jurisdiction: US

text: b" Amtrak\nOffice of Inspector General\n Evaluation Report E-09-06\n\n Training and\n Employee Development\n October 26, 2009\n\n\n\n\nThis report will be available to the public on November 25, 2009.\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n In May 2009, the Amtrak Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Evaluation\nReport E-09-03, \xe2\x80\x9cHuman Capital Management\xe2\x80\x9d. That report was the result of a year\nand a half effort evaluating Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s human capital management practices. During\nthe course of that evaluation, we decided to conduct a separate and more detailed\nreview focusing specifically on training and employee development. This report is the\nresult of that separate review. It should be considered a complementary report to\nReport E-09-03 on the broader subject of human capital management at Amtrak.\n\n\nOVERALL CONCLUSIONS\n Training at Amtrak is managed and conducted in a largely decentralized\nmanner. In 2008, records show that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s 19,000 employees received over\n670,000 hours of training, an average of about 35 hours of training per employee. It\nis difficult to determine exactly how much was spent on training, but we estimate that\nAmtrak probably spends between $40 million and $45 million on training each year.\n\n During our review, we found many passionate and hard-working people\ninvolved with training. This has resulted in some excellent training being conducted.\nHowever, since training is decentralized and mainly driven by the individual\ndepartment's requirements, it is not always consistently required or delivered\nthroughout the corporation. In addition, the decentralization of training at Amtrak\nappears to make training more expensive than at other similarly sized companies.\n\n Part of the reason for the inconsistency between departments is that there is\nno individual or organization charged with overseeing all training at Amtrak.\nFurthermore, there is currently no corporate-wide training strategy or program to\nensure that the efforts are aligned to meet the strategic needs of Amtrak in the\nfuture. For the railroad to work effectively, all employees must be properly trained to\ndo their jobs, not just those in some positions at some locations or in some\ndepartments.\n\n In addition to the lack of a corporate-wide training program, there is also no\nintegrated corporate-wide career development program for management employees.\nOver the last ten years, only once out of eight times has an internal candidate been\nselected for an opening in one of the top three leadership positions in the company\n(CEO, COO or CFO) and only two of the current ten members of the Executive\nManagement Committee came from jobs from within Amtrak. Without a corporate-\n\x0cwide management career development program, Amtrak will continue to be faced\nwith senior managers who apparently do not have the appropriate attributes,\neducation, experiences or management skills needed to assume the senior-most\nleadership roles in the company.\n\n As recently stated by Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s President and CEO in a Special Employee\nAdvisory to all employees, \xe2\x80\x9cIt\xe2\x80\x99s incumbent on all of us to shape a company that thinks\nbeyond tomorrow and that sets the stage for the newer members of the Amtrak\nfamily because they represent our future.\xe2\x80\x9d An increased emphasis on training and\nemployee development throughout Amtrak is just the type of effort needed to ensure\nthat Amtrak is postured for success, now and in the future.\n\n The rest of this report discusses our specific findings in more detail and makes\n27 recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of training and\nemployee development at Amtrak.\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\x0cTABLE OF CONTENTS\nIntroduction 1\n\nMethodology 1\n\nTraining at Amtrak 1\n\nOverall Conclusions 2\n\nFindings and Recommendations\n\n 1. Employee Training\n 1A. New Hire Orientation 4\n 1B. New Hire Training (Job-Specific) 8\n 1C. Subsequent Training 10\n 1D. Training Strategy 12\n 1E. Training Efficiency 13\n 1F. Training Records 16\n 1G. Instructor Certifications 18\n 1H. Computer Based Training Validation 20\n 1I. Terminology 22\n\n 2. Management Employee Career Development\n 2A. Management Employee Career Development Strategy 24\n 2B. Management Candidate Aptitude Screening 28\n 2C. Management Associate/Trainee Program 30\n 2D. Career Progression & Job Families 32\n 2E. Educational Standards for Non-Agreement Employees 34\n 2F. Cross-Departmental & Corporate Competencies 37\n 2G. Leadership/Management Development 40\n\nList of Appendices\n I Evaluation Team\n II Consolidated List of Recommendations\n III New Hire Checklist\n IV Matrix of New Hire Initial Craft Training Comparison Sample\n\n\n\n iv\n\x0cINTRODUCTION\n In May 2009, the Amtrak Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued Evaluation\nReport E-09-03, \xe2\x80\x9cHuman Capital Management.\xe2\x80\x9d That report was the result of a year\nand a half effort evaluating Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s human capital management practices. During\nthe course of that evaluation, we decided to conduct a separate and more detailed\nreview focusing specifically on training and employee development. This report is the\nresult of that separate review. It should be considered a complementary report to\nReport E-09-03 on the broader subject of human capital management at Amtrak.\n\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n This review began as part of the broader Human Capital Management\nevaluation and therefore used many of the same sources and techniques to collect\ninformation and data for this evaluation. This included interviews with the then\nChairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors, the then Amtrak President and over 125\nAmtrak employees, including the senior management in every Amtrak department,\nmost of the managers in the Human Resources and Diversity Initiatives (HR&DI)\nDepartment, and a sampling of managers and employees throughout the country.\nWe also reviewed the results from benchmarking studies conducted by\nPricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and SAP, as well as the results from a survey of\nAmtrak employees conducted by Accenture. Finally, we visited two other Class I U.S.\nrailroads to see how they managed their employee training and development.\n\n\nTRAINING AT AMTRAK\n\n Training at Amtrak is managed and conducted in a largely decentralized\nmanner. There are approximately 140 Amtrak employees involved in the instruction\nor management of training, with about half of those located in the Employee\nDevelopment (ED) Branch within the HR&DI Department. Training is conducted at\ndozens of locations throughout the country, aligned with the major employee\nconcentrations.\n\n Some departments at Amtrak centrally manage and schedule most of their\nemployee training. For example, the Transportation Department schedules most of\ntheir employees to receive a structured \xe2\x80\x9cblock\xe2\x80\x9d of training at a specified time during\nthe year so as to manage and minimize the impact of training on the operation of the\nrailroad. The Engineering Department also conducts a form of centrally-managed\nstructured training in their \xe2\x80\x9cengineering camps\xe2\x80\x9d. Most of the Transportation\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s training for new hire conductors and locomotive engineers is conducted\ncentrally at the Training Center in Wilmington. They are the only department that\n\n\n 1\n\x0croutinely brings a significant portion of their employees to a central training facility\nrather than providing the training at a location near the employees.\n\n In 2008, records show that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s 19,000 employees attended over 9,300\ntraining events 1 (or courses) and received over 670,000 hours of training, an average\nof about 35 hours of training per employee. Additionally, Amtrak conducted Safety &\nSecurity training for 10,000 contractors (approximately 500 classes). The vast\nmajority of the training participants attended training to satisfy regulatory\nrequirements. However, the employees who received the most training were,\nunderstandably, the new employees. Amtrak provided over half of the total training\nhours on new hire training. Only about one-tenth of the total training hours were\ndevoted to new or enhanced skill development.\n\n It is difficult to determine exactly how much was spent on training in 2008,\nsince not all training costs are consistently coded to training (for example, travel to\ntraining is not always charged to training). However, we identified approximately $12\nmillion spent on instructor salaries and other expenses related to the management\nand conduct of training throughout Amtrak in 2008. In addition, we estimate that\nAmtrak spent over $26 million in salary and wages 2 for employees to attend training.\nIn total, we estimate that Amtrak probably spends between $40 million and $45\nmillion on training each year.\n\n\nOVERALL CONCLUSIONS\n Skilled employees are critical to any railroad. Without skilled engineers and\nconductors, the trains will not run on time. Without skilled electricians and\nmechanics, the equipment will not run reliably. Without skilled trackmen and\nsignalmen, the infrastructure will not support safe and on-time performance. Without\na myriad of skilled support personnel, the system will not run effectively and\nefficiently. Ensuring that employees have the appropriate knowledge, skills and\nabilities (KSAs) to properly and safely perform their jobs is every manager\xe2\x80\x99s\nresponsibility. An effective training program is the tool needed to insure that\nemployees develop and maintain these KSAs.\n\n At Amtrak, we found many passionate and hard-working people involved with\ntraining. This has resulted in some excellent training being conducted. However,\nsince training is decentralized and mainly driven by the individual department's\nrequirements, it is not always consistently required or delivered throughout the\n\n\n1\n This represents both classroom and on-line training events. It should be noted that certain training programs,\nsuch as New Hire Programs, Training Camps and/or Block Training, are treated as multiple individual training\nevents in the records.\n2\n Represents fully loaded salary and wages (including benefits).\n\n\n 2\n\x0ccorporation. In addition, the decentralization of training at Amtrak appears to make\ntraining more expensive than at other similarly sized companies.\n\n As we learned, there is no individual or organization charged with overseeing\nall training at Amtrak. Rather than filling this role at Amtrak, the role of the Employee\nDevelopment Branch in the HR&DI Department has evolved into one of developing\nand providing training largely in support of the requirements dictated by the operating\ndepartments. There is currently no corporate-wide training strategy or program to\nensure that the efforts are consistent or aligned to meet the strategic needs of Amtrak\nin the future. For the railroad to work effectively, all employees must be properly\ntrained to do their jobs, not just those in some positions at some locations or in some\ndepartments. The lack of corporate direction and oversight of all training efforts at\nAmtrak is a detriment to overall consistent accomplishment.\n\n In addition to the lack of a corporate-wide training program, there is also no\nintegrated corporate-wide career development program or selection criteria for\nmanagement employees 3 . Over the last ten years, only once out of eight times has\nan internal candidate been selected for an opening in one of the top three leadership\npositions in the company (CEO, COO or CFO) 4 and only two of the current ten\nmembers of the Executive Management Committee came from jobs from within the\ncompany. Without a corporate-wide management career development program,\nAmtrak will continue to be faced with senior managers who apparently do not have\nthe appropriate attributes, education, experiences or management skills needed to\nassume the senior-most leadership roles in the company.\n\n The rest of this report discusses our specific findings in more detail and makes\n27 recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of training and\nemployee development at Amtrak. Our recommendations are mainly directed to the\nVice President (VP) for HR&DI, as the most logical corporate lead, however, without\nthe direction and full support of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s CEO and the rest of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive\nleadership, the VP for HR&DI will be unable to fully implement the recommendations.\nAlthough this will not be an insignificant task, a renewed emphasis across the\ncompany on employee training and development can pay great dividends in many\nareas, not only in the near term, but also in the future.\n\n\n\n\n3\n We have focused our comments on career development of non-agreement (management) covered employees in\nthis report. We plan to look at career development of agreement covered employees as part of a future evaluation.\n4\n Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Operating Officer (COO), and Chief Financial Officer (CFO).\n\n\n 3\n\x0cFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n1. Employee Training\n1A. New Hire Orientation\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak does not conduct a comprehensive new hire orientation program in a\ntimely manner for all new employees.\n\n\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n New hire orientation is a part of an employer\xe2\x80\x99s new employee socialization\nprocess and whose purpose (according to one current graduate level reference) is to\n\xe2\x80\x9cprovide new employees with the basic information they need to perform their jobs\nsatisfactorily, such as information about company rules.\xe2\x80\x9d 5 That source goes on to\nsay that:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9ca successful orientation should accomplish four things. The new employee\n should feel welcome\xe2\x80\xa6.should understand the organization in a broad sense (its\n past, present, culture, and vision of the future), as well as key facts such as\n policies and procedures\xe2\x80\xa6.should be clear about what the firm expects in terms\n of work and behavior\xe2\x80\xa6and begin the process of becoming socialized into the\n firms preferred ways of acting and doing things.\xe2\x80\x9d 6\n\n Therefore, it logically follows that the orientation should be delivered as soon\nas possible in order to inform new employees about expected behaviors and potential\nhazards. This would allow new employees to rapidly acclimate themselves to the\norganization and make them conscious of its special hazards and behavioral norms.\nAs an example, the \xe2\x80\x9cboot camp\xe2\x80\x9d given to new military recruits serves this purpose.\nIdeally, this orientation should be substantially similar for new hires at all levels (so\nthat they would have a common understanding of organizational expectations). A list\nof topics or subjects might include broad organizational mission or goals, brief history,\nbehavioral norms (e.g., prevention of sexual harassment, and Equal Employment\nOpportunity) and expectations such as safety standards and personal protective\n\n5\n Gary Dressler , A Framework for Human Resource Management (Fifth Edition), (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009),\npp. 160-161.\n6\n Ibid.\n\n\n 4\n\x0cequipment, as well as familiarization with the basic company-wide systems such as\ncomputerized employee support. A welcome by a senior manager may also be\nappropriate at this point. Ideally, the process for inducting a new employee \xe2\x80\x93\nagreement covered or non-agreement covered 7 \xe2\x80\x93 would have this common\norientation built in at the very beginning, before any job-specific training is\naccomplished. This would serve several purposes, foremost among them ensuring\nthat the new employee was given information at the outset of his/her employment\nwhich would allow them to know and observe minimal safety precautions and conform\nto organizational behavioral expectations.\n\n To see how other companies orient their new employees, we benchmarked\nagainst another Class I railroad. This railroad has an orientation process in place for\nall their new hire agreement employees and non-agreement management associates.\nIn this organization, which had approximately 50% more new agreement hires than\nAmtrak in 2007 (2101 vice 1389), there is a common orientation which is consistently\ndelivered. Although their 30,000 employees come from an area that covers almost\nhalf of the United States, all new hire agreement employees, regardless of craft,\nreceive orientation at one central training facility on the first day of employment,\nfollowed by job specific training. This orientation is virtually identical for all crafts,\nand covers core company issues including safety, personal protective equipment, life\nstyle, expected behaviors, EEO, and company history and goals \xe2\x80\x93 in essence, the\n\xe2\x80\x9cculture\xe2\x80\x9d norms of the company. Non-agreement management associates and\noperations supervisors receive similar orientation at the same facility. Significantly,\none of the first day orientation topics is safety, and that carrier has an overall safety\nrecord that has ranked at the top of the industry for 20 consecutive years. When\nasked to name the major advantage of this approach, the facility manager stated that\nit \xe2\x80\x9cprovided consistent delivery of training in a controlled environment.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n At Amtrak, we were told that a new employee\xe2\x80\x99s orientation is conducted in two\nparts. The first part usually takes place on an employee's first day when they fill out\nmost of their corporate paperwork. At this time, they are given a packet containing\nnumerous copies of corporate policies (see Appendix III) by representatives from the\nHR&DI Department. We were told that little to no time is spent discussing most of\nthese polices with the new employee, but that they are expected to read them on\ntheir own. We were told this is done to insure new employees are made aware of\nexpected behaviors and potential hazards associated with their new job before they\nstart work.\n\n The second part of the new employee\xe2\x80\x99s orientation is done in a formal class\nsetting. We were told that this can be accomplished either through a corporate\norientation course (SAP course #60000163 \xe2\x80\x93 New Employee Orientation Workshop),\n\n7\n Note: for brevity, these will be referred to as \xe2\x80\x9cagreement\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cnon-agreement\xe2\x80\x9d employees, respectively, in the\nremainder of this report.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cor through one of several individual new hire orientation courses conducted by the\noperating departments. While the orientation topics covered by these courses are\nsimilar, they are not the same, and they do not go into the same depth in each topic.\n\n A review of the training records of all 1097 employees hired during the first 6\nmonths of 2009 showed that 477 (43%) had documented completion of the New\nEmployee Orientation Workshop. Of the remaining 620, at most 338 could have\ninstead attended a new hire orientation course conducted by the operating\ndepartments to receive their initial orientation. This leaves at least 280 (25%) of the\nnew employees hired during the first 6 months of 2009 who had not received a new\nemployee orientation class within 90 days of being hired. 8\n\n If the goal of the new hire orientation is to ensure that all new employees\nreceive a proper orientation, including an understanding of the company\xe2\x80\x99s history,\norganizational mission and goals, key policies and procedures, behavioral\nexpectations, and potential workplace hazards within the first days of their\nemployment, we can conclude that Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s current program does not meet that\nobjective for every new employee. Although it is not a bad idea to give new\nemployees copies of key corporate policies on their first day on the job, not all\nemployee\xe2\x80\x99s will read the policies and without a face to face presentation to highlight\nkey elements and an opportunity to ask questions, the odds that the employee will\nfully understand and internalize the information is low. In addition, as our analysis\nshowed, not all employees receive an orientation in a formal class setting within 90\ndays of starting work, if ever.\n\n We believe that there are many positive benefits to having every employee\nattend an orientation in a formal classroom setting on the first day of the job. Besides\nensuring employees understand safety practices, organizational goals, organizational\npolicies and behavioral expectations, this formal orientation is also a valuable\nsocialization process. Absent this, new employees learn the social norms from other\nemployees on a hit or miss basis. Without this timely delivery, Amtrak forfeits forever\nits initial chance to consistently and positively mold employee behavior and the\norganizational culture.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n Curiously, although we were told that any of these departmental new hire orientations met the\nrequirement for a new hire orientation, we found a large number of the new employees in the operating\ndepartments had apparently attended both a departmental new hire orientation and the corporate New Hire\nOrientation Workshop, or were erroneously given credit for both in the resords.\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cRECOMMENDATIONS:\n\n1A1. That the Vice President of HR&DI schedule all new employees for the New\nEmployee Orientation Workshop, or equivalent, as soon as possible after their hiring\ndate, preferably on the first day on the Amtrak payroll.\n\n1A2. That the Vice President of HR&DI track and report on a quarterly basis the\nnumber of new hires that have not attended the New Hire Orientation Workshop, or\nequivalent, within 30 days of hire.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c1B. New Hire Training (Job-Specific)\n\nFINDING:\n\n Job-specific initial training is inconsistently delivered to new employees.\n\n\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n Training is conducted to instruct employees how to properly perform certain\ntasks. If two new hires with no significant previous experience doing the same type\nof work receive different training, one can conclude that either one employee (who\nreceived less training) was not properly prepared or that resources were unnecessarily\nexpended on the second (who received more training). This is one reason that many\norganizations standardize training for various occupational specialties. Consistent\ntraining, properly accomplished, leads to more consistent accomplishment of the task\nor duty for which the individual was trained. This in turn supports increased quality.\nIf tasks are performed in the same way then the outcome should be more consistent.\nGreater consistency also results in both improved efficiency (less rework or corrective\nmaintenance) and potentially a safer operating environment, since safety has been\nconsidered, or designed into, the process to ensure employees are taught the\n\xe2\x80\x9cproper\xe2\x80\x9d and safe way to accomplish a particular task, reducing possibilities for\nconfusion and accidents.\n\n As discussed previously, Amtrak conducts new hire training for agreement\nemployees at a variety of locations across the system. Since most of the agreement\nemployees work in the operations departments 9 \xe2\x80\x93 Mechanical, Engineering, and\nTransportation \xe2\x80\x93 our evaluation focused on new hire training in these departments.\nAppendix IV contains a matrix of training accomplished within the first 30 days by 39\n(23 percent) of the 167 Mechanical Department employees hired in 2007, as well as a\nsmaller sampling of those hired in Engineering and Transportation.\n\n Looking at the matrix, it can be seen that new hire initial training is conducted\nat more than 10 separate training locations spread across the country, although not\nevery employee receives initial training at the specific location where they will be\nassigned to work. In addition, there is a substantial lack of consistency in which\ncourses were taken between training locations, even within the same craft. For\nexample, there was not one single training course that was given to all car cleaners in\nthe records sampled. Even at the same location, the sample indicated that there were\n10 instances of mechanical employees of the same craft who received a different set\n\n9\n 15,103 of 16,886 or 89 percent.\n\n\n 8\n\x0cof initial job-specific training courses at the same location. A less detailed review of\nthe other two operating departments disclosed evidence of similar inconsistencies,\nalthough to a lesser degree. In the case of new hire On-Board Service (OBS)\nemployees in the Transportation Department, only four of thirteen typical new hire\ncourses were given to all new employees, and new hire ticket clerks displayed similar\ninconsistencies. Since our initial sampling utilized 2007 data, we again checked a\nsample of new employees from the first six months of 2009 to see if the earlier results\nhad changed. Although we are aware of some recent positive initiatives to identify\nand program initial job-specific training for new hire employees, our limited 2009\nsample still showed similar inconsistencies.\n\n In our benchmarking against two other major Class I railroads, we found that\nboth experience far greater consistency of job-specific training delivery. In particular,\nthe one which brings all new agreement employees to a centralized training facility\nprovides consistent delivery of both orientation and job-specific training to all new hire\nagreement employees. This ensures a minimum standard of competence, and assists\nin setting common expectations (\xe2\x80\x9cculture\xe2\x80\x9d) across the system.\n\n Interestingly, when one of the senior Amtrak ED managers \xe2\x80\x93 who was\nresponsible for all training within one of the operating departments \xe2\x80\x93 was asked\nwhether Amtrak should move toward centralized training, the immediate response\nwas \xe2\x80\x9cI\xe2\x80\x99d be very happy if we started (centralized training) tomorrow!\xe2\x80\x9d This was\nechoed by many of the managers we talked to throughout the company. There are\nadvantages and disadvantages to centralized training, but consistency of delivery is a\nclear advantage. The effects of consistency of training on quality of product,\norganizational culture, and safety cannot be ignored. Interestingly, the class I we\nbenchmarked which utilizes a single centralized training facility for new hire training\nhas also held the Harriman Gold Medal Award for the best safety record in the railroad\nindustry for 20 consecutive years.\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION:\n\n1B. That the VP for HR&DI lead an effort to identify, with input from each Amtrak\ndepartment, the initial job-specific training required for each position within Amtrak,\nand track whether new hire employees start this training within the first 30 days of\nemployment.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c1C. Subsequent Training\n\nFINDING:\n\n Training requirements for employees, subsequent to their new employee\norientation and initial job-specific training, are inconsistent and not well understood\nacross the corporation.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n After completion of new employee initial training, there are still many\nrequirements for additional training throughout an employee\xe2\x80\x99s career. This training is\nnecessary to improve and/or refresh existing knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) or\nto develop new KSAs. Training to improve or refresh existing KSAs may be necessary\ndue to regulatory requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., CFR 49, Part\n238 training), due to company policy (e.g., Information Security Awareness training),\nor simply to ensure KSAs do not degrade to an unacceptable level due to lack of\nfrequent use (e.g., CPR training). Training to develop new KSAs may be necessary\nfor various reasons: new equipment has been purchased, revised or new procedures\nhave been developed, new regulatory requirements have been put in place, policies or\nguidance have changed, job responsibilities have changed, etc. In each of these\ncases, training may be necessary to ensure that employees can efficiently and\neffectively perform their jobs.\n\n Identifying and keeping track of what training is needed for an employee at\nAmtrak is largely the responsibility of individual supervisors. This is appropriate since\nsupervisors best know their employees and their daily job requirements. However,\nsupervisors need help in understanding the training that is available and the\nmandated requirements contained in all of the applicable regulations and policies.\nSome departments help managers meet their responsibilities in this area by\nconsolidating many of the requirements into a centrally managed program, like Block\nTraining or Engineering Camp. However, not all departments have a centrally\nmanaged program and even those with centrally managed programs do not address\nall of the same requirements with the same frequency as other departments do. This\npotentially results in employees at Amtrak who are doing similar jobs receiving\nsignificantly different types and amounts of training depending on what department\nthey are assigned to and what supervisor they work for.\n\n The HR&DI Department has recently attempted to help managers in identifying\nrequired training by posting guidance on the Amtrak Intranet. For example, there is a\nRegulatory Training Matrix posted that appears to outline all of the regulatory training\nrequired, along with the frequency required, for supervisors in four of the five largest\ndepartments. Although very helpful, the guidance posted by HR&DI is focused only\n\n\n 10\n\x0con supervisors and only on four departments. We could not find similar published\nguidance for agreement employees in these departments or for any of the employees\nin the other Amtrak departments. We were told regulatory training is managed and\ntracked closely within the operating departments. Although we have no recent\nevidence to suggest that regulatory requirements are not being met, there is no one\nin the corporate headquarters responsible for providing overall corporate oversight of\nregulatory compliance.\n\n Without specific guidance from corporate and department leaders, training is\nleft to the discretion of individual managers, which may not be in the corporation\xe2\x80\x99s\nbest interest. For example, there was a course developed (Course #60000879) to\ntrain employees in how to properly conduct maintenance on the door systems on\nHorizon cars. Now that there is a course developed and available, who should attend\nthat training and at what frequency? Should all employees who work on doors on\nHorizon cars attend that training? If not, why not? Is it acceptable that an employee\nat one location receives the training because his supervisor thinks it is important and\nanother employee who works on Horizon cars at another location does not receive the\ntraining? In a similar manner, it is suggested that every employee receive training on\nthe Prevention of Sexual Harassment every three years. Since it is only \xe2\x80\x9csuggested\xe2\x80\x9d,\nis it acceptable for one department to send every employee to training every three\nyears and another department send no one? Will this satisfy the corporate objective\nthat led to the creation of the course? These are the types of questions that should\nbe asked for every course Amtrak offers if Amtrak wants to ensure it is accomplishing\nits intended training objectives in the most efficient manner.\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION:\n\n1C. That the VP for HR&DI, working with the department heads, develop specific\nguidance on who should attend each course offered and the frequency in which it is\nrequired to meet the intended objective of the training.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c1D. Training Strategy\n\nFINDING:\n\n There is no comprehensive, corporate-wide strategy linking employee\ndevelopment and training with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s strategic goals and objectives.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n As previously described in detail, training at Amtrak is mostly decentralized\nwith requirements largely determined by individual departments. This is perhaps\nappropriate in most instances since the departments better understand their needs\nthan someone within corporate headquarters. However, there are certain\nrequirements that should be consistent across the corporation. In addition, without a\ncorporate-wide emphasis and commitment to training and employee development,\nresources are not consistently allocated to training activities and sometimes become\nthe first area cut when budgets become tight. Therefore, to ensure that training and\nemployee development receive consistent and appropriate emphasis throughout the\ncorporation, a corporate-wide strategy containing an overall philosophy and guidance\nto the departments is necessary.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS:\n\n1D1. That the Amtrak President issue a corporate-wide strategy for training and\nemployee development providing guidance to the corporation on the linkage of\ntraining and employee development to the achievement of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s strategic goals\nand objectives.\n\n1D2. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive leadership,\ndevelop consistent, corporate-wide policies and procedures to support the strategy.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c1E. Training Efficiency\n\nFINDING:\n\n The current Amtrak training approach appears to be relatively inefficient.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n As stated previously, Amtrak spends over $12 million on the delivery and\nmanagement of training each year. To evaluate the efficiency of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s training,\nwe compared Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s costs to training costs of other large companies using a\nbenchmarking report we obtained from America\xe2\x80\x99s SAP Users\xe2\x80\x99 Group, of which Amtrak\nis a member. This survey was issued in January 2009, using data provided by\nAmtrak 10 . The results had two peer groups, but we utilized the results from the\ngroup which included \xe2\x80\x9ccompanies of similar size\xe2\x80\x9d to Amtrak (10,000 to 50,000\nemployees). As shown in the chart below, the survey found that the annual cost per\nemployee for training and development at Amtrak was roughly four times the average\nof the 18 companies in the peer group, $660 versus $152. In and of itself, this may\njust reflect that Amtrak does a lot more training than other companies. However, the\nsame survey reports the average annual hours of training per employee. Based on\nthis data, the chart below also shows that, compared to other companies in the\nsurvey, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s cost per training hour is over three times greater. Based on this\nbenchmarking, Amtrak appears to be significantly less efficient in the delivery of\ntraining than other companies in the survey.\n\n\n Training & Development Performance Metrics\n 800\n 600\n 400\n 200\n 0\n Cost ($) Trng Hrs Cost/Hr\n Amtrak 660 35.6 18.5\n Peer Avg 152 26.6 5.7\n Cost & Hours per employee\n per year\n\n\n\n\n10\n HCM Benchmarking Results \xe2\x80\x93 Executive Summary, SAP Value Engineering, January 22, 2009.\n\n\n 13\n\x0c To further test this result, we also looked at a benchmark within the railroad\nindustry. In an attempt to best give an \xe2\x80\x9capples to apples\xe2\x80\x9d comparison we compared\nAmtrak to another Class I railroad in the specific area of new hire orientation and\ntraining. The results are shown on the following table, which combines data\nregarding the Amtrak training staff devoted to new hire training at a major Class I\nrailroad, which was benchmarked in substantially greater detail during this evaluation.\nAs shown on the chart below, the Amtrak training staff devoted to new hire training\nper new hire is over 40% more than the Class I railroad.\n\nNew Hire Training Comparison Amtrak Class I Railroad\nTotal Employees (approx) 19,000 31,000\n2007 New Hires 1389 2101\nFull Time Equivalents (FTE) 29 * 31 **\ndevoted to New Hire Training\nNew Hires per FTE Staff 48 68\n\n* At Amtrak, there are 72 employees on the staff of the Sr. Director, Employee Development, of which\n51 are assigned fully or partially to duties involving training of new hire employees. The Sr. Director\nestimated that the portion of their time devoted to new hire training was equivalent to roughly 17\nFTEs. In addition, there are 12 FTEs who are Mechanical Department \xe2\x80\x9cnetwork instructors\xe2\x80\x9d and\nmanagers involved in Locomotive Engineer Training (LET) or new Conductor training. Therefore,\nbased on the information provided, Amtrak uses a total annual equivalent of approximately 29 FTEs to\naccomplish new hire training.\n** At the benchmarked Class I railroad, these numbers include 24 full time managers and 41\ncontractors. The total annual equivalent of these contractors is 7 FTEs, giving a total annual equivalent\nof 31 FTEs to accomplish new hire training.\n\n\n Significantly, the Class I railroad used as a comparative benchmark above has\na single, centralized facility used for the training of all new hire agreement employees.\nThis provides for consistency, ease of communication among instructors, shorter span\nof control, and (as shown in the table above) fewer instructors required per new hire.\nIn addition, this Class I uses retired railroad employees as contract instructors for new\nhire agreement employees, bringing an additional measure of experience and\ncredibility to their classes. These are normally hired on a part time basis to reduce\ncosts and substantially increase flexibility and surge capacity.\n\n Both of these benchmarks suggest that Amtrak could improve the efficiency of\nits training delivery. Although there could be many valid reasons for Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s training\ncosts to be higher than other companies, our own analysis also suggests training\ncould be delivered more efficiently. A review of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s training records show a\nlarge number of classes conducted with only between one and three students.\nGreater emphasis on efficiency and planning should drive greater class sizes and\nlower costs per hour of training. This would seem to be a relatively easy first step.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cRECOMMENDATION:\n\n1E. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with other departments, explore options\nfor improving the efficiency of its training, including but not limited to increased\ncentralization of some or all of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s instructor led training (particularly new hire\ntraining), and use of part-time contractor instructor employees to provide a surge\ncapacity, if needed.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c1F. Training Records\n\nFINDING:\n\n Training courses taken by Amtrak employees are not consistently and\nexclusively recorded in the Human Resources Information System (HRIS).\n\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n Training is conducted to ensure that employees have certain knowledge, skills\nand abilities required to properly perform their job. Keeping records of this training is\nimportant for several reasons:\n\n 1. It allows supervisors the ability to match employees with certain skills to\n jobs requiring those skills.\n\n 2. It allows supervisors to identify training needs and plan for future training\n requirements.\n\n 3. It allows trainers to determine historical course attendance so they can plan\n for future resource requirements.\n\n 4. It allows Amtrak to verify that certain regulatory training has been\n conducted. This is especially important in the case of a derailment, grade\n crossing accident, serious injury, or other significant event since the National\n Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and/or other agencies may ask for this\n verification.\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s corporate policy directs that all training must be reported to the\nHR&DI Department and that all training will be documented and tracked through\nHRIS. Although there are some exceptions, the normal process is for training\ndocumentation to be sent to the HR&DI Department, who enters the information into\nHRIS.\n\n Our interviews revealed that not all departments at Amtrak totally rely upon\nHRIS to document training taken by their employees. Many departments, in a variety\nof geographical locations, keep their own paper records or their own computer files.\nNot only is this an inefficient practice, it also makes it more difficult to obtain accurate\ntraining information across the corporation. The reasons given for maintaining\nseparate or duplicate records were: the delay in time from when documentation is\nsent in and when it appears in HRIS, a lack of confidence in the accuracy of the data\nin HRIS, the limited ability for the field to enter or view data, and simply not wanting\n\n\n 16\n\x0cto change from the way they had being doing it for years. Of the reasons given, the\nbiggest complaint was the manager\xe2\x80\x99s limited ability to input and view training records\non their employees.\n\n Fortunately, Amtrak is addressing the issue of manager\xe2\x80\x99s access to employee\nrecords as part of the Employee Information Management (EIM) Program. By the\nSpring of 2010, departments should have much greater access to view, input and edit\ntraining records of their employees in HRIS. Managers should also have a greater\nability to view and generate reports regarding training of their employees. This\nshould help to eliminate many of the reasons for continuing to maintain separate\nsystems in the field to track training. Not only will the elimination of these duplicate\ndatabases improve efficiency, but it will also improve the accuracy and reliability of\nthe data in HRIS since that will be the one and only record.\n\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS:\n\n1F1. That the VP for HR&DI continue to fully support the implementation of EIM so\nthat supervisors have the ability to easily view and manage their employee training\nrecords.\n\n1F2. That, once EIM is sufficiently implemented, the VP for HR&DI develop policies\nand procedures to ensure that all training is being appropriately captured in HRIS, and\nthat duplicate records are not continuing to be maintained.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c1G. Instructor Certifications\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak has no corporate-wide methodology to ensure that all instructors are\nappropriately trained and certified for the courses they teach.\n\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n An important attribute for any instructor is credibility. For effective learning to\ntake place, students must trust what they are being told by the instructor. If the\ncredibility of the instructor is in question, then the accuracy of the material being\npresented is also open to question. Once an instructor loses his or her credibility with\nthe students, effective learning will be compromised.\n\n An instructor gains credibility by demonstrating an in-depth and current\nknowledge of the subject area they teach and by obtaining and maintaining the\nappropriate certifications and qualifications. In addition to having technical\nknowledge in the subject area of the class, instructors gain credibility through the way\nthey present the material and run the administration of the course. This requires a\ncertain level of expertise in proper teaching techniques and platform skills. Not\neveryone with the technical skills required to teach a course also have the teaching\nand platform skills needed to present the material in a clear and interesting manner.\nSkills in both areas are needed for the most effective learning to take place.\n\n During the course of our interviews, we were told that not all individuals\nassigned as Amtrak trainers were current in the qualifications and certifications\nnecessary to teach their respective courses. Many instructors expressed frustration\nthat it was difficult to maintain their credentials at the frequencies required for each\ncourse. We were told that requests to attend certification classes were sometimes\ndenied because of budget restrictions or because workloads were too high to allow\nsomeone to be gone. In attempting to follow-up on these comments with the HR&DI\nDepartment, we learned that qualifications to teach the various courses are not\ncentrally determined but up to various subject-matter experts and other individuals\nwithin different departments throughout the company. Because of this, it was difficult\nto determine if the comments we heard were truly valid or simply a perception by the\nindividual instructors of what they felt that they needed to properly teach the course.\nIn either case, a corporate-wide determination of the qualifications and certifications\nnecessary to teach each course at Amtrak would seem to be useful, if for no other\nreason than to clear up the confusion we heard.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c In addition to having the appropriate technical qualifications to teach a course,\nAmtrak recommends that all instructors pass a course on platform skills to prepare\ninstructors to be effective before they start teaching. Although recommended, we\nlearned that not all instructors receive this training before they start teaching classes.\nAs discussed previously, not everyone with the technical skills required to teach a\ncourse also have the teaching and platform skills needed to present the material in a\nclear and effective manner. Without instructors with the appropriate teaching skills,\nlearning can be compromised. It would seem to be in Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s best interests to\ninsure that all instructors are qualified in teaching and platform skills before they start\nteaching classes and are recertified at an appropriate interval.\n\n Overall we feel that there is a lot of commendable effort being expended to\npresent interesting and accurate training at Amtrak, however, setting and maintaining\ninstructor qualifications is one area that could receive additional emphasis. If only a\nfew instructors present inaccurate or out-of\xe2\x80\x93date information, it can hurt the\ncredibility of the entire program. Although we do not have evidence this has\noccurred, without a method to insure that the proper certifications and qualifications\nare maintained by all instructors, the likelihood that this may occur is increased and\nshould be avoided. Once credibility is lost, it is hard to regain.\n\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS:\n\n1G1. That the VP for HR&DI develop a policy that establishes the minimum\nqualifications and certifications required to be an instructor for each course taught at\nAmtrak.\n\n1G2. That the VP for HR&DI develop a program to insure that all Amtrak instructors\nachieve and remain in compliance with the above policy.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c1H. Computer Based Training Validation\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak does not have adequate procedures or technology in place to ensure\nthat individuals that are credited for taking required computer based training (CBT)\nprograms are the same individuals that completed the courses.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n CBT programs are an effective and efficient way to conduct many types of\ntraining. They offer employees flexibility in where and when they can accomplish\ntraining and are a very efficient way to deliver training since, in most cases, live\ninstructors are not required and employees can take the training without having to\ntravel to a centralized classroom facility. As more and more training is being delivered\nin this manner, new issues have surfaced that require addressing. One of these\nissues is validating that the person taking the CBT course is the person that is\ncredited for taking the course. This becomes important when having to certify that\ncertain individuals have successfully fulfilled a mandatory or regulatory requirement.\n\n In a normal classroom training environment, an instructor can validate that the\nperson who sat in the classroom or took the test was the person given credit for the\ntraining by simply examining a properly-issued picture ID. This becomes more\ndifficult when a CBT course is taken from a remote location.\n\n At Amtrak, the only validation currently in place is the \xe2\x80\x9cassumption\xe2\x80\x9d that the\nindividual taking the training course matches the individual whose password was used\nto log onto the CBT course. As far as we are aware, there is currently no other\nindependent verification being done for CBT at Amtrak.\n\n As part of our benchmarking with other railroads, we observed how another\nrailroad is attempting to address this issue. At their main training center, they have\nmounted cameras on top of the screen for each computer utilized for CBT\ncoursework. The camera randomly takes pictures of the individual sitting at the\nworkstation while a test is being taken. This monitoring feature is activated when an\nidentification card is scanned and the computer is logged on utilizing an individual\xe2\x80\x99s\nPersonal Identification Number. The frequency of \xe2\x80\x9csnapshots\xe2\x80\x9d of the trainee can be\nadjusted based on the length of the testing period. Within 24 hours, members of the\nrailroad\xe2\x80\x99s training staff review the class rosters and workstation pictures to ensure the\ncorrect person is credited for taking the test. After this, the validations are\ndocumented and the testing certified. This procedure ensures that the right people\nare certified. The railroad\xe2\x80\x99s senior training staff feels that this procedure meets their\nneeds for CBT validation, and has withstood the scrutiny of a regulatory audit.\n\n\n 20\n\x0c This Class I railroad\xe2\x80\x99s method is one way to address this issue. The use of\nbiometrics is another possible solution. As technology advances, other solutions may\nbecome available. In any case, this is an area that Amtrak should consider as it\nexpands the use of CBT throughout the corporation. There is a lot of money currently\nbeing spent to update and improve Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s information systems. Incorporating a\nmethod to validate the identity of an individual using a computer may have benefits\nbeyond just training validation and should be considered as part of the information\ntechnology initiatives currently underway at Amtrak.\n\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION:\n\n1H. That the VP for HR&DI, working with the Chief Information Officer, develop\nprocedures to ensure that individuals that are credited for taking required computer\nbased training programs are the same individuals that completed the courses.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c1I. Terminology\n\nFINDING:\n\n Understanding training at Amtrak is inhibited by the lack of consistent\nterminology and commonly understood definitions across the corporation.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n Consistent terminology and commonly understood definitions improve\ncommunication and facilitate good understanding.\n\n During our interviews, we noticed a significant amount of confusion in the\nterminology used when discussing training. For example, we heard the term\n\xe2\x80\x9cregulatory training\xe2\x80\x9d used frequently as a category of training at Amtrak. However,\nsome individuals thought that regulatory training referred only to those courses\nrequired by federal regulations. Others thought that \xe2\x80\x9cregulatory\xe2\x80\x9d was synonymous\nwith \xe2\x80\x9cmandatory\xe2\x80\x9d and included training required by any law, regulation, policy or\ndirective. Others even included training \xe2\x80\x9csuggested\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9crecommended\xe2\x80\x9d by any law,\nregulation, policy or directive in this category. As can be seen, attempting to\ndetermine the training burden on Amtrak from federal regulations is difficult if\nterminology is not consistent.\n\n Another example of inconsistent terminology concerns what constitutes\n\xe2\x80\x9ctraining.\xe2\x80\x9d Can meetings and briefings be considered training, or does all training\nhave to have an Amtrak course number? If meetings and briefings can be considered\ntraining, what criteria must be met? We did not get consistent answers to these\nquestions.\n\n As a final example, we encountered confusion between the terms managers\nand supervisors. Some people thought that the terms could be used interchangeably\nand referred to employees who supervised other employees. However, other people\nthought that all \xe2\x80\x9cmanagement\xe2\x80\x9d employees were managers, whether they supervised\nanyone or not. In addition, many people were confused if foreman were considered\nsupervisors or managers. This becomes an issue when a training requirement is\npublished for all \xe2\x80\x9cmanagers\xe2\x80\x9d to receive a training course within a certain timeframe.\nWithout fully understanding who needs to attend, how can it be determined if the\nrequirement has been met?\n\n Some may think of terminology as a minor issue. However, if Amtrak is going\nto take training seriously and hold supervisors accountable for ensuring that their\nemployees are properly trained to perform their jobs, terminology and definitions\nmust be clarified. Without consistent terminology and definitions, any training metrics\n\n\n 22\n\x0cor reports must be questioned and the information provided considered as\napproximations of the truth, at best.\n\nRECOMMENDATION:\n\n1I. That the VP for HR&DI develop and publish a glossary of common training terms\nand definitions to facilitate communication and common understanding throughout\nthe corporation concerning training and employee development topics.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c2. Management Employee Career Development\n\n2A. Management Employee Career Development Strategy\n\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak does not have a comprehensive, integrated, corporate-wide career\ndevelopment strategy for management (non-agreement) employees.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n Most top companies have a strategy for developing future senior leadership.\nThey identify the attributes, education, experiences and technical expertise that they\ndesire in their senior leaders and then implement a management development\nstrategy to grow these future senior leaders from the ranks of their current\nemployees.\n\n In their book Built To Last, a widely publicized study that examined\ncharacteristics of successful, visionary companies (e.g., GE and Motorola), the authors\nidentified a \xe2\x80\x9ccontinuous self-reinforcing process \xe2\x80\x93 a Leadership continuity loop\xe2\x80\x9d which\nwas characterized by:\n\n 1) Management Development & Succession Planning\n 2) Strong Internal Candidates\n 3) Continuity of Leadership Excellence\n\nThe study noted that the result of such a process was an internal \xe2\x80\x9cdeep bench\xe2\x80\x9d of\ntalented, experienced managers to assume senior leadership roles. 11\n\n During our benchmarking with other railroads, we found that one Class I was\nvery good at addressing these issues. Their Assistant Vice President of Human\nResources expressed his biggest concern as:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cI worry that we are not going to be able to attract and retain sufficient high\n quality, technically qualified managers (e.g., electrical or mechanical engineers)\n to lead the company 15-25 years from now.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nPerhaps unsurprisingly, his company has proactively addressed most of the issues\ndiscussed in this report, and is constantly looking for innovative new solutions. Its\n\n11\n James C. Collins & Jerry I. Porras, Built To Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, (New York:\nHarper Business,1994), pp. 173-180.\n\n\n 24\n\x0cChief Operating Officer (COO), previously its head of strategic planning, was recently\nselected as the recipient of the 2008 Railway Age Railroader of the Year Award 12 . An\naccompanying article noted that this railroad \xe2\x80\x9cis known for having a \xe2\x80\x98deep bench\xe2\x80\x99 of\nexecutives,\xe2\x80\x9d and in the operating department this has been the COO\xe2\x80\x99s doing. 13\nFurther reflecting the AVP comment above, the magazine stated in a subsequent\narticle that this railroad \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6has much more than a culture of survival. It combines that\nwith an ability to plan ahead, often beyond the tenure of the people doing the\nplanning.\xe2\x80\x9d14\nNot surprisingly, this Class I railroad has a strong, cohesive focus on management\ndevelopment, and in fact has a longstanding, active recruiting program for\nmanagement trainees \xe2\x80\x93 recent college graduates, many with technical degrees \xe2\x80\x93 who\nare screened with a validated management assessment tool to maximize their\nprobability for success, and subsequently assigned to an extended orientation and\ntraining program.\n\n Although there are elements of a career development program in existence at\nAmtrak, there is no comprehensive, integrated management career development\nstrategy. Over the last ten years, Amtrak has made eight changes in the top three\nleadership positions of the company (CEO, COO, and CFO). Of those, only one was\npromoted from a position within the company. Likewise, of the current ten members\nof the Executive Management Committee, only two were promoted from a job within\nAmtrak. Obviously, in all but these few cases where individuals were promoted from\nwithin, the hiring officials (CEO and/or Board of Directors) did not feel that any of the\ncurrent Amtrak employees were best qualified to meet the demands of the most\nsenior positions in the company. This conclusion was apparently reached in spite of\nthe significant advantage that a current employee should have over an outsider in\nunderstanding the operations and challenges facing the company.\n\n Sometimes bringing new ideas into a company from someone who has been\nsuccessful elsewhere is a good idea. However, there are also many good reasons to\ndevelop talent inside the company to assume future leadership positions. First, an\ninternal candidate has a performance history within the company that has been\ndirectly observed by senior leadership. In many cases, when someone is brought in\nfrom outside the company there is little direct observations of their past performance\nand therefore greater risk that the individual will not be as qualified as represented on\ntheir resume or by their references. Second, someone who has grown from within\nthe company will have a much greater knowledge of the history and culture of the\ncompany, along with the challenges and obstacles facing the company. Third, hiring\nan internal candidate provides someone who usually knows what has been tried\n\n12\n W. Graham Claytor, then Amtrak CEO, was the 1989 awardee.\n13\n Laurance H. Kauffman, Contributing Editor, \xe2\x80\x9cSteve Tobias: Mission Focused,\xe2\x80\x9d Railway Age, January 2008, pp.\n19-48.\n14\n Lawrence H. Kauffman, Contributing Editor, \xe2\x80\x9cA Culture of Survival and Forward Thinking,\xe2\x80\x9d Railway Age,\nNovember, 2007, p. 24.\n\n\n 25\n\x0cbefore and can avoid learning the same lessons over again. Finally, the selection of\nan internal employee provides continuity and someone who will not need a lengthy\nindoctrination period.\n\n This does not mean that hiring from inside the company is always the best\nchoice. Hiring someone who doesn\xe2\x80\x99t have the appropriate educational background,\ndoesn\xe2\x80\x99t have the necessary attributes, skills and abilities, or hasn\xe2\x80\x99t been properly\ntrained and developed \xe2\x80\x93 just because they are an insider \xe2\x80\x93 is also not a good idea.\nWithout a corporate-wide career development program, Amtrak will constantly face\nthe poor choice of selecting someone for a senior position who is less qualified but\nunderstands Amtrak, or someone who may be more qualified but doesn\xe2\x80\x99t understand\nthe company and is potentially a greater performance risk. This is not to say that\nthere are not some good, highly skilled managers at Amtrak, but without a program\nthat ensures they have developed all of the desired skills and acquired the knowledge\nand experiences desired at the senior management level, the odds that they will be in\na position to compete against qualified individuals from outside the company are\nreduced. The worst case scenario is that the hiring officials are faced with mid-level\nand senior management vacancies with no qualified external candidates and no one\nwho has been properly developed to fill the position from within Amtrak. In this case,\nthe organization suffers while a manager without the requisite knowledge and skills\ntries to learn on-the-job. From our observations, this happens too often at Amtrak.\n\n Realizing the importance of this issue, the heads of two Amtrak departments,\nwith help from the HR&DI Department, have independently started initiatives around\ncareer development. The Information Technology (IT) Department has identified 15\njob families and is developing standardized position descriptions within each family, as\nwell as the competencies and critical skills required for each. Similarly, the\nEngineering Department utilized a consultant to develop job families and career paths\nfor degreed engineers (civil, electrical, mechanical, and structural). These programs\nshow outstanding initiative by the department leadership but lack inter-departmental\nconsistency and are limited in what they can accomplish without a corporate-wide\nprogram. For example, unless there is a corporate requirement to work in a position\noutside of a manager\xe2\x80\x99s primary expertise to advance to the next level, there will be\nlimited incentive for a senior manager in, for example, the Finance Department to\nsend one of his more talented subordinates to work in the Engineering Department.\n\n In developing an effective Management Career Development Program at\nAmtrak, the following elements should be included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A program to recruit and develop recent college graduates and\n provide them with appropriate initial indoctrination and training.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A method to screen candidates for management positions and\n promotions to ensure they have the attributes required for those\n positions.\n\n\n 26\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Documented career paths that outline the job experiences desired\n and expected for selection and advancement within the company.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Educational standards for all management positions, with assistance\n programs to assist employees in attaining those standards.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A program to develop the leadership and management abilities\n required at different levels within the company.\n\n Each of these elements will be discussed in greater detail in the findings that\nfollow.\n\nRECOMMENDATION:\n\n2A1. That the Amtrak President, with the support and approval of the Board of\nDirectors, issue a corporate-wide strategy for developing management employees to\nassume the future leadership roles within the company.\n\n2A2. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive leadership,\ndevelop consistent, corporate-wide policies and procedures to support the\nmanagement career development strategy.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c2B. Management Candidate Aptitude Screening\n\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak does not use screening instruments for entry into management (non-\nagreement) positions.\n\n\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n Recruiting, hiring and training new employees is a relatively costly process.\nTherefore, anything that could improve the odds of selecting a new employee with\nthe attributes necessary for successful performance should be considered. Screening\ncandidates with properly validated assessment instruments (sometimes called \xe2\x80\x9ctests\xe2\x80\x9d)\nis one way to improve the likelihood that an employee will have the attributes\nrequired to be successful. Some common assessments are cognitive ability tests, job\nknowledge tests, personality tests, integrity tests and situational judgment tests.\nThese tests have been found to have a moderate to high validity, meaning that those\nwho \xe2\x80\x9cdo well on the test do well on the job.\xe2\x80\x9d 15\n\n Amtrak currently uses a variety of screening instruments in their assessment of\npotential agreement employee hires. For example, prospective trainmen are given a\npersonality inventory and tests in reading comprehension, problem solving,\ncomputation, and vocabulary. Other crafts are similar, with three tests for lead\nservice attendants (LSAs) and ticket agents, two for electricians, and one for carmen\nand pipefitters.\n\n In similar fashion, the two Class I railroads we benchmarked against both used\nsimilar screening instruments for entry into the agreement ranks. In addition, both\nthe Class I\xe2\x80\x99s also used \xe2\x80\x9cmanagement assessment\xe2\x80\x9d screening instruments for entry into\nnon-agreement (management) ranks, and applied them to both management\nassociates or trainees as well as those promoted from the agreement crafts. At one\nClass I, the management assessment was designed to measure the attributes of\nsuccessful current managers. In developing the assessment, successful incumbent\nmanagers were interviewed and tested to determine what characteristics, both\ncognitive ability and personality traits, were common among them. These results\nwere validated and incorporated into a \xe2\x80\x9cmanagement assessment\xe2\x80\x9d which was given to\nall candidates and potential future candidates (including newly hired agreement\nemployees) for management positions within the company. The company believed\n\n\n15\n Dressler, op cit., pp. 118-119.\n\n\n 28\n\x0cthat this enabled their managers to be more likely to succeed over time, which is\nclearly in the best interests of both the individual and the organization.\n\n We found that Amtrak, by comparison, did not use any screening instruments\nfor entry into non-agreement positions. Although a successful company needs good\nemployees in both agreement and non-agreement positions, the impact of an ill-\nsuited or poorly performing manager is disproportionately greater and arguably more\ncritical to the success of the organization. Since Amtrak screens candidates for\nagreement positions, we were surprised that non-agreement candidates were not also\nscreened.\n\n If Amtrak were to adopt a similar \xe2\x80\x9cmanagement assessment\xe2\x80\x9d for screening all\nentries into non-agreement ranks, it would be more likely to select successful\ncandidates for these positions - clearly a more desirable outcome.\n\nRECOMMENDATION:\n\n2B. That the VP for HR&DI develop and implement an appropriate management\nassessment tool for all applicants for non-agreement employee positions.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0c2C. Management Associate/Trainee Program\n\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Management Associate Program (MAP) is ineffective in providing\nsufficient management talent to satisfy Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s long term needs.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n For most companies, management associates (or management trainees) are\none of three sources for management employees; the other two being direct external\nhires and promotions from the craft (agreement employee) ranks. Most\nmanagement associates are recent graduates of a four year college or university who,\nimmediately after being hired, undergo an orientation and training program to further\nprepare them for duties as a manager in the company. These management\nassociates provide a source of young, educated talent that can be developed into mid\nand senior-level managers within the organization, often with the requisite technical\ndegrees directly related to their initial departmental area of assignment. Over time,\nas they progress within the company and gain experience with its operation and\norganization, they can leverage their undergraduate education for the broader needs\nof the company.\n\n Management associate programs are common in many organizations, although\nsometimes called something else. For example, 18,000 \xe2\x80\x9cmanagement trainees\xe2\x80\x9d enter\nthe U.S. military every year as entry level officer candidates who \xe2\x80\x93 in addition to\nbaccalaureate degrees \xe2\x80\x93 have undergone additional \xe2\x80\x9cjob specific\xe2\x80\x9d training either\nconcurrently with the attainment of their degrees (military academy or Reserve Officer\nTraining Corps) or subsequent to its completion (officer candidate schools). The\nranks of senior military officers are almost exclusively comprised of those who have\nentered the service as a \xe2\x80\x9cmanagement trainee.\xe2\x80\x9d Another example is one of the Class\nI railroads we benchmarked, where we observed an active management trainee\nprogram that historically provided, according to their AVP for HR, over 50\nmanagement trainees a year. These trainees, drawn from top tier colleges and\nengineering schools, initially undergo a similar one year initial (new hire) training\nregimen and then rise through the ranks of alternating corporate and field\nassignments, detailed among various departments as \xe2\x80\x9ccorporate assets\xe2\x80\x9d to broaden\ntheir experience levels. The program at this Class I is tied to their workforce planning\nefforts and directly linked to their projected requirements. For example, the company\nrecently increased their annual recruitment of management trainees from 75 to 125,\nreflecting the requirements of their long term strategy. When questioned about this,\ntheir AVP for HR said that his most critical, long term concern was that his company\nmust be able to have the experienced talent to succeed in the business environment\n\n\n 30\n\x0c\xe2\x80\x9c15 to 25 years from now.\xe2\x80\x9d The result of this long term, strategic view is evident\ntoday by the 776 former management trainees in their management ranks \xe2\x80\x93\napproximately 25 percent of their potential senior level managers \xe2\x80\x93 including their\ncurrent CEO.\n\n In contrast, Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cManagement Associate\xe2\x80\x9d Program has had almost no\nimpact on developing the managerial talent pool. Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is no overall strategy for the program that is tied to a\n corporate-wide human capital strategy which, in turn, supports the\n overall corporate strategic goals and objectives.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is no linkage between the numbers in the program and\n projected losses in the management ranks or workforce planning in\n general.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is no coherent, consistent program structure with a common\n corporate-wide core, and the composition of the initial training varies\n at the discretion of the department assigned.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 There is no effort to track former management associates within the\n company and broaden their experience base.\n\nAlthough Amtrak could not tell us the number of former Management Associates\ncurrently within Amtrak, a simple ratio can give a rough approximation. If a program\nthat brings in 50 to 75 associates per year leads to roughly ten times that number\n(776) of former trainees in the management ranks at another Class I, then the Amtrak\nprogram \xe2\x80\x93 at approximately 5 to 10 a year \xe2\x80\x93 might eventually provide approximately\n50-100 former management associates, or at best 4 percent of the roughly 2,850\nAmtrak non-agreement employees. This is so comparatively small that its long term\nimpact is questionable.\n\n In discussing this with the Acting VP for HR&DI, she was concerned about\nfunding needed to support an expanded program. Obviously a greatly expanded\nprogram will need additional funding beyond what is currently allocated. Once the\nrequirements of an expanded program are known, this would need to be discussed\nwith the Chief Financial Officer (CFO).\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS:\n\n2C1. That the VP for HR&DI review and revise the current Amtrak Management\nAssociate Program to fill an appropriate and effective role within the new\nmanagement career development strategy.\n\n2C2. That the CFO identify funding within Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s corporate budget to meet the\nneeds of the revised Management Associate Program.\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0c2D. Career Progression Paths & Job Families\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak does not have documented career progression paths or job families\nidentified for all non-agreement employees.\n\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n Career progression paths serve to both identify the expected path for\nmanagement progression and to assure individual managers that they are making\nproper career choices to increase their likelihood of advancing within the organization.\nJob families are broader fields of positions linked by similar endeavor or technical\nskills (e.g., engineers). Examples of these in other companies are both relatively\ncommon and widespread. The military has fairly structured career paths for officers\nas they progress, and also has job families, such as aviators.\n\n Likewise, we found similar career progression paths for non-agreement\nemployees within the two Class I railroads benchmarked, with one of the two even\nincluding this information on job postings to indicate both what prior experience a\nsuccessful internal candidate would likely possess, and to what subsequent positions\nthat position might lead. This railroad had seven broad job families, 16 and all non-\nagreement positions within the company were classified as belonging to one of these\nfamilies. For example, a Road Foreman would be in the General Operations family.\nThis Class I also had ongoing monitoring at the corporate HR level to ensure these\npaths were generally followed as non-agreement employees were transferred or\npromoted. This approach would tend to give a junior manager an idea of what\nposition he/she could aspire to next. Additionally, these individual job families were\nlinked to scores on the company management assessment screening tool so that\ncandidates for a position in a particular job family could be screened for their probable\nsuccess in that field. The assessment provides individual scores for each job family,\nsimilar to the manner that scores in the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery\n(ASVAB) are linked to particular occupational fields.\n\n By comparison, we were told Amtrak has neither documented career\nprogression paths nor job families (with the exception of the previously discussed\nrecent efforts in the IT and Engineering Departments). Because there are no\ndocumented career progression paths, managers are forced to rely on opinions and\npersonal observations of others when making career choices. Moreover, without\ndocumented career paths, it is difficult to ensure that Amtrak is \xe2\x80\x9cgrowing\xe2\x80\x9d individuals\n\n16\n Commercial Services, General Analytical, General Operations, Investigative Research (e,g., police), Process\nSupport, Technical Analytical (e.g., I.T.), and Technical Operations (e.g., Control Center).\n\n\n 32\n\x0cwith the proper skills and experiences to be the future leadership. The current\nsituation at Amtrak tends to generally result in a non-agreement workforce with\nexperience only within the confines of the department or location where they began\ntheir employment, contributing to poor interdepartmental coordination and synergy.\n\n Ideally, positions requiring similar attributes, skills or expertise should be\nmanaged as a \xe2\x80\x9cfamily,\xe2\x80\x9d with someone designated to nurture those in the family,\nensuring they get the appropriate training and have the required experiences to allow\nthem to grow and succeed in the future. This could be done corporately within the\nHR & DI Department, or as an additional duty of one of the senior leaders at Amtrak\n(e.g., the Chief Engineer for the \xe2\x80\x9cengineer\xe2\x80\x9d family or General Counsel for the \xe2\x80\x9clegal\xe2\x80\x9d\nfamily.) In either case, it is important that someone is responsible to oversee and\nmanage the careers of the non-agreement workforce to ensure that Amtrak is\ndeveloping employees with the skills and experiences required in the future.\n\n\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS:\n\n2D1. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive leadership,\ndevelop broad company-wide job families and career progression paths for all non-\nagreement positions.\n\n2D2. That Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s President designate either the VP for HR&DI or other Amtrak\nsenior leaders to oversee and manage these families and career paths.\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\x0c2E. Educational Standards for Non-agreement Employees\n\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s middle and senior managers (particularly in the operating\ndepartments) lack the education levels normally found in similar organizations.\n\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n Graduates of four year colleges and universities generally possess knowledges,\nskills and abilities that non-graduates have not attained, simply because they have not\nbeen given in-depth exposure to broader knowledge and sophisticated concepts in a\nformalized educational setting. When compared to non-graduates, these graduates\noften possess a greater technical understanding of their field, better analytical skills, a\nmore rigorous decision making process, and better communication skills. These\nattributes make them better equipped to manage and direct business organizations\nand are valued by society, as reflected by the average salaries of high school and\ncollege graduates. According to 2006 census data, 17 the average salary of a high\nschool graduate was $31,071 while those with bachelor\xe2\x80\x99s degrees averaged $56,688,\nor 82 percent more. Those with advanced degrees earned even more. This pay\ndifferential reflects their greater value to the organizations that employ them. In a\nfigurative sense, they simply have more tools in their tool kit than their\ncontemporaries who lack this education. Because of this, most companies employ a\nhigh percentage of college graduates for their management ranks.\n\n For example, the U.S. military utilizes a college degree as a standard for entry\nlevel managers (officers). A recent study noted, \xe2\x80\x9cThere are few exceptions to the\nService requirements that commissioned officers have at least a 4-year college\ndegree\xe2\x80\xa6.\xe2\x80\x9d The study went on to note that in FY 2004, 92.1 percent of officer\naccessions had a 4-year degree or higher, and for the service as a whole, only 4.2\npercent of the entire officer corps were \xe2\x80\x9cless than a college graduate.\xe2\x80\x9d18 In the two\nClass I freight railroads we benchmarked against, their non-agreement employees,\nparticularly at senior levels, generally possess educational levels that are comparable\nwith current U.S. military practices and both had programs for entry level\nmanagement which had a college degree as a prerequisite for entry.\n\n\n\n\n17\n www.census.gov/compedia/sattat/tables.\n18\n Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, \xe2\x80\x9cPopulation Representation in the Military\nServices, 2004, < http://www.DefenseLink.mil/prhome/poprep2004/officers/education.html>.\n.\n\n\n 34\n\x0c As noted earlier in the finding on the management associate/trainee program,\none of these railroads has over 700 former trainees currently working at that\ncompany, which accounts for a significant percentage (about 20 percent) of their non-\nagreement employees. It should be noted that these are not the only college\ngraduates in that company, but \xe2\x80\x93 like academy graduates in the military \xe2\x80\x93 simply\nthose who have entered through a highly structured initial training process.\nCollectively, these managers provide a cadre of technically qualified, knowledgeable\ntalent who are capable of additional development both by formal education and\ncareer broadening assignments.\n\n By comparison, we found little evidence of similar educational standards for\nmanagement employees at Amtrak. Indeed, in some of the operating departments,\ntechnically educated managers are rare. For example, the Amtrak field organization is\ndivided into geographic areas, or Divisions. Using data from Amtrak records, we\nexamined the senior Divisional field managers in the Transportation and Mechanical\nDepartments. Results are as shown.\n\n\nRecorded Educational Levels: Amtrak General Superintendents, Master\nMechanics and Senior Field Line Managers\n Technical Field\n Executive Total College Degree\n Degree (B.S.)\n Grade Level Number\n No. % No. %\nE-1 (General\nSuperintendents, 12 1 8.3% 0 0%\nMaster Mechanics)\n\nE-1/D-2/D-1 112 22 19.6% 4 3.6%\n\n\n\n Of the 12 General Superintendents and Master Mechanics who are collectively\nresponsible for the efficient and effective employment of 12,379 field employees and\nsubordinates, records indicate only one (8.3 percent) possesses a baccalaureate\ndegree, and that is not a Bachelor of Science. In fact, a more detailed review of the\nsenior field management (grades E-1, D-2 and D-1) of these two operating\ndepartments determined that of the 112 top non-agreement employees, only 22 (19.6\npercent) possessed a degree, and only four of these were technical (Bachelor of\nScience) degrees. At lower management levels, the comparison is equally stark; in\none operating department, of the approximately 125 field level line managers who\ncollectively direct and supervise 3,000 employees, only seven (6 percent) possessed a\ndegree, and six of the seven were in non-technical fields. A comparison with the\nsenior leadership of a benchmarked Class I, as shown below, is also enlightening.\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\x0c AMTRAK Class I Freight\n\n Total BA BS Total BA BS\n\n Ops:GS/MM 12 (100%) 1 (8%) 11 (100%) 3 (27%) 5 (45%)\n\n\n\n\n This situation has developed over many years, and will take many years to\ncorrect. Studies have shown that most managers tend to promote people who are\nlike themselves. It is therefore understandable that this situation has evolved since,\nuntil recently, the heads of the two largest operating departments and the two top\nmanagers in the HR&DI Department did not have college degrees. If these\nindividuals had experienced first hand the value of a college degree, they may have\nplaced more emphasis on hiring managers with college educations.\n\n A college education is not the only tool in an individual manager\xe2\x80\x99s tool kit;\nthere are some people whose natural leadership abilities substantially offset their lack\nof a baccalaureate education, and many of them are in senior leadership positions at\nAmtrak. On an individual basis, this is good, and arguably there should always be\npositions for a very small percentage of individuals who are truly gifted in these areas.\nHowever, on an aggregate basis, a senior leadership lacking formal technical and/or\nbusiness education is not an ideal situation for the successful operation of a complex,\n21st Century transportation company.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS:\n\n2E1. That the VP for HR&DI, in conjunction with the heads of each department,\nensure that appropriate educational standards are identified for all non-agreement\nemployees.\n\n2E2. That the VP for HR&DI ensure that all new non-agreement hires or promotions\npossess the minimum educational standard identified in the position description or\nthat a waiver has been granted by the President of Amtrak, or his designated\nrepresentative.\n\n2E3. That the VP for HR&DI track and semiannually report progress toward achieving\nthe educational standards identified in the position descriptions.\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\x0c2F. Cross-Departmental & Corporate Competencies\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak has few middle and senior managers that have experience in more\nthan one department, contributing to the creation and furtherance of \xe2\x80\x9csilos\xe2\x80\x9d within the\ncompany.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n A smoothly functioning organization is characterized in part by good internal\ncommunications and cooperation among various elements of the organization. This in\nturn is aided by a common understanding of the operation and functions of other\nparts of the organization.\n\n In the 1990s, Amtrak employed Gallup to do an internal survey. One of their\nfindings was that, despite a high level of cooperation between department heads,\nAmtrak suffered from extensive stove piping (a tendency of departments not to work\nwell with each other) below that level and poor internal coordination and cooperation.\nCurrent information confirms this is still an issue, as a recent company-wide survey of\nAmtrak employees - conducted by Accenture - found that Amtrak still has a \xe2\x80\x9csilo\nmentality\xe2\x80\x9d 19 which pervades all departments and constitutes a significant barrier to\nimprovement.\n\n During our benchmarking, we looked to see how other organizations attempted\nto combat this silo mentality. At one major Class I freight railroad we visited, there\nwas a clear understanding of the benefits of departmental cross pollination. For\nexample:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Management trainees were identified as \xe2\x80\x9ccorporate assets\xe2\x80\x9d and assigned to\n career paths that in many cases will eventually take them out of the initial\n hiring department.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The company has nine salary bands, and managers that progress beyond Band\n 5 are encouraged and given opportunities to take assignments in more than\n one department.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Support department composition showed the results of deliberate internal\n rotation. According to the AVP of HR, of the 70 employees 20 in his department\n \xe2\x80\x9c50 to 70 percent\xe2\x80\x9d (35 to 50 employees) had come from the operating\n departments, and nearly half would return.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Career paths of senior managers showed the results of this progression. For\n example, the current VP of HR was previously the VP of IT; a recently selected\n19\n Accenture Strategic Asset Management Culture Value Analysis, Executive Summary, February 2009, p.5.\n20\n All were non-agreement, or management, employees.\n\n\n 37\n\x0c VP of Transportation started as a research engineer and was previously the\n General Manager for Mechanical Field Operations; and the current CEO (a\n former management trainee) was previously the VP of HR.\n\n In another Class I railroad (44,000 employees), they had similar management\ncareer pathing. An interview with a former senior manager from that company noted\nthat at his former employer higher level management often crossed departments for\ndevelopment and organizational enhancement. For example, the CEO was the COO\nand prior to that spent much of his career in Marketing, although he started as a\nmanagement trainee and initial assignment was as a trainmaster. Other companies\nalso have cross functional experience in their senior leadership. We were told by a\nformer Coca-Cola manager that Coca-Cola uses a similar cross-departmental career\npath procedure. As a final example, the U.S. military moves management officers\nbetween and among commands for career broadening assignments, and, since the\nadvent of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, 21\nan officer cannot attain general officer rank without career broadening assignments\nworking with other branches of service.\n\n By comparison, Amtrak managers generally lack similar experiences outside of\ntheir initial departmental assignment. For example, of the 5 current divisional Master\nMechanics, 0 have significant experience outside the Mechanical Department, and of\nthe 7 General Superintendents, only 2 of 7 possess significant experience outside the\nTransportation Department. Even more telling is the comparison between Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s\nHR managers and one of the Class I\xe2\x80\x99s HR department\xe2\x80\x99s managers. The Class I has\napproximately 27 of 45 non-training HR managers (60 percent) with prior operating\ndepartment management experience, compared with 3 of 65 (4.6 percent) in Amtrak\nHR who have had prior experience in a non-agreement position within an operating\ndepartment (see table below).\n\n Comparative Experience \xe2\x80\x93 HR Managers (Class I vs. Amtrak)\nFunctional head Total subordinates (less Operating Dept\n ED&T) Management Experience\nClass I AVP, HR 45 27\nAmtrak AVP, HR 65 3\n\nMoreover, at the Class I, former HR managers have advanced and are now filling\npositions as diverse as Director of Marketing, Assistant Division General\nSuperintendent, and General Manager of Mechanical Field Operations. Indeed, this\nClass I has had a succession of internal managers who served in the HR department\nand continued on to other departments where their experience could continue to be\nbroadened. In fact, in the past five years, 18 HR managers (about 25%) have\nreturned to positions in the operating departments. At Amtrak similar cross-\n\n21\n Pubic Law 99-433\n\n\n 38\n\x0cdepartmental career pathing is conspicuously absent. Although we did not do a\ndetailed analysis, we expect most of the Amtrak support departments are similar to\nHR in this regard.\n\n The current Amtrak situation results from multiple causes, and there is no\nsingle \xe2\x80\x9csilver bullet\xe2\x80\x9d solution which will resolve it in the very near term; indeed, a long\nterm solution will require effort in multiple areas over a period of years. Regardless\nof the causes, the overall results are clear, well documented and disturbing: the\nAccenture survey cited earlier rated Amtrak in the bottom 10 percent of over 400\ncompanies surveyed in \xe2\x80\x9csupporting employee growth.\xe2\x80\x9d 22\n\n A graduate level text on human resource management discusses management\ndevelopment programs, including rotational assignments, and summarizes by saying\nthat \xe2\x80\x9cThe ultimate aim of such development programs is, of course, to enhance the\nfuture performance (underlining supplied for emphasis) of the organization itself.\xe2\x80\x9d 23\nAt Amtrak, a continuation of present policies will result in a managerial workforce\nwhose ability to work across departmental lines is limited by their experience,\nfostering continued stove piping and limiting corporate synergy and integration. In\nview of the looming challenges facing the company, this would appear to be an\nundesirable situation.\n\n\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS:\n\n2F1. That the VP for HR&DI develop and implement a plan to expand\ncross-departmental experience within the middle and senior management of the\ncompany.\n\n2F2. That the VP for HR&DI track and report progress towards achieving this cross-\ndepartmental experience on a semiannual basis, as a minimum.\n\n2F3. That, in conjunction with the above, the VP for HR&DI develop and implement\nprocedures to preclude advancement into upper middle management without career\nbroadening, cross-departmental assignments.\n\n\n\n\n22\n Accenture Strategic Asset Management Culture Value Analysis, Executive Summary, February 2009, p.15.\n23\n Dressler, op.cit., p.173.\n\n\n 39\n\x0c2G. Leadership/Management Development\n\nFINDING:\n\n Amtrak has no corporate-wide plan to insure that its supervisors and managers\nhave the appropriate leadership and management skills required to be successful.\n\nDISCUSSION:\n\n Leadership and management skills are usually developed through a\ncombination of classroom instruction and developmental work experience. Seldom do\nmanagers develop outstanding leadership and management skills solely through the\nclassroom or solely through work experience.\n\n Understanding Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s need for classroom instruction to support leadership\nand management development, the HR&DI Department offers several instructor-led\ncourses and access to numerous computer-based courses. These courses are\ndescribed on the Amtrak intranet under the \xe2\x80\x9cEducation and Training\xe2\x80\x9d section and then\nunder \xe2\x80\x9cLeadership/Management\xe2\x80\x9d 24 . The instructor-led offerings include a Basic\nManagement Course, a Mid-level Management Course and an Advanced Management\nCourse. The course descriptions provide a \xe2\x80\x9crecommended\xe2\x80\x9d range of time, in years, as\nguidelines for when employees should complete each course. The Basic Management\ncourse is recommended for those with 3 years or less of management experience, the\nMid-level Management Course is recommended for those with between 3 to 8 years of\nmanagement experience, and the Advanced Management Course is recommended for\nthose with 10 years or more of management experience. We were told that the Basic\nManagement Course has been successfully piloted, but the other courses are still in\nthe pilot stage. Surprisingly, we learned that, between January 2008 and May 2009,\nonly four classes total had been conducted in these three courses with a combined\ntotal of only 65 students. In addition, the \xe2\x80\x9cTraining Calendar: Leadership Courses\xe2\x80\x9d on\nthe Amtrak intranet does not show any classes scheduled to be conducted in 2009\nand beyond. The current number of attendees is far short of the total\nsupervisor/manager population and is an indicator that what appears to be a well-\nintended program has not been fully adopted by the corporation.\n\n We discovered several reasons why these courses have not been attended by\nmore students. First, our interviews suggest that the existence of these courses is not\nwell known. Second, some departments have developed their own supervisory\ntraining, and are sending their supervisors to that training rather than the corporately\n24\n Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s Internal Website, home page, under tab \xe2\x80\x9cHow We Work,\xe2\x80\x9dor \xe2\x80\x9cEmployees\xe2\x80\x9d and then tab \xe2\x80\x9cEducation\nand Training.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n 40\n\x0cdeveloped courses. Third, the courses are \xe2\x80\x9coffered\xe2\x80\x9d but not required by any\ncorporate policy or directive.\n\n All Amtrak supervisors could benefit from at least a certain amount of\nclassroom leadership training. Without a corporate policy that mandates certain\nleadership training for all management employees, Amtrak will continue in its current\nuneven approach. Without mandated classroom training, some new supervisors will\nend up relying solely on what they have learned through their own observations of\npast supervisors \xe2\x80\x93 who are not always the best examples.\n\n\nRECOMMENDATION:\n\n2G. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive leadership,\ndevelop and implement a policy containing corporate-wide direction and guidance on\nleadership training and development for non-agreement employees.\n\n\n\n\n 41\n\x0cAppendix I\n\nOIG Employee Training and Development Evaluation Team\n\nDeputy IG for Inspections and Evaluations:\n\n Calvin E. Evans\n\nTeam Members:\n\n Mark A. Meana\n John L. Mac Michael\n\n\n\n\n 42\n\x0cAppendix II\n\nConsolidated List of Recommendations\n\n\n1A1. That the Vice President of HR&DI schedule all new employees for the New\nEmployee Orientation Workshop, or equivalent, as soon as possible after their hiring\ndate, preferably on the first day on the Amtrak payroll.\n\n1A2. That the Vice President of HR&DI track and report on a quarterly basis the\nnumber of new hires that have not attended the New Hire Orientation Workshop, or\nequivalent, within 30 days of hire.\n\n1B. That the VP for HR&DI lead an effort to identify, with input from each Amtrak\ndepartment, the initial job-specific training required for each position within Amtrak,\nand track whether new hire employees start this training within the first 30 days of\nemployment.\n\n1C. That the VP for HR&DI, working with the department heads, develop specific\nguidance on who should attend each course offered and the frequency in which it is\nrequired to meet the intended objective of the training.\n\n1D1. That the Amtrak President issue a corporate-wide strategy for training and\nemployee development providing guidance to the corporation on the linkage of\ntraining and employee development to the achievement of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s strategic goals\nand objectives.\n\n1D2. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive leadership,\ndevelop consistent, corporate-wide policies and procedures to support the strategy.\n\n1E. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with other departments, explore options\nfor improving the efficiency of its training, including but not limited to increased\ncentralization of some or all of Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s instructor led training (particularly new hire\ntraining), and use of part-time contractor instructor employees to provide a surge\ncapacity, if needed.\n\n1F1. That the VP for HR&DI continue to fully support the implementation of EIM so\nthat supervisors have the ability to easily view and manage their employee training\nrecords.\n\n1F2. That, once EIM is sufficiently implemented, the VP for HR&DI develop policies\nand procedures to ensure that all training is being appropriately captured in HRIS, and\nthat duplicate records are not continuing to be maintained.\n\n\n\n 43\n\x0c1G1. That the VP for HR&DI develop a policy that establishes the minimum\nqualifications and certifications required to be an instructor for each course taught at\nAmtrak.\n\n1G2. That the VP for HR&DI develop a program to insure that all Amtrak instructors\nachieve and remain in compliance with the above policy.\n\n1H. That the VP for HR&DI, working with the Chief Information Officer, develop\nprocedures to ensure that individuals that are credited for taking required computer\nbased training programs are the same individuals that completed the courses.\n\n1I. That the VP for HR&DI develop and publish a glossary of common training terms\nand definitions to facilitate communication and common understanding throughout\nthe corporation concerning training and employee development topics.\n\n2A1. That the Amtrak President, with the support and approval of the Board of\nDirectors, issue a corporate-wide strategy for developing management employees to\nassume the future leadership roles within the company.\n\n2A2. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive leadership,\ndevelop consistent, corporate-wide policies and procedures to support the\nmanagement career development strategy.\n\n2B. That the VP for HR&DI develop and implement an appropriate management\nassessment tool for all applicants for non-agreement employee positions.\n\n2C1. That the VP for HR&DI review and revise the current Amtrak Management\nAssociate Program to fill an appropriate and effective role within the new\nmanagement career development strategy.\n\n2C2. That the CFO identify funding within Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s corporate budget to meet the\nneeds of the revised Management Associate Program.\n\n2D1. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive leadership,\ndevelop broad company-wide job families and career progression paths for all non-\nagreement positions.\n\n2D2. That Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s President designate either the VP for HR&DI or other Amtrak\nsenior leaders to oversee and manage these families and career paths.\n\n2E1. That the VP for HR&DI, in conjunction with the heads of each department,\nensure that appropriate educational standards are identified for all non-agreement\nemployees.\n\n\n 44\n\x0c2E2. That the VP for HR&DI ensure that all new non-agreement hires or promotions\npossess the minimum educational standard identified in the position description or\nthat a waiver has been granted by the President of Amtrak, or his designated\nrepresentative.\n\n2E3. That the VP for HR&DI track and semiannually report progress toward achieving\nthe educational standards identified in the position descriptions.\n\n2F1. That the VP for HR&DI develop and implement a plan to expand\ncross-departmental experience within the middle and senior management of the\ncompany.\n\n2F2. That the VP for HR&DI track and report progress towards achieving this cross-\ndepartmental experience on a semiannual basis, as a minimum.\n\n2F3. That, in conjunction with the above, the VP for HR&DI develop and implement\nprocedures to preclude advancement into upper middle management without career\nbroadening, cross-departmental assignments.\n\n2G. That the VP for HR&DI, in consultation with Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s executive leadership,\ndevelop and implement a policy containing corporate-wide direction and guidance on\nleadership training and development for non-agreement employees.\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\x0cAppendix III New Hire Checklist\n\n\n\n INSTRUCTIONS\n AGREEMENT NEW HIRES\n\nPlease complete the following underlined forms and bring them with you on your first\nday of employment. Please review the remaining material.\n\n1. Employee Information Form: If you have a degree, please provide a copy of your final\n transcript or diploma.\n\n2. Employment Eligibility Verification Form (I-9): Complete Section 1 and review the\n instructions form. You MUST provide acceptable documents for identification. The\n law states that you must be sent home if you do not produce this identification\n within three days of your start date.\n\n3. W-4 Form: Please complete the federal W-4 form and the state tax form. If the state form\n is not included, it will be provided to you on your first day of employment.\n\n4. Authorization for Direct Deposit: Please complete and attach a voided check.\n\n5. Standards of Excellence Booklet: Please tear out and sign page 11.\n\n6. Amtrak Flash Pass Photo Application and Amtrak Identification Card Application: Please\n complete these forms and attach passport quality color photos no larger than 2 \xc2\xbd x 2 \xc2\xbd\n inches for use in producing your Amtrak flash pass and identification card.\n\n7. Ethical Conduct and Conflict of Interest policy, Certificate of Compliance and Clayton Anti-\n Trust Form: Please read the policy and complete both forms.\n\n8. Credit Card Security Policy and Certificate of Compliance: Read the policy and complete\n the form.\n\n9. Accurate Reporting of Injuries and Illnesses Policy: Please read the policy (paying special\n attention to Section 5.0) and complete the form.\n\n10. Computer Usage and Security Policy: Please read the policy and complete the\n acknowledgement form.\n\n11. What You Should Know: Information on Amtrak\xe2\x80\x99s policy on prescribed and over-the-\n counter medications. Please complete the top half of this form only if you are taking\n medications that will affect your job duties.\n\n12. Designation of Beneficiary for Unpaid Compensation: Please complete this form.\n\n13. Recruitment Source Survey: Please complete this form.\n\n\n\n\n 46\n\x0cPlease review the following material.\n\n14. Amtrak Agreement Benefits Summary\n\n15. Railroad Retirement and Survivor Benefits Booklet\n\n16. Railroad Retirement Tax Withholdings and Limits Card\n\n17. E-mail Etiquette\n\n18. Employee Security Handbook\n\n19. System Security Information\n \xe2\x80\xa2 System Security Awareness Training: You are required to complete an online\n course. This can be accessed through the intranet.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Letter from Mr. Crosbie\n\n\n PLEASE BE SURE YOU HAVE COMPLETED AN AMTRAK APPLICATION\n FOR EMPLOYMENT AND AUTHORIZATION BACKGROUND\n INVESTIGATION\n\n\n\n\n 47\n\x0cAppendix IV\n\n Matrix of New Hire Initial Craft Training Comparison Sample\n\n\n\n\n 48\n\x0cAPPENDIX IV R-1Ea1\nMechanical Dept Sample - Initial Craft Training FY '07 17-Mar-09\n\n BEAR BOS CHI/BPKLAX LOR MIA NYS/P OAK/SJC PHL SEA WAS Total\n\nCLNR 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 11\n\nBLOOD BORNE N 1of2 X N N X X X N 1of2\nBLUE SIG PRO X X N N X X X N\nCAR WATERING X X X X N N 1of2 X X\nENV AWARENESS X N N N N N 1of2 N N\nFALL PROT OSHA N X N N N N 1of2 X N\nFIRE EXT BASIC X X N N N X X N\nHEARING CONS X X N N N N 1of2 N N\nHAZ COMM X X N N X X X X\nLOCK/TAGOUT X N N N X N 1of2 X N\nPAX CAR CLNG X X X X N X X X\nPPE X N N N X X X X\nSYS SECUR AW X N N N X N N X\nTERRORIST ACTY N N N N 1of2 N\n\nIBEW 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 11\n\nBLOOD BORNE N N X X X X X N\nBLUE SIG PRO X X X X X X X X\nENV AWARENESS X X N N N 2of3 N N N\nFALL PROT OSHA N N N N N N ?? X\nFIRE EXT BASIC N X X X N X X X\nHAZ COMM X X N X N X X X\nHEARING CONS X X N ? N X N X\nLOCK/TAG PRO X X X X X X X X\nPPE X X X X X N X ?\nSYS SECUR AW X X N N X X\nTERRORIST ACTY N N X X\nDIVERSITY TRNG X\nNEW EMP WKSHP X\nWRKPLACE VIO X\n\x0c BEAR BOS CHI/BPKLAX LOR MIA NYS/P OAK/SJC PHL SEA WAS WIL\nIAM 1 1 1 2 1 6\n\nBLOOD BORNE X X X X X\nBLUE SIG PRO X X X X X\nENV AWARENESS N X N N N\nFALL PROT OSHA N N N X X\nFIRE EXT BASIC X N X X X\nHAZ COMM X X X X X\nHEARING CONS X N X X X\nLOCK/TAG PRO X X X X X\nPPE X X X X X\nSYS SECUR AW N X N X\nTERRORIST ACTY N X N\n238 TRN BK TEST X 1of2\n\n\nSWMIA 1 1 1 2 5\n\nBLOOD BORNE N X X X\nBLUE SIG PRO X X X X\nENV AWARENESS X N X N\nFALL PROT OSHA N N N X\nFIRE EXT BASIC N X N X\nHAZ COMM X N X X\nHEARING CONS N N N X\nLOCK/TAG PRO X X X X\nPPE N X X X\nSYS SECUR AW X N X X\nTERRORIST ACTY N\n238 TRN BK TEST X\n\x0c BEAR BOS CHI/BPKLAX LOR MIA NYS/P OAK/SJC PHL SEA WAS WIL\nJCC 1 1 2 4\n\nBLOOD BORNE X X X\nBLUE SIG PRO X X X\nENV AWARENESS X N N\nFALL PROT OSHA N N X\nFIRE EXT BASIC N X X\nHAZ COMM X X X\nHEARING CONS N X X\nLOCK/TAG PRO X X X\nPPE X X X\nSYS SECUR AW N X\nTERRORIST ACTY X N\n238 TRN BK TEST\n\n\nARSA & MGT 1 1 2\n\nBLOOD BORNE X\nBLUE SIG PRO X X\nENV AWARENESS X\nFALL PROT OSHA\nFIRE EXT BASIC\nHAZ COMM X\nHEARING CONS\nLOCK/TAG PRO X\nPPE\nSYS SECUR AW\nTERRORIST ACTY X\n238 TRN BK TEST\n Total 39 39\n (of 167)\n\x0cEngineering Dept Sample - Initial Craft Training FY '07\n\n NYP PHL PROV WAS\n\nIBEW 2 2 PROV\n PROV\nBLOOD BORNE N 1of2\nBLUE SIG PRO Y\nENV AWARENESS N 1of2\nFALL PROT OSHA Y\nFIRE EXT BASIC Y\nHAZ COMM N 1of2\nHEARING CONS Y\nJOB BRIEF N 1of2\nLEAD AWRNESS N 1of2\nLOCK/TAG PRO Y\nPPE Y\nRWP (2) 1-1of2\nSYS SECUR AW N 1of2\nTERRORIST ACTY\nWTCHMN QUAL N 1of2\n\n\n\n NYP PHL PROV WAS\n\nBMWE 2 1 1 4 NYP\n PROV\nBLOOD BORNE X X X NYP\nBLUE SIG PRO X X X WAS\nENV AWARENESS\nFALL PROT OSHA X X X\nFIRE EXT BASIC X X X\nHAZ COMM X X X\nHEARING CONS X X X\nJOB BRIEF\n\x0cLEAD AWRNESS X X X\nLOCK/TAG PRO X X X\nNEW EMP WKSHP N X N\nPPE X X X\nRWP (2) X X X\nSYS SECUR AW\nTERRORIST ACTY X X X\nWTCHMN QUAL X\n\n\n\n NYP PHL PROV WAS\n\nC&S - Phase 2 1 1\n\nBLOOD BORNE Y\nBLUE SIG PRO Y\nENV AWARENESS N - N1\nFALL PROT OSHA Y\nFIRE EXT BASIC Y\nHAZ COMM Y\nHEARING CONS Y\nJOB BRIEF\nLEAD AWRNESS Y\nLOCK/TAG PRO Y\nPPE Y\nRWP Y\nSYS SECUR AW\nTERRORIST ACTY N - N1\nWTCHMN QUAL\n\nN1(NOTE) - COMPL\nAFTER TRNG\n\x0cTransportation Dept Sample - Initial Craft Training FY '07\n\n LAX LOR NYP WAS\n 2 2 1 5\nOBS\n\nBLOOD BORNE Y N N\nENVIR AWARNESS Y Y Y\nFALL PROT:S,T&F Y N N\nFIRE EXT BASIC Y N N\nHAZ COMM Y N N\nHEARING CONS Y N N\nJOB BRIEF\nNEW HIRE - POSIT Y Y Y\nPREP TRNG - INTL Y Y Y\nPPE Y N N\nSANITATION:F/H Y Y Y\nSYS SECUR AW N N N\nTERRORIST ACTY N 1of2 N N\n\n WAS OAK\nTicket Agents 1 1 2\n\nBLOOD BORNE N X\nENVIR AWARNESS N X\nFALL PROT:S,T&F\nFIRE EXT BASIC N X\nHAZ COMM N X\nHEARING CONS N X\nJOB BRIEF N\nNEW HIRE TKT CLK X X\nPREP TRNG - INTL\nPPE N X\nSANITATION:F/H\nSYS SECUR AW Grand\nTERRORIST ACTY N X Total 55\n\x0c"