Publications give executives new management tools, ideas

Two new publications, one from the IBM Center for the Business of Government and the other from the RAND Corp., tell executives how to better manage their agencies.

While the IBM report focuses on appointee-careerist relations and the RAND book looks at broader issues including agency organization, the nomination process and pay for performance, both wrestle with the same challenge: How do you manage a gargantuan body that's trying to produce intangible products with a constantly rotating staff?

"We're providing mental warm-up exercises for serious reformers," said Robert Klitgaard, dean of the Pardee RAND Graduate School and co-editor of High-Performance Government: Structure, Leadership, Incentives.

The RAND essays, most of which are written by the school's professors, delve into topics ranging from the presidential nomination process to effective mission statements. Instead of offering run-of-the-mill recommendations, Klitgaard said the essays are designed to provide a fresh perspective.

Take decision-making processes, for example. RAND professors have developed a computer-based tool that leads users through virtual meetings by eliciting their beliefs and preferences. "We're suggesting it's the workplace of the future," said Klitgaard.

While private companies such as Volvo use the tool, Klitgaard said that in an emergency situation, executives from the Homeland Security Department and the Food and Drug Administration would find it useful to coordinate their efforts from different locations.

The book recommends that fewer positions require Senate confirmation, an idea others also have advocated. It suggests eliminating or limiting some confirmation practices, such as the ability of senators to place a "hold" on certain candidates, which delays confirmation.

The book's authors recommend that Congress and the executive branch look at the appointments process in a new light. "Suppose finding an assistant secretary for a department is like finding a spare part for a tank," said Klitgaard.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, gave RAND permission to release the book in the committee's conference room. He also released a statement in support of the book.

In the IBM report, Georgetown University's Joseph Ferrara and Lynn Ross urge career officials and appointees to overcome myths that the scholars say plague agencies. Appointees think of career civil servants as passionless workers who value job security over innovation, while career employees view appointees as incompetent ideologues with one-sided perspectives.

To overcome these myths, which they emphatically declare to be mistaken, the report's authors recommend that civil servants energetically embrace their jobs and learn about appointees' backgrounds. As for appointees, the scholars recommend frequent communication and respect.

Their research also turned up some lesser-known observations: Members of the career Senior Executive Service are, on average, about eight years older than political appointees. Two-thirds of senior career executives hold advanced degrees, compared to just over half of political appointees. About three-quarters of both groups are male.

As expected, career executives have spent far more time in government than do their appointed counterparts: 25.5 years versus just over nine. Appointees, on average, serve in their positions for about three years.

The scholars note that "few other nations put so much power in the hands of a relatively small number of people, none of whom is a career government employee."