Flexing Human Capital

Do the government's 'chiefs' have enough pull to change entire bureaucracies?

With the announcement in mid-February that veteran diplomat John D. Negroponte would be nominated as the first director of national intelligence, the question was raised anew as to whether he could accrue the powers the position is supposed to command.

Could he best Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the competition to allocate intelligence budgets? Would his judgment be seen by the president as better than that of CIA Director Porter Goss, whose agency will remain closer to sources and responsible for key intelligence products, or will the president need to be briefed by Goss as well? Can Negroponte and his new deputy-designate, former National Security Agency chief Michael V. Hayden, overcome these and other challenges to become the key players Congress imagined, or will they end up as just another layer in the complex bureaucratic tangle of intelligence agencies?

It is too early to tell in the case of Negroponte and Hayden. But the awkwardness of their perch in the federal hierarchy is not unfamiliar to students of government. More and more layers gradually have been added in many corners of the vast bureaucracies that constitute the federal enterprise, a "thickening of government" documented by Brookings Institution scholar Paul C. Light in his 1995 book by the same name, and by subsequent research.

The chief human capital officers who grace our cover this month might be considered part of this trend, and also of another: the evolving insistence by Congress that federal departments and agencies focus on key administrative questions. The CHCOs join chief information officers, chief technology officers, chief financial officers and chief acquisition officers as important players on the federal scene.

Like Negroponte, and the other "chiefs," the CHCOs have no line responsibility for running programs or delivering services. They might echo Kermit the Frog's sentiment, "It's not easy being green," on the topic of being a chief with precious few troops to command. Correspondent Shawn Zeller reports that CHCOs have encountered more difficulties than expected in their mission of improving human resources practices, even where they benefit from recently enacted flexibilities in personnel practices.

Still, Zeller reports that some can take credit for dramatic progress in their agencies. Perhaps, like Negroponte, they are too new to the scene to be judged as effective or ineffective. But like the new director of national intelligence, they are to be admired for taking on a tough bureaucratic assignment.

Getting the right people in the right places, and trained to do their jobs, is important to every organization, especially the armed forces, where lives are at stake.

This issue also features an insightful analysis by Denise Kersten on the Food and Drug Administration's problems in organizing its drug review, approval and monitoring processes, and, by Beth Dickey, a chilling assessment of the Transportation Security Administration's struggle to secure surface transportation systems that carry more passengers than do the airlines.