Volha Kratkouskaya/Getty Images
Managing in the federal government requires new and different strategies
COMMENTARY | “Strategic human capital management” was included on the first High Risk List in 1990. It’s been on the list for 35 years.
In Certainty, a new book by retired CIA Chief of HR Mike Mears, the preface includes a brief story about a call from the agency’s deputy director, who asked, “Mike, why is it that when I pull the levers, nothing happens?” The “levers” are the actions or tools available to government managers that too often fail to drive performance. The question is central to the criticism of the federal government.
The need to improve performance has been addressed by presidents as far back as Truman and his Hoover Commission. The current focus on efficiency is not new. That was the answer when Reagan created the Grace Commission: "We want your team to work like tireless bloodhounds. Don't leave any stone unturned in your search to root out inefficiency." Criticism of federal workers has a long history.
The answer over the years has been adopting business practices – 5-year strategic plans, use of performance goals and metrics, and reporting of results. That was the mandate behind the Government Performance and Results Act, followed by the GPRA Modernization Act – but the laws have failed to solve the problem. The “levers” are not enough.
The Football Analogy
Mears observed the CIA had “a mix of highly effective, energized units, alongside units with low morale and poor productivity. If red tape was to blame . . . it should affect all units equally.”
That’s similar to pro football. The rules are the same for all teams; there is minimal variation in the running and passing plays; the physical size and strength of players are not significantly different, but still some teams win while others lose repeatedly
Mear argues the difference is “inside the human mind.” It is leadership at all levels, coaching to improve, recognition and appreciation, fair treatment. Trust of coaches and team leaders is important. Winning teams feel a sense of momentum. Each player has a defined role; in combination that’s team play. When team morale is low, it’s evident in interviews and on the field.
That’s very similar to the culture in successful, high performance organizations. Sports are not unique. Everyone wants to be seen as valuable. They like the feeling their work efforts are contributing to success and want their contribution to be recognized. They like the camaraderie that flows from team success.
Managing in Business is Simpler
In a January Wall Street Journal op-ed, Robert Rubin, Treasury secretary under President Clinton, cited three reasons as Limits of ‘Running Government Like a Business’:
“First, the private sector’s mission is far simpler.” The overriding goal is maintaining profitability. Every worker understands that.
Second, CEOs have the ultimate decision making authority. Executives know they are in charge; workers cannot question their authority. In government, multiple critics question decisions.
Third, “public sector leaders face far more scrutiny than business leaders.” That’s especially relevant with small, privately held companies.
Rubin could have mentioned three more reasons. The most obvious are the financial incentives that have created more and more billionaires. Another is one that stands out today – elected and appointed leaders often have no experience managing in large organizations. A third is that aside from financial reporting, the public has virtually no access to the performance of the millions of private companies. As Vanderbilt University’s David Lewis says, “presumably, voters longing for a government that operates like a business are not referring to the high percentage of businesses that fail.”
The Problem Is Rooted in the Civil Service System
When the system was created, its purpose was clear: to protect employees and keep hiring free of patronage. It’s silent on performance and accountability. The foundation of the system, the General Schedule, is the same today as it was when it was created in 1923. It’s classic bureaucracy.
In that era, management thinking was narrowly focused on top-down control. Time-and-motion specialists controlled how workers performed their jobs. Detailed job descriptions specified each worker’s “duties.” Workers had virtually no discretion.
That philosophy dominated into the 1980s when the book by Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis, triggered what was then a radical change, allowing frontline workers to tackle job problems. He understood the change in thinking would be difficult – "long-term commitment…is required of management that seeks transformation. The timid and the fainthearted, and the people that expect quick results, are doomed to disappointment.” The failed attempts to change government confirm that.
The next decade began with the 1990-‘91 recession that forced corporations to cut costs. The most prominent change was the elimination of management layers, which increased a manager’s span of control – and worker autonomy. It marked the beginning of a revolution in work management. Now there are workers who work remotely with no direct supervisor. Books and columns on “great places to work” and high performance are published frequently. The civil service system, however, remains unchanged.
The Government Accountability Office recognized the problems triggered by the civil service system when “strategic human capital management” was included on the first High Risk List in 1990. It’s been on the list for 35 years.
Now the Trump administration has taken several steps to slash the federal workforce. It started with the hiring freeze and the “deferred resignation” offer. Now agencies are planning for widespread layoffs and attrition-based hiring. No one knows how many employees will lose their jobs but key positions could be vacant and disrupt agency operations.
What is known is that the buyout offer along with several executive orders have created what one federal employee described as “a climate of fear, confusion, skepticism and anger at federal agencies.” The phrase “I am terrified” was used in a Politico column describing “the dark mood inside federal agencies.” Fear and anxiety are the antithesis of a healthy work culture. A toxic work environment will trigger quits, deter job seekers, and lower productivity. Recovering from this will necessitate wide ranging reform.
From Hiring Reform to Civil Service Reform
Jennifer Pahlka, a former federal employee, recently made a compelling argument supporting Trump’s executive order to reform the hiring process, saying that it “keeps great talent out of the federal government.”
Possibly the most important section of the EO is the mandate to “provide specific best practices for the human resources function in each agency…with advice and recommendations as appropriate from DOGE.” The mandate should open the door to evaluating and implementing best practices, including the use of the best technology. The EO does not delineate what’s included in the hiring process but to realize significant improvements it should include:
- An in-depth workforce analysis to understand current and projected retirements and quits, the occupational knowledge and skills essential for high performance, as well as the availability and level of competition for the best qualified job seekers. Each job series has its own labor market, making staffing far more complex than in business.
- A related step would be to analyze and document the profile of skills related to selection, promotions, and performance for each job series and career level. Job skills are important in hiring as well as in promotions, training and coaching. It’s fair to everyone.
- Hiring is also affected by the government's “Employee Value Proposition” or brand. It’s central to attracting and retaining well qualified candidates. The concept of EVP is understood to include pay and benefits, career development, and work-life balance, as well as an organization’s social purpose, and organizational culture. A Partnership for Public Service survey found that the federal government’s EVP discourages Gen Z interest in federal careers.
- Federal hiring is also affected by the competitive level of pay and benefits. Not surprisingly, the better qualified job seekers can expect above average salaries. Its supply and demand. It’s been decades since the federal government completed a market analysis. With high demand occupations, federal salaries are well below market and have to hurt recruiting.
The GAO argument is consistent with the best thinking for creating high performance work environments. It pays off where employee performance is a key to agency results and customer satisfaction. The federal government has clearly not focused on sustaining public support.
Hiring is only one element in creating a high performance environment. It’s not about the numbers or the costs; it’s about building a workforce committed to addressing the nation’s concerns.
Managing Employees as Assets
The GAO discussion of strategic HR management was on point – high performing organizations understand the relationship between effective people management and organizational success. That is totally missing in the civil service system. Employees are more than a cost.
The distinctive workforce problems in federal agencies make talent management more complex than any business conglomerate. In the rapidly changing world of work, it's not possible for OPM to address the mix of talent problems with one-size-fits-all administrative practices. Agency performance has to be a higher priority than maintaining an inviolate civil service system. The election made that clear.
Realistically reform cannot begin until the purge ends. The first step should be to document where job vacancies impede work team performance. Solving those problems should be a priority.
The best work management practices are discussed in books and websites. The Great Places to Work Institute is a good place to start. Several consulting firms also promote the benefits of “best practices.” There are states and no doubt other countries that have successfully transitioned to proven practices. We know what pays off in better performance – and in improved worker engagement. Those practices are the “levers” that count.
The most productive strategy would be to follow Pahlka’s recommendation to involve senior specialists as Subject Matter Experts in developing plans to address problems. Working with experts in workforce management, the combination will add credibility for co-workers and managers. She is adamantly opposed to relying solely on HR staff. SMEs add value in all workforce management projects.
Success stories need to be promoted and by a trusted source. The Partnership for Public Service is of course a possibility. The National Academy of Public Administration is another possibility. The purpose is one that a foundation might fund. Promoting best practices along with the strategies that support the changes benefits everyone, including the public.