PARTICIPANT EVALUATIONS FOR THE March 30, 2004 LEADERSHIP FORUM MEETING
INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neither agree/
Disagree Strongly
Disagree disagree
FORMAT:
1. The meeting format fostered an exchange of ideas.
2. The meeting fostered an understanding of stakeholder issues other than mine.
3. The meeting created an opportunity to other stakeholders.
13
9
10
4
8
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4. The facilitator enhanced the meeting’s outcome.
SUBSTANCE:
11 6 0 0 0
5. The meeting provided me with information concerning the rationale for a variety of elements necessary 5 9 3 0 0 for all agencies granted personnel flexibilities in the future.
• Presentations were complete & on point.
• Good dialogue from informed sources.
• OPM/MSPB/private vendor brought great talking points to room.
• The meeting provided an overview of the necessary elements – there was a substantial focus on pay for performance initiatives.
• Presenters tended to agree on the elements that would be advisable.
• Yes, good foundation established through panel presentations.
• Somewhat – I feel it gave mea very broad overview but few specifics.
• Bottom line, we don’t have a strawman to debate, no less an answer (not a criticism).
• Have done a lot of work in this area.
6. The meeting provided me with information that challenged my ideas concerning the minimum elements necessary for all agencies granted personnel flexibilities in the future.
• Presentations & table discussions.
• I already thought we had some flexibilities – discussion on concept of separate employer was fascinating.
• Yes, challenged my position in the need for government-wide change, no agency-wide.
• Reinforced more than challenged. Didn’t really change anything – broadened views. (3)
• No – most presentations were not too meaty.
7. The meeting challenged my pre-existing perception of the minimum elements in the federal personnel
5 6 4 1 0
5 5 3 2 0 system necessary to grant sufficient personnel flexibility to create high performing agencies while maintaining government-wide uniformity.
• It’s interesting there is still such a focus on internal equity for its own sake – will require a strong education/training component to counteract.
• A few new additions to a reinforced base of agreement.
8. My expectations were met. Yes: 15 No: 1
9. I liked most:
• The last speaker (Howard Risher) was dynamic compared to others.
• Steve’s presentations – good, concrete speaker.
• Presentation. Speakers with experience on policy edge. Presentations were very informative. The panel – good overview & not all from the same viewpoint. The presentations were crisp, to the point & the right length. Panel and Q&A. (8)
• Discussion questions were great – stimulated very good conversation. (2)
• Benchmarking my own opinion against others.
• Small group setting & informal feel.
• Ron Sanders was very knowledgeable & gave good framework for these issues.
• Networking, speakers.

10. I liked least:
• Table discussions.
• Traffic getting here – could we start at 9?
• Time limitation.
• Need for more concrete examples of successes; presentations leaned toward theory over application.
• I did not find Steve Nelson’s presentations relevant to today’s topic. I found Howard Risher to be pretty negative.
• Less red meat for lunch!
11. Suggestions for future meetings:
• Facilitator should introduce himself by name & title/role.
• Panel could have more gender & ethnic diversity.
• Talk more about the background of the topic prior to any table discussion – for example, some people weren’t clear on what flexibilities exist in the DHS/DOD systems when we embarked on our 1 st table discussion.
• Pay for Performance from fed agencies with substantial experience (e.g. GAO, NCUA, IRS).
• Does market based mean anything in a practical sense for the federal system?
• Outsourcing – where it is in Fed. Gov’t – orgs that have gone through it, lessons learned.
• SES Appraisal System – OPM speaker & reps from agencies that have had their plans approved.
• More on succession planning/leadership development (content & selection criteria).
• Rebuilding the critical infrastructure in HR – software/platform/policy/people.
• Same topics with reps form DHS & DOD. Actual implementation experiences in the revised performance systems at DHS & DOD. (2)