The Chiefs Rule

They're at the center of management reform.

Hail to the chiefs! The important bureaucratic players profiled in this issue are leading the drive to improve the performance of the U.S. government. Beginning with chief financial officers in the early 1990s, their positions have been created to focus attention on key administrative functions widely thought to be crucial to the good management of large institutions.

Their arrival signaled real concern about the reputation that government had developed as a haven for poor managers. Agencies could not meet minimum standards for financial audits, so Congress insisted that they appoint chief financial officers. Expensive technology projects failed, calling again for a bureaucratic fix: the appointment of chief information officers. Procurement scandals and the rapid growth of contracting for private sector services persuaded Congress that there should be a new cadre of politically confirmed chief acquisition officers. And, with Comptroller General David M. Walker beating the drums about deficiencies in federal workforce planning, yet another chief was born: the human capital officer. Chief privacy officers and chief security officers could be next.

Too many chiefs, not enough Indians? Perhaps, for some chiefs have found they have little but moral suasion with which to influence the powerful bureaus that make up major departments. One might turn the saying on its head as well: Many chiefs, but no one in charge.

The chiefs do report to higher authority-department secretaries or their designees. But some say that agencies cannot achieve first-class results without more coordination of the "silos" under the chiefs' control. The National Academy for Public Administration's new executive consortium is helping agencies integrate key management disciplines. The Government Accountability Office has suggested that the Homeland Security Department might need a chief operating officer and that the Defense Department be required to appoint a chief management officer to lead overall business transformation efforts.

For now, the chiefs rule the roost.They are at the center of agencies' efforts to meet the goals of the President's Management Agenda, wherein failure confers "public shame and humiliation and the opportunity to be questioned about it by the president," in the words of Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget.

Most bring to their jobs years of experience in government, and sometimes private sector, management. Increasingly, they are political appointees, sometimes wearing many hats, a trend that may signal the growing importance of management issues at the top levels of government.

In the pages that follow, we profile the chiefs of finance, technology, acquisition and human capital in the major agencies. Together with stories earlier this year on the challenges three of these groups face and a feature on CFOs coming in December, this issue helps define the key management communities in government.