Presidential Management Interns Respond

VIEWPOINT

Presidential Management Interns Respond

Editor's Note: Gambrill Hollister, Amanda Rennert and Kathleen Somers, presidential management interns at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wrote the following in response to "Looking for Leaders," an article by Eric Yoder in the November 1997 issue of Government Executive on the PMI program.

e are incoming members of the Presidential Management Intern (PMI) program, part of the largest and most academically diverse group selected to date. Eric Yoder's article accurately describes some of the changes in the program since its inception 20 years ago, but he presents a limited view of the importance and nature of these changes.

Many people have commented on the revised, six-month application process, noting that formal essays are not required on the application and that nearly all applicants are invited to the assessment center. The revised application process is less time-consuming for applicants and reviewers at the first stage of evaluations, allowing computers to handle the first level of applications. The new process also focuses the application more on the assessment center, requiring PMI applicants to demonstrate talents that are needed in today's government such as interpersonal, decision-making, analytical, communication and writing skills.

Revising the application process emphasizes the government's need to hire modern federal managers who possess a different array of skills than their predecessors. The updated process, although weak in some areas and not yet perfected, comes much closer to identifying individuals with these abilities than the previous system did. The system selects, from a large pool of applicants, those with potential to enter management and leadership positions. This differentiates the PMI program from other federal training programs that might focus on scientific research or direct service delivery.

Specialist vs. Generalist

With other changes in government such as the flattening of organizational charts, a federal manager with a formal background in a specific discipline such as forestry, public health or computer science may communicate more effectively and efficiently with those on the front lines. Moreover, these managers may be more likely than generalist managers to develop innovative, cost-saving measures because of their specialized understanding and experiences.

On the other hand, the line between specialist and generalist is blurring. In many quality graduate programs, students on a specialty track are taught management or policy analysis while some on the management track are offered specialty classes such as water-quality management. The complex issues confronting the nation require that all public servants collaborate and communicate effectively on a variety of topics. PMI founder Alan "Scotty" Campbell wondered whether "outstanding graduates of chemistry, forestry, or whatever should be selected for careers essentially headed for management." In an ever-changing environment in which specific technical skills and knowledge will often determine the difference between a right decision and a wrong one, the answer seems quite obvious.

Like Campbell, Anita Alpern, an American University professor who was quoted in the article, appears to believe that only people from schools of public administration are "potential future leaders." She fears that bringing people into the program from schools outside public administration threatens to "destroy the initial objective for the government of the future, by opening it up to anyone and everyone." Isn't that what this country is all about? Not only are Alpern's comments dated, they border on absurd. While some individuals are predisposed to becoming managers, most people learn how to become managers through specialized training, such as the PMI program. Though a master's degree in public administration is one avenue to leadership, it is certainly not the only one.

Effective Recruitment Tool?

Yoder raises the question of whether the PMI program should be a recruitment tool or a management development program. The Office of Personnel Management says it is both. As new presidential management interns, we agree and wonder why Alpern does not. If the PMI program is not responding to the recruiting needs of an agency, does the government really need PMIs at all? If the program were simply an educational experience with no benefit to agencies, it is doubtful that PMIs would find fulfillment or wish to remain in federal service. Most people who enter a career in public service do so because they possess a desire and the skills to serve.

We support OPM officials who are working to make sure applicants know what jobs are available. We suggest that OPM encourage agencies to re-evaluate the role of the PMI program within their organization and consider opening up positions that are closed to PMIs. There is room to enrich the federal government in various arenas-many of which require management expertise as well as technical knowledge. Given that this class is older than previous PMI cohorts, many participants bring work experience and management knowledge, as well as specialized degrees, to the internship.

As graduates of diverse programs such as economics, marine biology, accounting, public health, law and public administration, we are fortunate to be a part of such an innovative program. The PMI program should concentrate on what it has, rather than what it does not have, and embrace the diversity of its interns. OPM has offered agencies the best bang for their buck and an opportunity to utilize PMIs' varied skills.