The hearing raised concerns about how VHA manages the performance of its senior executives and deals with instances of poor performance and misconduct, particularly at the 173 medical centers. Our purpose in interviewing the network directors was to (1) determine whether they believed some triad members were not performing to the Fully Successful level, despite what their official ratings showed; (2) identify what actions, if any, were taken to deal with the triad members whom they believed performed at a less than Fully Successful level; and (3) get their views on the effectiveness of the actions in dealing with the performance problems. The network directors’ avoidance of the formal system to address less than Fully Successful performance is not unique to them. Formal Performance Management System Was Not Used to Identify and Deal With Poor Performers

Our review of VHA performance appraisal data revealed that none of the 477 management triad members received a rating lower than Fully Successful during the 1994 through 1996 rating periods. Use of Informal Means to Address Poor or Marginal Performance Carries Certain Risks for the Agency

Because none of the triad members identified by the network directors or VHA headquarters as poor or marginal performers had been officially rated as such, it made it more difficult for the network directors and other VHA senior managers to take certain formal, performance-based actions against the employees in dealing with the performance problems. OPM’s strategic plan for fiscal years 1997 through 2002, in part, calls for continuing its efforts to improve the capacity of managers to identify and resolve performance problems effectively. The network directors frequently emphasized in the interviews that the reduction in the number of triad members for whom they were responsible significantly improved their ability to gauge and manage performance. Disciplinary Actions Taken for Misconduct, but Not Without Controversy

VHA network directors did not consider misconduct to be a widespread problem within the management triad at VHA medical centers, although some directors acknowledged that instances of misconduct had occurred. OPM’s CPDF showed that during this same 3-year period, a total of 11 actions were taken governmentwide, excluding VA. Rather, VHA network directors responsible for triad members acknowledged that the record of performance ratings did not capture the actual performance of all triad members and that poor performers did exist. But the network directors collectively held that identifying poor performers in official ratings is not an effective way to address the problem because, among other things, it necessitates formal actions that they perceived to be time-consuming, burdensome, and unlikely to produce the desired results. Instead, the network directors believed they had effectively managed poor performance through informal means. Comments From the Office of Personnel Management

Disposition of Misconduct Charges Involving VHA Management Triad Members—Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1996

Admonishment was issued citing poor judgment in installing camera.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed how the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) manages the performance of senior executives and deals with instances of poor performance and misconduct, focusing on the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during fiscal years 1994 through 1996.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) none of the 477 management triad members received a performance appraisal of less than Fully Successful during the 1994 through 1996 rating periods; (2) this is not much different from how other executive agencies rated their senior management employees during this 3-year period; (3) the network directors acknowledged in interviews, however, that the record of the performance appraisals did not capture the actual performance appraisals of all the management triad members; (4) most network directors agreed that they did not identify poor or marginal performance in the performance appraisals, because those ratings necessitate formal actions to remedy performance problems; (5) the network directors perceived those actions as time-consuming and distracting, burdensome, and unlikely to produce a desired result; (6) although network directors did not use formal means to deal with poor or marginal performers, they said they effectively managed poor performers through informal means; (7) the network directors' propensity to use informal, rather than formal, means to address performance problems is not unique to them; (8) prior studies by GAO and the Merit Systems Protection Board have shown that managers and supervisors governmentwide have avoided taking formal actions against less than satisfactory performers for some of the very same reasons cited by the network directors; (9) in its oversight capacity for federal personnel issues, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has included in its strategic plan for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 efforts to improve the capacity of managers to identify and resolve performance problems; (10) the network directors were nearly unanimous in asserting that the changes VHA recently implemented, particularly the reduction in the number of triad members for whom they were responsible, were helping them to identify and deal with poor performance; (11) most network directors did not consider misconduct to be a widespread problem among management triad officials, although they did acknowledge that instances of misconduct by employees at that level have occurred; (12) disciplinary actions that VHA took to address the misconduct created some controversy that primarily revolved around one sexual harassment case; and (13) the controversy about how VHA handled this case as well as concerns about the effectiveness of VA's zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment and employment discrimination led to administrative and statutory changes.