USACE Human Capital Strategic Plan 2012–2017: Analysis

Introduction

The United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a report in 2012 known as the Human Capital Strategic Plan, meant to serve as a benchmark and projection for the period from 2012 through 2017. As a public safety-oriented organization, the USACE's plan warrants careful analysis in terms of resource allocation, budgetary efficacy, and overall quality. The United States Army Corps of Engineers is a very competent organization, but no organization's plans — especially those whose funding involves taxpayer dollars in whole or in part — are beyond reproach.

This paper analyzes the Human Capital Strategic Plan for 2012–2017 as issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in April 2012. The report is approximately fifty pages in length and is analyzed cover to cover. The analysis examines what is in the report, what might be missing, and what could perhaps be done better. While the Army Corps of Engineers is a very reputable organization, all government and government-oriented organizations should have their plans analyzed and assessed.

Strategic Plan Structure and Mission Alignment

The first printed page of the Human Capital Strategic Plan is an introductory letter from W.B. Temple, the Acting Commander and Major General of the United States Army Corps of Engineers at the time of publication. She notes that the three years prior to the report's issuance had been very challenging, specifically citing the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The latter is recognized as the initial stimulus bill passed by the United States Congress in response to the severe recession that ran from 2007 to 2009 and came to be known as the "Great Recession." Her discussion of these initiatives concludes with the idea that the USACE would focus on the assessment of competencies, the identification of gaps, and the establishment of plans to close those gaps. This is a sound overall framework, provided it moves beyond mere words and into concrete action (USACE, 2012).

The general then ties in the "building strong" motto that appears on the report's cover, stating that the USACE will focus on the prevention of talent loss, shaping the workforce for the future, and winning the war for talent. She closes by saying that "the right people with the right competencies equals success." This is a prescient focus, because there is indeed fierce competition for talent between the public and private sectors. In times of economic difficulty, budget cuts, and uncertainty, retaining good talent within the public sector can be a considerable challenge (USACE, 2012).

The table of contents reveals the report's general structure: a summary of the human capital life cycle, overall research and findings, key drivers of employee engagement, the USACE human capital goals, and the USACE human capital objectives. It then lists the four overall human capital objectives to be achieved, followed by a section on measuring progress, a conclusion, references, and appendices. The structure is simple yet sufficiently detailed to convey the points the USACE seeks to make (USACE, 2012).

The third page of the report notes that the 2012 iteration is the first full revision since 2009 — a three-year gap that, while not ideal, is not excessive. It is encouraging that the report states it "is based on our last three years of analysis, initiatives, accomplishments and lessons learned," indicating an organization willing to assess both its successes and its shortcomings. The mission statement of the USACE is then presented: to provide "vital public engineering services in peace and war to strengthen our Nation's security, energize the economy and reduce risks from disasters." The vision statement follows (USACE, 2012).

The "lines of effort" (LOEs) for the USACE, drawn from the December 2011 draft of the Army Campaign Plan, are presented next. They include:

Several of these LOEs stand out from a capital management and planning perspective. A refined hiring process is essential because there must be a person-to-culture fit between the individual hired and the agency. Not everyone is suited for the kind of work the USACE requires, and people who are unfit or unwilling to perform at the required quality level should not be hired. Additionally, it is important to recognize that there is a meaningful difference between a standard civilian job and employment within the USACE. Even civilian employees must understand that the USACE is not a private-sector endeavor and that its employees are held to a higher standard than might be expected in many private firms (USACE, 2012).

The USACE Campaign Plan Strategy Map, shown on page four of the report, lists four goals:

Supporting both the Nation and the United States Armed Forces are clearly the overarching goals of the USACE. The header on the campaign plan chart poses the question: "What will YOU do to make USACE great?" — echoing the spirit of John F. Kennedy's famous challenge to consider what one can do for one's country. Government servants in particular must keep this ethos in mind. They should not be in USACE positions to seek wealth or fame, but to serve their country in an ethical and honorable manner. Given that public safety and national defense are at stake, nothing less should be expected.

Nevertheless, page six of the report acknowledges real constraints: "external drivers include current and anticipated future economic constraints and requirements levied by the Department of Army (DA), Department of Defense (DoD), and Congress, as well as the regulatory and legal authorities exercised by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Office of Management and Budget." Being funded by taxpayer dollars means both a high standard to meet and strict budgetary constraints within which that standard must be maintained. While events like Hurricane Katrina generated calls to expand USACE funding and operations, the Great Recession produced the opposite pressure. Many Keynesian economists, however, suggest that investment in programs and personnel like those of the USACE actually stimulates the broader economy (USACE, 2012; Time, 2009).

Workforce Life Cycle, Retirement Trends, and Talent Competition

The USACE Human Capital Life Cycle is introduced on page seven of the report. The four sequential steps — Plan, Recruit, Develop, and Sustain — form a continuous cycle. This is a sound framework, as there is a well-documented tendency for employees to underperform when they are not developed. Moreover, if employees are developed but not given sufficient reasons to remain, they may leave and take their training, expertise, and performance with them. Finding the right people, investing in their development, and then retaining them as long as possible is therefore the correct overall approach. Employees who depart after significant time and resources have been invested represent a loss of effort for the USACE in multiple ways. Lack of continuity can also create public safety and strategic concerns (USACE, 2012).

Page eight of the report cites Bureau of Labor Statistics data on overall engineering employment levels. The statistics illustrate why retaining good engineers is so difficult. Between the report's issuance in 2012 and 2020, an additional quarter of a million engineering positions were projected to be added to the U.S. workforce — a staggering increase of approximately ten percent. The caveat is that roughly sixty percent of those positions (approximately 150,000 jobs) represented recovery from losses sustained during the Great Recession. Regardless, the engineering job market was on an upswing, making it critical for the USACE to remain competitive in attracting and retaining talent — a challenge of which the organization appeared keenly aware (USACE, 2012).

In terms of internal initiatives, the USACE identified several areas of focus: transformation of major programs, management and recapitalization of aging civil works infrastructure, achieving national energy security and sustainability goals, optimizing enterprise service delivery, and aligning the USACE's business processes, competencies, organizational capabilities, and fiscal realities. Most of these priorities are sound. The energy security item warrants a note of caution, however: while transitioning away from coal and petroleum-based fuels is an admirable long-term goal, cost-effectiveness must be an equally prominent consideration. In many cases, "green" energy solutions are not yet economically competitive with fossil fuels, and spending beyond budget on technologies that are not market-ready is unwise. Efficiency and fiscal discipline should be weighted at least as heavily as energy source preferences (USACE, 2012; Michaels, 2011).

The chart on page twelve reveals that early or optional retirement accounted for forty percent or more of departures across all six years from 2006 through 2012 — a figure close to half the workforce. This is not surprising given that the Baby Boomer generation drove birth rates to approximately four children per family, after which birth rates fell sharply beginning in the mid-to-late 1960s. It is therefore expected that a large share of the USACE workforce would be at or near retirement age, making succession planning and continuity initiatives a high priority (CDC, 2015). Page thirteen presents a somewhat different pattern: the percentage of retirement-eligible employees who actually retired hovered just under thirty percent in 2006, 2007, and 2008, then dropped sharply to between fifteen and twenty percent from 2009 through 2011, likely as the recession discouraged early departure. The preponderance of retirement-age personnel in the USACE workforce remains a major concern, and the organization must invest heavily in developing younger cohorts to fill the void as retirements continue — a challenge likely to persist for the next ten to twenty years as the Baby Boom generation fully transitions through retirement (USACE, 2012; Kessler, 2014).

Regarding job satisfaction, page twenty of the USACE report shows that 8 to 9 out of ten employees (from year to year) like what they do. However, the scores regarding job-relevant knowledge and organizational reviews with managers are poor. Furthermore, positive responses for rewards for creativity did not exceed fifty percent from 2006 to 2011 — a meaningful concern. Another point of concern is that two thirds of the USACE workforce is male and approximately 79.63% is white. Both figures are disproportionately high relative to the national population. The gender skew is somewhat expected given that women enter engineering professions at lower rates than men. The representation of Black professionals stands at ten percent, slightly below their share of the national population. More concerning is the representation of Hispanic and Latino professionals at less than three percent, far below their approximately seventeen percent share of the U.S. population — a figure projected to grow to nearly one third of the U.S. population by 2060 (Census, 2015).

There clearly needs to be a concerted focus on supporting women and minorities in engineering. However, the USACE can only draw from the talent pools that exist; it is not a social program, and its primary obligation is public safety. The new-hire retention rate shown on page fourteen is encouraging: first-year figures are above ninety percent across all measured periods and trended upward from 2006 to 2010, with a slight dip in 2011. Rates settle between seventy-five and eighty percent over the first two years — not ideal, but acceptable. The overall turnover rate is approximately eight percent, and the USACE reports particular concern about mission-critical occupations, which is appropriate.

In terms of generational distribution, page eighteen of the report shows that just over half (52%) of the workforce belongs to the Baby Boomer generation, one third (33%) are Generation X, most of the remainder (12%) are Millennials, and approximately three percent were born before 1945. This distribution aligns with the retirement trend data discussed previously and reinforces the urgency of succession planning efforts (USACE, 2012; Krumrie, 2014).

Conclusion

USACE. (2015). 2012–2017 Human Capital Management Plan. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1–50.

WSJ. (2015). Employee retention — How to retain employees. Guides.wsj.com. Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://guides.wsj.com/small-business/hiring-and-managing-employees/how-to-retain-employees/