if they possess them. There

are no workforce management skills to look at an individual that may be a good

worker bee but cannot or is not comfortable "consulting" a program manager.

Instead they force them to do so with unpleasant results. IT is painful to watch

and I am grateful I spent the time I did in private sector and got the wonderful

training I got there as a manager because it clearly does not happen within the

federal govt. A grade dictates your management job in govt; most do not have

the skill set nor have they been trained to be a manager. Training is not only the

rules and regs of HR but also the other competencies that are necessary to be

"consultative" HR employee. What do the managers do with the good

employee that doesn’t have the skills or personality to be a consultant or the

bad employee that should not be in HR. It is again a strategic thinking process

and if this survey is going to be the tool used....well it will be like the six lean sigma

the managers jumped on. This HR organization is no more ready to use Six Lean

Sigma than it was to be SHRO'd when it was, and processing to be centralized.

All were done without true business thinking skills and understanding of the

ramifications we are now saddled with. I hope this is not the only tool to guide

management on the true HR skill gap because I do not believe this survey will

give that synopsis.

We don't get any on-going training.

Many of these questions do not apply to this position. Another category should

have been there stating that.

Need more staff and funding in order to have the resources necessary to DO the

job AND get an adequately trained work force.

The National Park Service lacks consistent and uniform formal training. That

causes maximum variations and thus maximum inconsistencies.


112

With many functions being centralized, the selections should have stated with a

selection "I have not had training in this area". The National Park Service

historically provides little training to employees. You typically have to teach

yourself or and find someone you can ask questions when you need further

guidance. I was fortunate that when I came to my current position I did

received more training than at any other time in my career. Partially because it

was required in order to perform my work. Other training to learn how to perform

work I am expected to do. So I was fortunate but the job requires so much

knowledge that training should be ongoing. Instead with the state of the Federal

Government I imagine it will mostly cease to exist except for training required to

perform you job.

Any training would enhance job performance.

Truly this is the worse skill gap survey I have ever seen or participated in. It is

another example of not really knowing what your SHRO's do on a day to day

basis. This is NOT going to tell you where the skill gaps are. This is a bad

assessment questionnaire from a vacancy announcement. I have gotten 95% of

my training in the 31 years I spent in Private Sector...so how can you truly assess

my skill gap at NPS? You cannot based on how you asked questions! I have a lot

of knowledge in consultative skills that this survey focused on, but that is because

of my tenure in the workforce, my private sector training that was superb

compared to the HR training given to HR employees. This will be the same for

most employees and most of the questions asked do not address the actual day

to day HR Specialists skills needed. I am not sure who put this survey together

and/or how you will gather and analyze this information but I would love to see

the results and see how you analyze the data. How can you even determine if

the HR Specialist needs help in Hiring, WIG's, promotions, FPPS, etc? There should

have been questions such as: Do you know the steps to the pay setting of an

employee moving from one locality region to another? When is the last time you

receive training, or have you received training in this area. Asking a blanket

question regarding "compensation" is not going to provide a true skill gap

picture. Very disappointing survey!

I think that anyone who comes to work for the Federal government should go

through training on the way the Federal hiring system works. Things that I would

suggest would be the different ways that employees are hired - some of the

acronyms (sp), and the way that the Federal system works. It would be very

helpful.

My direct supervisor does not have a diverse background in all HR disciplines, nor

a basic understanding of my line of work I was hired to perform and therefore, is

not a resource for me to go to. My direct supervisor also does not provide any

ideas for solutions to situations or to my ideas and/or feedback for personal

growth and work objectives. Without a basic understanding, my direct


113

supervisor continues to establish and expect unrealistic time frame(s) for work

accomplishment of assigned tasks.

Stakeholder Survey – Qualitative Responses I feel that when I need something I bumble around until I find it. If you could print

this survey – every year – with a name and contact info associated with each

topic, I think it might clarify a lot. I feel like those of us in the field are still in

transition from when the parks supplied all the HR guidance.

I realize that when I have questions I go to the assigned HR specialist connected

with HROC. She in turn either follows up for me with the SHRO or refers me to a

specific person. In undertaking this survey, I realize that most of my direct

interface is with HROC, not the SHRO.

SHRO appears to be a necessary evil. I wish my SHRO lived up to competencies

detailed in these questions. I wish they could be part of park's management

structure but are seen as outsiders and occasionally as obstructionists.

My assumption is that if they are employed with HR that they should be doing all

of these things such as keeping up on HR specific technical quidance

Our Shro staff works hard. However they are under staffed and policy has been

changing at a rapid pace. There are many more bureaucratic "hurtles" to go

over to get anything done. Also, there have been more errors then compared to

when HR was localized in my opinion. Overall myself and others have had issues

with HROC and there customer service and reliance. Some of the errors on their

part from not including required paper work for seasonal hires or failure to check

in on progress of said paperwork has put employees and the park operations

into unfavorable situations financially, efficiently and with overall morale.

Four weeks to process a form, and if it didn't arrive the correct color it was lost,

ignored, etc... Two years to unfortunately dismiss a gov't employee (service 15+

year career) because of medical issues, then the situation excelled to life health

safety. Very scary! A Vet! Why? The requirements of a operations supervisor are

enormous, and the SHRO just jump on top of these people... never helpful!

I think the Anch HR staff does a fantastic job. They obviously work hard, are

knowledgable, ethical, easy to work with and are very "service" oriented. On

another note, I filled out this survey for SHROC group and not the HROC group.

They are different and therefore my answers to this survey are applicable to the

one group.

We really need a new approach to hr...many of us work around the system to

get modern hr work done.

Generally speaking, HR staff need to develop a much more customer service

orientation. They should take more pride in serving others who have HR problems

and not just be the people who recite rules and regulations and say NO to

questions.


114

About this in particular? I already answered it. About something unrelated? Sure.

It once took 9 months after my submission of a vacancy announcement

package to SERO HR (before the SHRO) to get a vacancy announced – just

announced, not filled. I could have gotten pregnant and had a baby in that

time. Ridiculous. And guess what – the HR person at SERO admitted that there

were no errors or issues with the package I submitted. It just sat on their desk.

ARGH.

It is my experience that HR is something that functions at the larger parks, regions

and WASO. Small parks – 25 or fewer employees can not afford and are

somewhat discouraged from having HR staff. Like so many important things we

do, HR as a small park is a collateral duty with other Admin functions and the

rolling up of many HR activities to SHROs and the HROC has made the task at the

park level even more challenging and employees in these parks are subject to

the skills and interests of the AO. Fortunately, I have a great AO who tries to keep

up, but it gets harder and harder with all of the other responsibilities included in

the position.

Very confusing who is the resource to use now. HROC? SHRO?

It seems that the SHRO is known for some information and tasks, but not for

others. It would be nice to know exactly what the SHRO can do and what

services they can provide. I strongly suggest the SHRO staff visiting parks in their

group to get an idea of what the park needs are.

I only have the one issue with not having jobs advertised in a timely manner and

then receiving the cert .

You have seen the material before you. SERO is now on its second major

reorganization of HR interface for the parks that I am aware of since I got here.

We will see what comes out of their office in the next month, if anything, to

demonstrate that we are back on to a system that can work. Also, is this some

kind of joke sending this survey out when we are facing sequestration order and

have been told that there is an across the System hiring freeze, except for

Spdts.? A bit odd.

Over the past 4 months I have submitted applications for CSRS Retirement via

more than one retirement-plan (i.e. Disability, and Optional/Standard) and I've

asked questions about "Deferred Retirements" and the HROC representative has

been very helpful in addressing my needs, concerns and questions.

I have had very positive experiences working with HR professionals.

I have had better experiences dealing with HROC on individual needs (e.g.

spouse's retirement from federal service and transferring benefits to me) as well

as position classification, than I have with the SHRO. I believe many of the SHRO

issues relate to getting it up and running, but it's challenging for managers to

have to keep track of who does what and where they are located. I think our

SHRO also has some challenging personnel issues of its own that it is addressing.


115

HROC transition seemed much smoother and staff seems much more responsive

and knowledgeable.

Phone calls to SHRO and HROC are always taken by voice mail, which is not

returned in a timely manner.

The good HR folks seem to be people that use common sense frequently and

are able to understand how different things can be called different things. For

example, "oral argument" would be a good example of communication. Or,

biology and ecology are equivalent. The difficult HR folks are people that are

extremely rigid and don't recognize that anything out of a communication

degree can be considered to give the person communication experience. I

have worked with both types of people in HR, and it is difficult because these

issues seem to be personality-driven (person-specific). I would also like to observe

that everything in the HR world seems to be taking longer. By having the SHRO's

pulled out of the park, there is now a disconnect between park staff and HR. The

SHRO's are often administrative driven instead of being park oriented. A number

of SHRO people tell us why things can't be done in a certain way, but don't help

us with how things could be done. Having the HR folks in the parks was better for

park staff.

From this survey, I'm finding out that my SHRO office has greater resources and

help available to give me than I know.

The specifics of a case described earlier involved veterans preference and an

unwillingness to allow a selecting official to return a cert with veterans without

hiring from it. The selecting official was ordered to make a selection from the

cert. The reasoning was that it was clear to the HR person, that the selecting

official had an anti-vet bias. After investigating, I found that the selecting official

was a vet himself, and had 60% vets on his staff. Even after this, the "order" stood.

I found this to be an unacceptable overstepping of authority. We found a way

to work around the specific situation, but still were compelled to take the case to

the regional office. Since by the time we were able to do so – the situation was

resolved, we are not sure if anything will be done to prevent recurrence.

Once again, all aspects of regional HR Specialists (especially in the IMR) are

fabulous. The SHRO is horrible but improving slightly.

I believe the SHROs are excellent advisers to managers and employees in the

Intermountain Region. They consist of extremely dedicated staff members who

want to serve parks and do an outstanding job!

Overall the SHRO does a good job however their are some people that are old

school and need to go because of consistencies.

One last area that we've struggled with at the park is the issue of employee

safety and HR rules. We have had several conversations with HR about

employees who may not be fit for the duty or have chronic issues that make

them susceptible to on-the-job injury. It has never been clear to us at the park


116

our authority and proper methods to manage these issues. But with employee

safety being such a strong focus, we need to be getting more definitive answers

from HR.

I think understanding workload in the field and being flexible is an area where HR

could us improvement. I was sadden to hear [name omitted] was leaving as

our SHRO lead because I saw how he responded to challenges and the flexibility

and nimbleness he showed.

I was sent a link regarding my question very prompltly.

Everything to this date has been negative with HR. They can't seem to do their

job and are not held accountable for deadlines not being met. They are not

helpful and always have excuses. We tend to bang our heads on the wall when

it comes to HR. They do not work in Parks and don't seem to treat us as a clients

or patrons. If they were in the real world they would have been fired

Again, it all depend on who you ask. Some HR people are wonderful and can be

completely trusted. Others should be avoided.

Overall, I received better customer service from my park's HR personnel than

from the centralized HR office. They better understood my program and

personnel needs and were far more responsive to my requests for assistance.

Since moving to the centralized model, HR processes such as hiring and

personnel actions require more lead time and take much longer to complete.

HR services are terribly deficient, impersonal, and chaotic. Park staff have no

idea who to speak to and their inquiries get passed from person to person.

Emails and calls go unanswered, critical tasks go undone, park managers who

are not HR personnel are expected to to fill out forms that they have absolutely

no idea how to compete, and then when they get it wrong, they are blamed for

the consequences,

The quality of the HR help depends so much on the competency and attitude of

the individual involved. And that varies widely. Some HR staff I have dreaded

doing work with and others I have been delighted to work with.

There have been a few instances of miscommunications, but generally HR staff is

helpful.

The people at the AZ SHRO seem nice, but this is a business we are trying to run.

Everyone is busy, I get that, but at some point in time, the excuses need to stop. I

don't believe that any of the staffing specialist have any idea what the field is

looking for or even needs in applicants, which becomes more apparent when

the hiring officials receive their certs. A suggestion would be for the staffing

specialist spend a few days working the field so that they know what is needed

and necessary to do the job. They can also then request help from the hiring

official to go through the applicants so the hiring official knows what the staffing

specialist needs to go through to actually have a cert. Respect can go a long

way for the field and office folks.


117

My interactions with SHRO and HROC have been negative - employees have

poor attitude, cannot address or resolve issues, and have questionable expertise

No, if they do not know, they are not paying attention.

When I mention the SHRO lead, I am referring to the two previous SHRO leads in

the National Parks of NY Harbor. I cannot evaluate the current acting lead as he

has only been in the position for 2 weeks.

I have had several issues that I needed to involve many HR staff and offices. The

guidance is not always clear. I am also puzzled that very few of the issues that

are researched are shared with all the Parks. I know of several issues that much

time was spent researching for my park and nothing was ever shared in writing.

The issues that my park experienced are similar for other sites. I feel that the

guidance should be communicated to all the Parks that my SHRO services.

Have had a few horrible experiences with HR and OPM involving hiring and

application of veteran priorities; essentially received adversarial treatment

instead of assistance. Have had wonderful experience with at least SHRO

employee becoming proactive in following up, contacting us and looking for

solutions instead of restating problems.

Personnel matters are EXTREMELY process heavy and obscure. My EPAP when I

started my present job was 6 pages long. It is now 22 pages long.

Changing PD's and updating duties needs have been done timely.

Always pleasant to work with and helpful

In general, I find that the HR community throughout the NPS to be

knowledgeable, helpful, reliable, etc. Where we have HR challenges, I believe

that most, if not all, are driven by political, budget, and policy decisions outside

the immediate control of the NPS HR staff (e.g. OPM, OMB, DOI, etc.). The only

exception might be our internal workflow and timelines for processing actions,

etc., which make it increasingly difficult to utilize a highly seasonal workforce, but

I would like to think that our HR folks do all that they can to process things as

quickly as possible. Also, just as a minor annoyance, if we are going to give

service awards (5, 10 , 15, etc.) year certificates and pins at all, we need to do a

better job of giving them to everybody – how damned hard is it to know how

long our staff has worked for us and whether or not they got a certificate – it is

demoralizing to those who care about such honors, and even for those who

don't, it makes everybody question how well the organization does at tracking

the really important things that might impact our pay and benefits down the

road.

HR staff I've encountered all are friendly and I think most are well informed. I just

don't know who does what anymore, though it appears our office has staffed up

in recent years, even with the establishment of the HROC. I know they keep busy

with training and/or meetings because people there often are not in their offices

when I've come to see who might be able to help me with a question I have. I


118

have no clue who works in our HROC, though the individual I communicated

with via email a couple of months ago was helpful and timely in responding to a

request. A few years ago I was involved with an EEO complaint (an employee

made a complaint against me). It was a big surprise to me and ended up being

resolved in my favor, but it took about a year to wind its way through the system,

which seemed crazy to me. Based on advice from our HR office, I felt hamstrung

to properly supervise the individual because of what might appear to be

retaliatory action. I did not feel well-served by HR in that situation. I felt as if I was

hanging out to dry. And the other employees were affected as well because this

individual was a problem (e.g., confrontational to me and to others). From the

start, the EEO counselor, in response to my comment about not believing I had

acted in a manner to warrant the complaint, told me that "everyone says that."

That was not a helpful response to someone who had never been involved in an

EEO complaint. The person who filed the complaint has filed another one against

a subsequent supervisor. He was a difficult employee and I did not feel well-

supported in how to best operate other than being told to not act in any way he

might consider to be retaliatory, which could have been anything. That situation

had a pretty negative effect on me, even though I was vindicated. It didn't

bother me so much at first, but as it dragged out for months and months it

began to take a toll on my morale. The kicker is that the subsequent supervisor

inherited a problem employee and also now shoulders an EEO complaint from

this individual.

Nothing ever changes, we never fire anyone, we promote people who shouldn't

be promoted and the same old race and gender gaps are there. New rules,

shifts in power and ethnic makeup, but still the same game. This is never going to

change unless we start hiring using a system where numbers are assigned and

use numeric scores, so you can't tell a persons age, race, sex, etc. Whatever

happened to the civil service exam? That wasn't a bad idea.

The topic of furloughs for term employees. Different HR staff at region gave

different answers on length, requirements, etc. My confidence in their direction

based on the regs is not very high.

I believe the HR Community is proactively staged to identity and address those

competencies that will bring us into the second century of NPS service at the top

of the HR Profession. It will, however, take continued support and funding from

management, and a cultural change within the NPS to accept that we are

stronger as One HR than 7 Regions and WASO.

Again, see my very long comment at the beginning of this survey. The current

personnel system is simply broken. People lie to get on certs... and resumes are

not checked against the responses. If people are not required to write KSA's

anymore, they should be required to show how their answers to skill questions

align with the work, educational, and volunteer experiences reported on their


119

uploaded resume or usajobs-generated resumes. Too many people answer "E"

for all questions.

Timely response has been an issue. Ability to contact SHRO has not always been

easy

HR employees provide excellent work and are strong on following established

procedures. They are more limited in being creative and forward thinking. We

also need to strive for continuous improvement in the time it takes to process a

personnel action.

[Name omitted] is an excellent communicator and very helpful. He brought on a

new team member [name omitted] who has helped me tremendously as a

supervisor. I am so grateful to both of them for their assistance. I'm very happy

they both now work for NPS!

The entering of my gender wrongly caused several unnecessary chain reactions

in medical and other areas.

Realizing that the HR transformation has been a work in progress, it has been very

difficult for those of us in the field. The SHRO and HROC do not seem to

understand that we have no HR specialized personnel located at the park. Our

designated POCs are usually AOs or Admin Specialists with very limited HR

knowledge. There has been very little advertising to explain which services are

provided by which organization. Additionally, it seems there is a large amount of

turnover in the SHRO which hampers continuity of services.

In park there seems to be little understanding or confidence about HR issues,

SHRO is good when needed but I have not needed the work of HR much. HROC

seems isolated and mysterious to me.

There have been growing pains with the HR realignment; as with any such

action, problems and issues can and do arise. For the most part, our SHRO has

been responsive; there have been issues with the required HSPD-12 on-boarding

and background process such as fingerprints being rejected two and three

times; needs to be better/more efficient processes and procedures in place for

this aspect of hiring. There have also been issues for new employee orientation

in that a supervisor/manager only finds out a day or two before that an

employee is scheduled for this; there needs to be more coordination in this arena

as not all employees are on a traditional M-F 8-5 schedule. Needs to be more

lead time to make this happen efficiently and effectively.

I avoid talking to anyone in HR if possible. They are unapproachable, unfriendly,

and are unhelpful.

Over many years I have received highly conservative (cautious) counsel

regarding performance and misconduct issues that in my view handicapped

management and supervisory leadership in addressing problem employees.

Despite all the negative input and criticism I have voiced in this survey, I want to

acknowledge that I find our SHRO lead to be very knowledgeable, and as


120

supportive as she can be in an HR organization that has major systemic

problems, and that is organizational dysfunctional (or so it seems to me from the

field).

I think the attempt has been made to consolidate the resources and provide

some sort of unified approach with the establishment of the SHRO. The system

was broken getting it off the ground and executing actions. I would say within

the past few months things have changed with the hiring of new employees that

seem competent and willing to assist. There is a sense of frustration that still

lingers with our NCR SHRO, hopefully it will disiptate in the future

We seem to repeat much of the paperwork processes. Errors have been made

regarding term appointments moving to new appointments in a different series

and grade. WIGI's are frequently not made on time (allows for what is owed to

build) and employees are not paid the accurate amount when this happens.

No but I would like to say that this format leaves no option for recognizing the

exceptions that provide good to superior service nor does it allow us to

recognize that many have not received the training or management to support

and incentivize good performance. So in disagreeing with the positive

statements, I am reflecting general perceptions of performance and not

recognizing that there are strong performers with good work ethics within the

WASO SHRO and HROC

I only work with one HR person, so you can't read trends into overall HR

competencies with my responses

I just don't have enough exposure to these HR people to have an opinion. I feel

like I am the wrong person to do this interview.

Many of the questions above were difficult to answer because they assume the

rater has a higher level of insight to the inner world of the HR specialist. The

individual I work with is terrific. I have have high confidence in her ability. She

knows her stuff and couldn't be more helpful.

I find HR to be knowledgeable yet inflexible. Accurate yet not creative. Solutions

oriented yet without regard for environment.

While things have gotten better in the last year I find that there is a significant

lack of consistency with decision making. Some of the obvious hostility has been

reduced but not all. I still feel like the SHRO specifically has an attitude that they

are the ones in charge and that they have the final say in all HR decisions. I

don't see where anyone in HR at this time has any interest in helping the end user

which is suppose to be the employees, especially when we are trying to bring

on seasonals, hire permanents, and fix HR issues for current perm employees.

It seems to me that when you have a personnel question or any other HR

question, I get never get the same answer and I rarely walk away feeling the I

have the correct information. Some are well versed in HR policies and


121

procedures and others are not. There is no sense of urgency during the posting of

jobs, returning of certs to parks and other activities during the hiring process.

Since HROC/Shro took place the bureaucracy , errors and delays in customer

service have been overwhelming. Most conversations among staff about

HROC/Shro are negative. Most supervisors/employees had been negatively

effected by the process. It is now expected that errors will be made and

employees/morale will suffer those consequences that are so common now. The

statement "I bet it's only going to get worse" is heard a lot by myself from

supervisors in other divisions.

Processing times for very SIMPLE paperwork or toggle of a computer program are

unreasonable! Package requests are understandably time sensitive, very simple

requests have the same "assembly line" priority as huge package tasks, and the

unreasonableness of time to process is NOT industry standard. Again SHRO

bottlenecks the process.

We need customer service training or hr nationwide. They all need to go to

fundamentals if working 5 years or less in nps.

Customer service can be very slow at times. Position classification is weak and in

three occasions their work has been overturned by OPM.

A few years ago – maybe 2009 – we tried advertising for seasonal biotechs. The

cert came back loaded with people who had ZERO skills in biological sciences.

Many didn't even have science degrees. We knew of interns in our office who

had applied who had been doing the same kinds of work for six months to a

year. We formally protested. It took several months, the HR (I think they were in

Denver) had "attitude" with us, and they decided to throw a few people off the

cert, but not to add any new names. So we wound up forced to hire people

who had degrees only but no field experience. It set us back several weeks. I'm

really sad there is no more SCEP because you used to be able to hire good

people that way, people you knew had the skills, training and experience. Now

you are forced to advertise via Pathways. I never wanted to advertise again,

after that experience.

My recent experience is that performance of SHRO I work with is improving.

However, they still return work for petty errors, errors they correct themselves, but

send back resulting in delays and frustration. Some employees seem very

dogmatic and inflexible. In one case it seemed that the SHRO employee was

usurping the authority of the Superintendent and park division chiefs.

I do not feel qualified to answer any of these questions. As a new employee I do

not feel I have enough information to answer these questions. I have only spoken

to HR employees about one or two specific matters and not about the things

asked for in these questions.


122

More and more HR is a faceless process that relies on individual employees

knowing what to do with their own files. My answer best describes my encounter

with HR when going through the hiring process.

In the park I work we seldomly have interaction with HR. Usually phone calls is

the only interaction . Yes at one point and time when I did work in Carlsbad

Caverns and had interaction with HR for the most part some individuals did not

have full knowledge of what I was seeking for pertaining to certs, employee

incidents such as injuries and responding to OWCP forms. With cut backs

employees find themselves trying to find answers and it takes a long time.

MWR HR staff is usually pretty good at interpreting the rules. Unfortunately, the

rules do not favor park operations. So, HR usually is blamed for being the

messenger. For this survey, there should be a "Don't know" option for responses to

the questions

HR seems to be struggling with the requirement of their jobs.

More timely response to high seasonal demands (i.e. hiring seasonal workers in

the spring for summer work or the flood of work that typically comes at end of

field season when workers are leaving ) through increased workforce to handle

the demands or perhaps OT, to effectively respond to those demands. Day to

day, more willingness to keep working hours that correspond to other typical

working hours in the park. Trying to get anything done with HR after 4 pm is

difficult.

Our SHRO works hard to provide services for our park. We have had some

resources, mostly dealing with hiring practices. Other superintendents in our

region have had many problems with our SHRO. It seems to me that the expertise

is present, but the application of the expertise comes from confusion and too

much information. Interpretation of practices and policies have resulted in one

SHRO doing things very differently from another SHRO. Standardization and

streamlining could be done at all levels. It is frustrating to spend time completing

one task only to find that you completed the wrong task and have another hoop

to jump through. The SHRO appears to be so separated from the NPS parks and

mission that it doesn't know how to work within the same reality park managers

work within in a park environment. They are so nice and responsive when called

and asked questions, but they tend to express how difficult their work

environment is and how stressed they become with various edicts. My personal

take is that these employees are very much swayed by WASO and the written

word. They are not free to be innovative or to apply creative solutions to field

problems. The few times when the SHRO has strayed into innovative territory for

our park have ended with wonderful results. I sensed a secrecy about applying

innovation or creativity to solutions and have been asked not to share the

information. This belief system and working environment cannot help but create


123

a paranoid SHRO staff afraid to take risks. The stress that the SHRO is under to do

more with less is palpable.

It takes a long time to get a job advertised and then to get a cert back to hire

off of.

Yes, I would. I am aware, now having met HR people from other regions, that the

SERO has terrible problems here with HR. I have found, trying to develop

materials to post-positions, on two separate occasions, that they tend to offer no

salient technical support and tend to drop all requests for assistance back on to

the Parks or Park leads to develop positions descriptions, KSAs, and supporting

materials. I am uncertain why the Park unit should be paying for these services,

when we are doing 80% of the work. In my two years at this Park I have never

been told who my EEOO is, who my SHRO representative is to talk about personal

personnel issues, nor has anyone from Region reached out to me as a new

employee. I have had to do all of my own outreach from this desk without any

outside assistance. The only reason that I know what my rights are, who to go to

for problems, are based on my own initiatives and through friends working in

other regional HR offices.

The West Shro has always been helpful, kind, and knowledgeable when needing

there assistance.

I recently transferred from another Government agency to the NPS and the WMR

SHRO did an outstanding job and went above what I expected to get

everything in order for the transfer. I ran into some minor problems with HROC

and found they were not as pleasant in assisting me and their response time was

not what I have come to expect from other Human Resource agencies and this

caused me some delay in processing that could have had a potential impact

on my family .

Classification efforts are not supportive of agency mission, and unique agency

unit situations. Development of new agency procedures is too slow in coming –

development of process regarding Pathways program is a good example.

Expertise to utilize unusual hiring authorities is lacking and tentative – examples

would include: Pathways, contiguous hiring authority, PLC hiring authority, RM

intern hiring authority.

The folks I have interacted with in YNP and BLRI have been OUTSTANDING,

helpful, and professional. I have been very impressed by their efforts and

expertise to help me get my job accomplished!

No specifics to share. Most of my answers were "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

because the "HR employees" is a strongly non-homogeneous group with respect

to the various questions. Where I saw a preponderance one way or another, I

rated accordingly.

My experience with HR is largely limited to hiring of seasonal employees. The

announcement of jobs, evaluation of prospective employees, job offering,


124

cutting the paperwork and getting someone on board for a 120 season has just

become so convoluted as to be nearly unworkable. It takes 5 weeks or more

once the offer is made. Applicants have learned to rate themselves the highest

on AQ's which results in a cert loaded with applicants who haven't been vetted

by HR. We get certs with the caveat to contact HR prior to talking with a

prospective employee so HR can check and see if they are qualified. If you

have an emergency and critical need to hire staff quick...forget it. It takes 3

weeks. On the other hand, the HR staff I've dealt with when I've had

performance or conduct issues with employees have been very helpful.

HR Employees are too far removed from park operations – they don't relate well

to field needs/situations/requirements. This results in products/policies neither

practical nor provide the appropriate assistance to the field. Processes between

field - SHRO - HROC are bureaucratic and often contra-productive. Instead of

effective and efficient handling of HR matters, the process is burdensom and

frustruating to the field, more often than not adding unnecessary workload to the

field units.

[Name omitted] is great – she is a great example of a dedicated HR employee.

In my experience, though HR employees are knowledgeable about some rules

and regulations, information provided to supervisors is inconsistent and often

conflicting. HR employees have been belligerent and combative rather than

helpful and constructive when trying to resolve issues that arise. On more than

one occasion I have had to speak with the supervisors of the HR employees to

deal with issues related to the way the HR employees have treated my

employees. Though not universal with respect to all HR employees, I have found

this to be true more often than not.

I honestly believe the entire SHRO/HROC idea is a complete failure. All hiring

authority should be returned to the parks.

I rarely interact with HR employees, which makes answering these questions

difficult. I cannot judge their behavior because I do not see it on a regular basis.

My most recent interaction with an HR employee was when I applied for a

cultural resources manager position in GOSP. The HR specialist determined that I

did not meet the minimum education requirements for a GS-9 historian. I am

currently a GS-11 historian in the NPS Southeast Regional Office and have

undergraduate and graduate degrees in Art History. [Name omitted] informed

me that because my degree was not in "history" she disqualified me. She also

told me that she disqualified all applicants with Historic Preservation Degrees and

Public History degrees. She had a very narrow definition of what qualified as

"history" which demonstrated that she did not understand the social sciences,

the role of history in the NPS, or the duties of a cultural resources manager. In

addition, the OPM qualifications clearly state that "Graduate study in the social

sciences or humanities may also be credited when such study included training


125

in historical research methodology; or the thesis approached the subject from an

historical viewpoint and used professional historical research methodology and

techniques in its preparation." Clearly Art History, Public History, and Historic

Preservation are degrees in History, but even if [name omitted] didn't think they

were she should have concluded that they involve training in historic research

methodology. It was clear that she was following her interpretation of the rules

without any actual thought. I asked for a reconsideration and she informed me

that her supervisor agreed with her. Ultimately I contacted [name omitted] who

put me in touch with [name omitted] who straightened everything out and

forwarded my application to the hiring official. My situation is disturbing to me for

two reasons: 1.) The complete misunderstanding of the social sciences by an HR

official charged with evaluating candidates in the social sciences 2.) had I not

already worked within NPS and had contacts who could direct me to the

correct person I would have been left without recourse. When I asked [name

omitted] to explain her findings she simply said that her supervisor agreed with

her, there was no process for appeals.

When consulting with a human resource specialist about the qualifying

education required for a job in interpretation, I wanted to add a master's degree

in heritage interpretation and they told me there was no such degree. I told

them there were several colleges that have that or a similar degree. I was not

impressed with this clear lack of knowledge about the field of interpretation.

There are currently a lot of changes/evolutions which have been hard for park

staff and also difficult for SHRO people because things are unclear as to how to

implement these changes. For example, local hire was just reinstated, and the

SHRO is currently working out how this will be enacted. It's difficult when the park

needs to deal with locals and why specific people aren't being qualified as

locals without how the SHRO is rating this. Also, Pathways is not clear yet how the

actual use of the program will happen. Finally, I think resume evaluation is often

very subjective to the SHRO person rating the resume. There are often strict

interpretation of policies, versus more common sense driven ones. For example,

most people would agree that any one that has a law degree must possess a

certain level of communication skills. However, in our SHRO, a person with a

bachelor's degree in communication was considered to be above a person who

held a law degree and who had practiced law.

Folks working at the SHRO office always seem overloaded with work and there is

always a backlog. I realize it is not the fault of any individual and instead it is the

process....but it takes a long time to accomplish any type of hiring. SHRO staff

has always been good about giving a time estimate as to when they can get to

"my" request and they are good with their estimates. It seems like they need

more staff at the SHRO office(s) to process HR requests quicker. Or maybe have


126

some SHRO staff duty stationed in other outlying park offices to deal with some

HR business on a more local level.

Personnel managers seem to have more difficulty than subordinate staff.

Managers have to deal with issues and decisions that are at a higher level – and

seem to have difficulty with that. From a park perspective, the personnel

function is having difficulty supporting park management needs – in some cases

there appears to be little concern for how that will affect the park. Meeting

personnel management seems to comes first – often at the expense of the parks.

Seasonal hiring systems still have unresolved problems like timing and quality of

applicants. The HR function lifted a number of FTEs from parks to establish their

operations. Now they attempting to shift work back to parks and we don't have

anyone left to handle the load. The more functions are centralized, the less

responsive they become to field operations. Nothing is being done to overcome

this perception or to establish customer service expectations or feedback

mechanism to deal with issues as they arise.

A HR rep whom was ineffective, slow, unresponsive, lacked the ability to keep

commitments and ultimately issued a certificate that was pulled and an

individual whom had been offered and accepted a verbal offer had the

certificate pulled after the position was offered and I sought a written offer. The

individual was a transexual and the issue ended up going to a congressional. All

because the HR person dragged their feet for 9 months then under pressure after

I went to the top in region, certified the individual when they should not have.

The individual was then offered a seasonal job which they took but the stress led

to a meltdown of that individual and a negative outcome for them. This was

totally blown by the individual in HR.

I answered the HR questions in relation to the SHRO – horrible customer service

and knowledge base. If the questions were meant for the HR Specialist who work

out of region and assist parks with personnel issues like termination, then my

answers would all be strongly agree. They are extremely knowledgeable and

have great customer service. They are trusted to know the answer. If you call the

SHRO, you better already know the answer because they may give you a wrong

one.

SHRO communications are usually overly laden with jargon and rarely answer the

question of 'so what?' Efforts to find information from a SHRO usually takes 2-3

tries. SHRO employees are genuinely friendly and they do try, but very few know

the policies and regs well enough to answer a complicated question. I can

answer the simple questions; it is the complicated ones I need help with. I call a

SHRO knowing that I probably will not get a useful answer.

A consistent issue I've had with HR personnel over several years is a strong

tendency to pursue personal interpretations of HR guidelines and regulations. In

my experience this has led to guidelines being applied very differently and


127

inconsistently by different offices, regions and individuals. I am astonished that

there has never been an attempt to standardize interpretation of certain

regulations to avoid this variation. I am also surprised that HR personnel aren't

instructed to get input from a supervisor when guidelines are vague in order to

avoid inconsistent interpretation of guidelines. In conversation with other NPS

staff it seems to me that this concern is shared by many staff but no one feels

they have recourse to address this.

Perception is from the field and through experience is that the SHRO staff would

be quick to say no to position classifications instead of working with the park staff

to find out how out how can get the position classified with the target grade in

mind. Another words they are lacking in customer service to the parks.

As a SHRO they seem to have a strong focus on consistency of process and don't

seem to place an equal priority on meeting park needs. Stated differently the

focus on process does not always end up with a useful result.

Personally I can say that I could give you HR specialists that do all or most of the

above and I could also show you ones that don't do all or most of the above. I

answered in what I feel is the "norm" for my experience. Please also note that

until recently we were serviced by an HR specialist that often provided

inaccurate information and was extremely unreliable. That person is no longer

with the agency and would skew my answers toward the negative. Most of the

people we work with are knowledgable, the question is do they see them selves

as helping us get to what we need or where we want to go or are they a

roadblock to making things happen.

I applied for a new position within my park, within the same division and was

accepted into the new position. My supervisor never turned in the needed SF52,

this was never caught by our HR person or our AO. When my checks (pay) didn't

reflect the new position, I was told by our HR person and our AO that these things

take time. The next PP I was told to let them know if nothing changed the

following PP and the good thing is that it will all be retro. When it didn't show up

the next PP our AO looked into and found that the 52 had never gotten put in. At

that point I ended up having to wait an additional 6 weeks and no retro. Though

the problem stems from my supervisor not turning in the 52, it does seem as

though it should have gotten caught at some other level? I never even got an

apology...both my supervisor and the AO gave me a reply of OOPS. I am a

supervisor and I once missed a deadline for a STAR award for one of my

employees and I did everything in my power to try and make it up to her without

her realizing (she didn't even know that I had planned on giving her one). I have

seen similar circumstances happen within other divisions and HR and our AO

blames the supervisor...and until it happened directly to me I too thought it was

just the supervisor. Every time I work with our folks at the regional office they are

spot on, very helpful and always follow through with whatever the issue is. I often


128

feel caught up having to work with the people here in the park and it's frowned

upon to work out of the chain. If it weren't for my own park the scores would be

much higher.

The HROC seems to have no understanding of what it is like to work in a park.

They forget that their purpose is to serve the parks and not the other way around.

They have an overinflated sense of authority, to the point of writing rules and

regulations without (apparently) consulting the field. Speaking in generalities, HR

staff are often quick to say "no" and lack flexibility in looking for legal alternatives

to accomplish a specific park goal.

I don't have much interaction with HR employees accept for one who is auite

helpful. He is the management specialist and carries tremendous responsibilities. I

have found him to be very thorough and helpful in dealing with OWCP cases.

All deadlines set by AZSHRO are met by my division, but they can never meet

their deadlines. Paperwork requirements change every time and no set

standards seem to apply to them only to us. Priorities are ever changing and our

administrators are always fighting to get things done with little to know help.

They are stove piped and our administration seem to do all their work for them

and they still can't get the work done

Experiences have been much more positive over last five years, but still receive

many signals that HR staff are overworked and/or under staffed. Universally, I go

to them, and other than regular emails, perceive little active outreach on their

part.

The centralized human resources offices are not working.

It's difficult to have your phone calls returned and emails responded to.

Resetting of passwords for quicktime – I have personally witnessed my employees

and myself going for two payperiods before a password would be reset and

that's with numerous calls and emails. I submitted an exemplary act award

several years ago and had to follow up twice only to be asked to resubmit the

documents each time. It took almost a year and probably would've taken

longer if I hadn't stayed on top of it and made inquiries on a regular basis.

Information at times, has been incorrect. A 6C position had to be re-advertised

because it was announced incorrectly. It's a calamity of errors and the park

AO's won't complain about it for fear of retaliation. And now everything takes

twice as long to process because we send things to the SHRO and then it goes

to HROC and then back to SHRO. Just to change an employee's schedule can

take 2-3 months for processing. It's pathetic.

The following text cut and pasted from an auto-generated email I received last

year: Thanks you for your interest in the Lake Clark posting. Unfortunately, there

were some administrative errors occurred that indicate the competition for the

job might not include all the qualified candidates. You may have actually

received an auto generated email indicating you were not referred when you


129

actually were and, potentially, vice versa. In order to be fair to all concerned

the current advertisement is cancelled. If you are still interested in this great job

please watch USAJobs for the reposting of the advertisement. Even if you have

already applied you must reapply if you1920d like to be considered. I regret any

inconvenience this may cause but it is the right thing to do under the

circumstances. If you have any questions please feel free to call [name omitted]

at [omitted]. Thank you for your interest with the National Park Service. You are

encouraged to visit www.usajobs.gov to view additional Federal employment

opportunities and information. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL

MESSAGE. IT IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED.

This system is not working. I don't know who these people are and they don't

know me or my park. They are difficult to reach and seem overextended. I can't

answer most of the survey questions (answered "neither agree nor disagree")

because I simply do not know these people well enough to have any opinions

about their competence.

Answering these questions is very difficult because of the variability from one HR

employee to the next. Individual expertise and attitude make all the difference

between individuals. The Denver SHRO has been fabulous, especially [names

omitted]. Also working with the Yellowstone SHRO, my experience has been less

satisfactory.

My sense in working with 3 different SHROs through the past several years, is that

the employees want to do a good job. But they are often overworked, which

leads them to take new jobs, leaving the remaining employees even more

overworked....in a constant cycle.

There are some individuals who are very good at the previous topics and others

who are not. So I was trying to think about an overall average. Also, for many

questions, I really had no way of knowing so put "neither agree nor disagree"

where I would have put "don't know" if that was a choice. For other the

questions, I chose "neither agree nor disagree" because that was the

appropriate response.

My transfer from a different agency was a long slow process with minimal

information to myself or departing agency in regards to start dates. I was places

in a wrong PD not covering my firefighter retirement as I was eligible.

Because they are located in a different location and because I have not

needed much information from the HROC I cannot comment on any of the

above questions. My recent attempt to get a retirement was done quickly and

efficiently.

There is a total lack of communication between the AZ SHRO and Supervisors

who are trying to hire employee's. Draft announcements aren't being sent to

supervisors, applicant's who have absolutely no prior experience at all are

qualifying for positions at the GS 6 and higher level, the "rules" keep changing as


130

to what they need/require and what they don't with no prior warning, applicants

are being rudely spoken to when questioned as to why their names were not

forwarded on to the hiring official. Every time an issue is brought to the SHRO's

attention, we are always told "it's HROC folks, there's nothing we can do about

it." The staffing specialist hardly ever answer their phone, making us leave VM,

that never get returned. We have better luck with E-mails, but not always. I have

heard other supervisor's, as well as myself us the term "lip service" of the 2 top

people at the AZ SHRO....they listen, but NOTHING is ever accomplished or

solved.

I have been provided fantastic support/effort and advice from the Anchorage

regional office in writing job descriptions that target people with the skills I need

to perform highly specialized positions. I have been expertly advised by Human

Resource Specialists in the regional office when dealing with an employee who

was having performance problems. The AK Regional Human Resource staff was

wonderful to work with when I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with

an employee whose expectations of a particular grade increase did not match

her paperwork. Their innovation and willingness to explore a range of solutions for

me (the supervisor) and the employee helped diffuse the situation and

potentially prevented it from mushrooming into a legal action. It also allowed the

agency to hold onto a productive employee.

it is not possible to respond to the preceding questions related to the overall

efficacy of the HR staff and organization. in dealing with staff at multiple SHROs

and HROC I have encountered employees at various points on the scale for

each of these statements. Response to each statement would depend on who I

relate the question to. Should it be the best or the worst or the one in the

middle?

Without having worked either within an HR office or had numerous and intimate

contact with HR representatives I feel it a disservice to try to answer some of the

questions posed ... how do I know if they require "minimal supervision" or "meet

deadlines" or "foster team spirit"???

I have a behavior-based difficulty with an employee. SHRO directs us to

document the situation. Every 6 months for 18 months we've had the issue

handed over to a new HR specialist. Each time the HR specialist has issue with

their predecessor's methods, and we're asked to begin documenting the

situation anew. The problem remains unresolved to the detriment of the staff,

mission, and Service.

How the heck are we supposed to answer these questions when we have no

personal experience with the shro or hroc? Have heard of it but have no

personal comunication with it! Our park HR folks here were awesome and still

are for what they can do. I have no idea about the people far removed from


131

the park. Is it absolutely necessary to change the way we do business constantly

and moving more towards big government?

Northwest SHRO has been extremely helpful to me as a new supervisor and as an

individual regularly dealing with PIV/DOI Access requests.

The 5 week deadline for submitting paperwork to be processed, including for

emergency hires is completely unacceptable. This move was to make HR

function more efficient and it has failed. There is no follow up or advising when

employment dates are changes, there is no concern about helping parks to

meet our mission. So far, the consolidation has been a waste of effort. Bring the

HR function back to the parks.

I have mixed experiences. I find that most of the people in the SHRO (most) are

willing to help, available to answer questions, etc. I have gotten mixed

information from some of them and really have only 1 particular person that I

can rely on for sound information and guidance. I am serviced by the NE SHRO.

I have been hassled when going through the process of a student appointment

(before pathways) where I felt discriminatory practices were being used and I

had the ARD for Admin attempting to racially screen my applicant by asking me

prohibited personnel questions which I did not answer. This SHOULD NOT BE

HAPPENING! I had a cert from the HROC that had people on it that did not

meet the basic screen out factors and some were even placed on the cert

when it was obvious that the application was fraudulent (made up name,

diploma mill generated transcript, false SSN etc, when I asked how this

happened, the answer I got was "well, sometimes applicants are so worried

about identity theft that they put down different information on the application"

I have a hard time trusting the process when I can't get a cert that has only

qualified people on it. I can't trust the SHRO when I get different answers from

different people (again, I only have 1 person that I trust to get information from)

and I can't trust that the hiring process is not biased against certain applicants so

that the agency can fill what amounts to a quota system.

I found your questioning vague because you are asking us to rate all HR

employees. I believe HR employees encompass the full spectrum of

performance and dedication from very poor to very good and outstanding.

One's opinion will vary depending on the degree of interaction with HR

employees and the amount of employees one has worked with.

While I have had many positive experiences with both SHRO offices I deal with, I

am concerned about the misinterpretation of information that is relayed to field

staff such as myself on a routine basis. It has become common-place to contact

one individual for information and if the answer is not what I want, I can contact

someone else at the other location and get the opposite response. I have also

witnessed an HR Specialist who had his own agenda and purposely stifled

various processes for supervisors that he had targeted creating a stressful,


132

wasteful and unproductive environment. Many HR processes are slow and

tedious and hiring officials do not get adequate guidance to do their parts in

order to expedite processes.

My response are most specific to my experience (which has been good) with

HROC. Experience with our agency HRO is also good regarding content and

information provided but leave something to be desired regarding timeliness of

response.

No, just that I have had both, and have seen improvement over the last year.

Some HR employees are great, others have been not so great. That's why many

questions above are answered with Neither Agree Nor Disagree.

Frankly, it is taking far longer than 5 years ago, for example, to hire. Months

longer with the extra layers of centralized operations. Even adding one word to a

PD can take months. Seasonal hiring/recruitment I now expect to take 6 months

or longer.

I have not known what my pay grade will be from day to day for the last 14

months due to our SHRO attempting to make corrections on promotions. HROC,

WASO & finally the Solicitor's Office all were involved. At present, I am in an

Acting Supervisor position for the AK Region not getting paid what I'm supposed

to because the SHRO has not been able to do any discernible work toward

eventuating a positive result. The Solicitor created a settlement to push the

situation forward. I contact the SHRO at least once a month for updates & am

told that it is a priority that will be addressed within the work week. I have seen

no progress in my case for 14 months. The meantime has proven the SHRO to

lack most any semblance of understanding of how that might negatively effect

our operation, my performance or the morale of the four persons involved. Were

they friendly or helpful in other situations one might recognize context as a

cause, but the fact is they are curt, snippy, exasperated by questions &

irretrievably adverse to helping. I am at a loss how a human relations office

could be so sharply lacking in any kind of human touch. All of that said, I will

absolutely give credit to our park's HR specialist, who is always helpful, engaged

& positive.

I often find HR employees to be rule bound; rather than results oriented.

Frankly, I only work with a few HR people to hire seasonals. I have now idea how

they rate on most of the items you have asked about, which is why I answered

most items with the "neither agree nor disagree" choice. I think that HR, like every

other group in NPS these days, is under a lot of pressure and have too little

resources (like people) to enable them to do their jobs in a something less than a

very stressful environment. Whether the new organization of SHROs and HROC

helps ease some of this or not, I don't know. However, having the SHROs set up

with names for leads and those working in that group is very helpful. Plus our

SHRO (and maybe all the SHROs) has put together a hiring guide for seasonals,


133

and this year, added hiring work flows, the time it takes for each step (provided

all the correct paperwork is in), consultations that each hiring manager should

have with HR prior to the hiring process in order to make sure everyone is on the

same page, and a checklist of what needs to be done as the hiring process

moves along. They have had conference calls for anyone who wants to go over

these things. So I applaud their efforts toward clarifying and breaking down the

hiring process into understandable steps.

All of the above answers are gross generalizations, as experiences vary greatly

with individual HR employees. Generally, especially with our current SHRO staff,

all experiences have been very positive in all respects.

I think the Alaska Regional HR folks are terrific with excellent customer service

skills, creative problem solving, empathetic and extremely helpful especially

when it comes to hiring and personnel issues. I think [name omitted] has been

very responsive to my questions regarding my retirement estimate at the HROC

level. I think it has been a painful transition to these systems especially to the

seasonal hiring process at the national level. I think its getting better. The notes

that are sent out to applicants such as they have not been forwarded to the

selecting official even though they have a very high score are not helpful.

In FY 2012, I was attempting to make contact with applicants with veteran's

preference. I contacted all the vets except one. All the other vets were no

longer interested and responded either verbally or in writing depending upon

their status. Except one veteran. I documented my initial call and left a voice

message. I called the next day, left a voice message requesting a response 7

days later. I followed this up with an email and provided the same deadline for a

response – 7 days later. On the 8th day, I called one last time and left a message

informing vet the deadline had passed. Documented all these contacts and was

keeping my HR POC abreast of what was happening. After no response (the day

after the deadline passed), I asked HR to send the certified letter to the

applicant. The HR rep told me to continue to try to contact the applicant. I did

that for another 7 WEEKS before HR finally sent the certifed letter which the

applicant failed to respond. I asked why we had to wait so long when OPM regs

are pretty clear on the issue and was told "I like to give people every reasonable

opportunity to respond". Because of this, I had to go 7-8 weeks without an

employee! Unbelieveable. FYI – I contacted OPM's vet office to find out if we

had to wait this long. Their response was that a nonresponsive vet is like any other

applicant who fails to respond. Document your attempts to contact, provide a

reasonable amount of time to respond, then show them as failed to respond.

Sometimes I get two different answers from two different people. Sometimes

they do not share important information in a timely fashion. Overall, they are

good employees who try to help anyway they can. And I appreciate that. The

conversion to the Pathways program is driving all of us NUTS!


134

Not sure if the questions about HR employees are to be answered with my HR

operation in mind, or if they are meant to let me know what you think are the

qualities of an effective HR professional and ask whether I agree. I responded to

the former. Not sure who to go to for what anymore other than I know the HROC

provides a centralized function with respect to certain things, such as retirement

calculations. Our HR office has a website, but I find it not to be very intuitive.

Recent experience with local HR staff in responding to my questions related to

the needed content of various documents to effect advertising and filling a

position was professional, knowledgeable and helpful.

[Name omitted] at the NER SHRO is great to work with. She always makes time to

answer questions, explain procedures, and research related information for me.

The above questions are so broad and unspecific that they border on being

impossible to answer. There are excellent HR professionals whom I work with at

the SHRO, NCR and others who are less so... and my answers vary depending

upon who I deal with and on what issues. My major difficulties, as a hiring official,

are with the current system of categorical rating for lower level GS jobs. These

difficulties reflect a BROKEN SYSTEM, in part owning to Presidential Orders and the

administrative methods developed inside and outside of NPS to implement these

directives. Essentially, the process to apply is too easy, generates a huge

number of responses, and since a very fast turn-around time is EXPECTED, has

little quality control. Hence, people who obviously lie on their self-appraisal

questions are NOT caught and weeded out, while people who are too modest in

the self-evaluations do not receive additional consideration based on the quality

of their resumes. We are supposed to be hiring mainly on the basis of merit, and I

cannot believe that these principles are being followed in the evaluation of

candidates for my positions. In most other areas, I am quite pleased with the

general caliber of HR work. I am always appreciative of the labors of the HR

professionals and feel I can always count of receiving accurate information and

guidance in issues of pay, EEO, training, benefits, leave, timekeeping,

security/background check, union relations, etc.

While some individuals may be willing to look at an issue from different

perspectives and seek legal methods for resolving issues, all too often the culture

is one mired in "we do it this way or not at all" mentality. This is neither creative or

helpful as more complex demands are placed on personnel to accomplish

mission goals. Again, this is NOT true for each individual. However, I have

experienced cases were one persons initiative was squashed by superiors who

were intransigent to the need for innovative work.

It's hard to generalize HR employee behavior and professionalism as a group. As

a whole, HR just seems to process personnel, etc and it does so very slowly. There

is no communication, not guidance, the rules change everytime and managers


135

are left guessing – what the rules are, what is needed, when we should expect

responses or actions. Not much is initiated by HR employees.

In many instances, I have no reference point to use for responses to the survey.

In the one instance of disagreement, I am basing that response on HROC's

institution of mandatory lead times for processing actions. This policy may have

been softened, but when in place, this policy created substantial hardship for

local managers, supervisors and employees as HROC was extremely inflexible

and unresponsive to real operational needs.

During my on-boarding the Denver Service Center person assigned to me was

courteous, but was unable to find a creative solution to attaining my AL and Sick

Time hours from my previous Federal employer. I found the solution and

forwarded the documents, but the time was never entered correctly. In

addition, I was entered into the HR System as a Female and I am a Male. This

resulted in my medical records, medical cards, and doctor assignments all

carrying the tag of Female. I had to work to unravel this which cost me

additional time and delay at Kaiser including the issuing of a new card. It took

two weeks for the Denver Service Center to correct my gender in the system.

HROC deadlines are totally unrealistic for the real world. When combined with

SHRO lead times, a 5 pay period lead time truly hampers the services ability to

have actions processed.

Attention to detail, particularly in processing seasonal certificates, seems to be

lacking. Good service through SHRO, terrible through HROC...sorry, but there

needs to be improvement in speed, accuracy and customer service.

There was a turnover in personnel servicing my organization, and because of a

seeming lack of succession planning, it has taken my servicing official a lengthy

period of time to become proficient with the needs of my organization. This not

due to lack of trying – as my servicing official is courteous, kind and seems to

work hard, it was simply a very large amount of complex rules and knowledge

that had to be mastered over time.

With the conversion to the SHRO/HROC system it seems to take longer to

accomplish tasks that used to be routine. It has been my experience that SHRO's

have isolated themselves from the rest of the workforce and have developed a

disconnect with the people that they need to consult. It may be a result of a

lack of people, but there needs to be a "customer service" desk that can

actually handle routine questions from the field offices – setting up a limited time

when a field office can call HR wastes the time of the field person if their

schedule does not coincide with the HR office! Initially, SHRO offices I have dealt

with seemed to assume a "holier-than-thou" attitude although it seems to be

getting better. Field personnel are not experts and the SHRO office is their only

chance to seek authoritative direction so SHRO employees need to be in touch

with field operations so that they can suggest appropriate alternatives and


136

creative solutions (this implies that they are willing to listen to the field supervisor

and determine what really needs to be done.)

For most of the above answers, I based my responses on interactions/personal

knowledge of SHRO &/or HROC employees and not at the local level; at the

local level, 'HR' is only one of the many hats worn by staff and they are not

experts in the HR arena.

The head of the SHRO reviewed an employee's qualifications for a temporary

promotion and stated that he did not qualify for the series, although a SHRO staff

person had qualified him. I had to review the employee's transcripts and point

out the relevant courses, and he had more than enough credits to qualify for the

series. I received a certificate with a veteran at the top. Upon review of his

application I found that he did not meet the positive education requirement. I

had to request that his name be removed from the certificate since he did not

meet basic qualifications. I think the SHRO staff put forth a good effort and tries

to issue announcements and certificates in a timely manner. However, the new

organization has resulted in a much larger workload without an increase in staff.

I have had little contact with HR employees in several years. The couple of

requests for information that I have sent them have been ignored.

most experiences are positive

The SHRO philosophy is highly variable depending on which SHRO you are

dealing with – ethics and customer service vary greatly depending on the

personal leadership of the SHRO supervisor/lead. SHRO supervisors recently

transferred to NPS from other agencies seem very ineffective or not committed

to NPS employees. There appears to be a lack of accountability for consistency

in decisions and customer service to regional supervisors of the SHRO system.

Frequently Superintendents have to get involved to get a decision or reverse a

decision that is wrong, conflicts with an earlier decision, or is contrary to policy.I

have known many great SHRO employees, but there is minimal consistency. I

appreciate their work, and the tremendous strains that the changes over the last

few years have produced, but they are essential to all we do... the field just

wants consistency in customer service.

We have an outsatnding HR office. All the things you mention in your above

questions they do. They are a highly regarded function on the base here.

The West SHRO policy is to only communicate through one POC per park unit on

all HR matters. This is an extremely inefficient and ineffective means of

communication. plus it make me feel like a fifth grader where everything has to

go through the "teacher".

I see need for improvement in the following Workforce Management areas: /

*Employee Relations expertise / *Flexibility to adapt to park circumstances (i.e.,

is 5 weeks always needed to process a SF-52?) / *Advocating and supporting

more assertive disciplinary decisions.


137

Really hard to respond to these type questions as I rarely have personal

interaction with HR personnel. Other park staff contact them for answers.

I feel that I have to keep almost daily tabs on any HR work I need to have done,

to ensure that it actually happens. This takes a big chunk of time and energy

that I should not have to do...after all, I am not the HR worker. I don't understand

why I have to do so much of the work. It seems that the system in place is

incredibly inefficient and places unnecessary demands on the time of

supervisors. The supervisor should simply place requests and provide specialized

knowledge to the HR dept, and the HR dept should fill out and deal with all the

forms...forms which have meaning ONLY to HR people, who have the

appropriate knowledge to fill them out properly and know where they need to

go.

There is a large competency gap evident in our HR staffers. They are good at

filling out forms, holding the parks to the bureaucratic letter of regulation, but

have very little ability (or desire) to analyze alternatives and come up with

creative solutions to help parks accomplish their work and mission. It is my

impression that most of the central office (HROC/SROC) employees, have no

experience working in a park, and thus no experience with the needs of park

work, or the technical expertise needed by the numerous occupational positions

that work in park. It is also my impression that more SHRO employees have field

experience in NPS, that the employees of the HROC or SROC.)

Sometimes assume that everyone understands their technical terms and

abbreviations, that we know where to find all the forms that they keep creating,

and we know which form is to be used for every situation.

I don't think there is consistency with decisions/practices across the board. There

are actions that are implemented differently from one region to another and

SHRO to SHRO. Efficiency is not a priority and holding SHRO employees

accountable for their workloads is not practiced.

There are not one size fits all answers for these questions. Certain SHROs within

the agency are very progressive, helpful, and always striving to improve

customer service. Other SHROs are the opposite.

It seems like HR employees are not willing to look for solutions, only to tell us what

we can't do.

Seems to me the phrase "HR employees" is to broad to be useful relative to these

questions. Most questions could have been rated as anywhere in my mind from

strongly agree to disagree depending on the individual employees that came to

mind. Also, often I found myself responding to "the system" rather than the

employees per se.

I am a new Chief of Interp at [omitted] and [names omitted] on numerous

occasions have gone over and beyond the call of duty to help me with HR issues

from fingerprinting, bring new employees on board, to NACI, to assisting with


138

language for new PD's, etc. There professionalism is superior and their willingness

to find effective solutions in a timely manner has allowed our operations to move

forward smoothly. They are personable and friendly. I am not afraid to ask for

their help because they never make me feel like I am bothering them.

HR functions in the National Park Service are drastically understaffed. For the

past 5-10 years this has had a dramatic adverse impact particularly on recruiting

and hiring top quality candidates. The process takes way too long and involves

far too many steps. With not enough staff for the workload, often recruitment

packages now sit much longer first in the park's Administrative Officer (SHRO

contact) then at the SHRO then to the HROC. The next phase, when the Job

Announcement finally comes and then closes, results now in delays in getting

certificates of eligibles. After certificates are used and selections made, there is

another lengthly review process at HR followed then by background checks.

These take longer as well. Because of this unnecssary backlog, even park's that

submit their packages many months ahead of time, are forced do without

personnel for long critical periods. This hampers parks from meeting their goals

and even their ability to open sites and offer consistent quality service to the

public. I thought that the centralization of HR functions which lead to the SHROs

and the HROC was supposed to help streamline operations but up until now, it

has made things much more difficult.

These questions are impossible to answer since they don't differentiate among HR

employees. You spent all the time up front investigating whether the survey

taker knows what a SHRO and what the HROC are – but then don't give us the

opportunity to differentiate in our answers. My experience with HR professionals

at my SHRO, at the HROC and at WASO have been very different.

nps_hr gap analysis_final report_130603

Documents