TOPICS
TOPICS
Agencies run by career execs get better management grades
In the days after political appointee Michael Brown resigned from his perch as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency amid questions about his qualifications, a new report from Princeton University finds that career federal managers do a better job of running their agencies than their politically appointed counterparts.
The study, from David Lewis of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, uses scores from the Bush administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool - a set of 30 questions devised to help budget examiners write formal program evaluations - to determine which managers are achieving best results. He then used biographical data on the 245 bureau chiefs graded by PART to find explanations for differences in results.
Lewis' central finding is that the politically appointed bureau chiefs "get systematically lower management grades than bureau chiefs drawn from the civil service." Two qualities among career executives chiefly account for the discrepancy, he found: more experience within the specific bureau they head, and longer tenures.
The study finds that political appointees on average have more education, more private-sector experience and more varied management experience, but that these factors do not correlate with better performance.
FEMA, Lewis writes, has an "appointee-laden management structure" that "by almost any count...has a large number of appointees for its size." His study found that in agencies run by political appointees, 10 to 33 percent of other executives are appointed, while in offices run by career officials, only 3 percent are appointees.
The PART grades managers in four areas: program purpose and design, strategic planning, program management, and results. Out of a combined possible score of 100, the study found that career managers' programs were on average five to six points higher than those run by appointees. Lewis adds that "these results may underestimate the real differential between appointees and careerists if the Bush administration evaluates programs administered by its appointees more leniently than other programs."
On the White House Web site, President Bush writes that "the success of the Bush-Cheney administration will depend on the quality appointees we choose to join us to lead this nation in the years ahead. I will look for people who are willing to work hard to do what is best for America, who examine the facts and do what is right whether or not it is popular."
Lewis, however, suggests that "one means of improving the management of federal programs is to reduce the number of appointees."
He said he used statistical controls to make up for the fact that many political appointees run programs that are larger and more expensive, therefore harder to manage. He also found that Senate-confirmed, as opposed to Senior Executive Service, appointees have lower management results.
COMMENTS
- I agree that maybe this is a "no-brainer", but it gave professionals like the ICE Special Agent in New York City a chance to sound off. I am going to copy/paste his comments and frame them...those words should be required reading in Management Classes. Until the "Great Unwashed" as Rush calls us, starts electing men/women of stature, who will advise the President to stop wasting our taxes on political appointees who cannot hit their posterior with both hands, we will have agencies RUN INTO THE GROUND. Nothing is more discouraging to someone who has put his whole career into a function, then see it taken away and given to a young Lt. who cannot yet spell "Air Force" and watch it go to heck in a handbasket. Or watch a function the BRAC 95 gave the Army go downhill and hear your requests for management support to "fix" it fall on deaf ears...because the "manager" has not a CLUE! I am glad to see for the sake of national security, that Peter Teets was followed at NRO by Dr. Donald Kerr, a career CIA Officer...now there was a fortunate accident for those of us who think that ONE 9-11 was one too many. Just watch NRO keep going strong in the direction Mr. Teets had it headed! Another example of career management is the AF General on the BRAC (Fig Newton)...too bad he was not the Chairman. Poor Illinois, they wonder WHY they lost their ANG unit...a no brainer; just look at who is their Governor and their two (Senators?). Look at Texas; the BRAC got nothing by Senator K.B. Hutchinson; she's forgotten more about Defense than "Dick Turban and his fellow Senator will ever comprehend. Statesmen/women (like Kay B. H.) and career civil servants who came up through the system, will be the salvation of this nation. GovExec.com reader Posted September 19, 2005 6:38 PM
- Sounds like a no-brainer to me, after over a quarter century of federal service. Political appointees come in with political agendas, and little or no understanding of the work performed by the agencies they manage. For instance, I was assigned to the protective detail for former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill when he first took office. After hours of escorting him to various appearances in New York City, during some down time, he asked what agency I worked for. I told him I was a special agent for the U.S. Customs Service, as was the rest of the detail. He gave me a puzzled look, and then said, "I really should find out what you guys do". I was more than a little surprised, because the Customs Service was a major law enforcement component of the Treasury Department at the time, and the new Treasury Secretary had no idea what we did. Unfortunately, this type of reaction is all too common. More often than not, political appointees take office, make a stir (and usually disrupt things considerably) before returning to lucrative jobs in the private sector, while career federal employees try to undo the mess they created, just in time for the next one to come in and stir the pot! Then they have the nerve to whine about the "sacrifice" they made for a year or two, and how they had to leave government service to afford college for their kids, etc. Give me a break! How do they think the average federal worker copes with raising a family? There HAS to be a better way, and I think the answer lies in making better use of career employees, who know what to do, and how to do it. GovExec.com reader Posted September 19, 2005 11:49 AM
- Glad someone with "credentials" is noting this. But get to the root of all this FEMA-izing. OPM has defaulted on its function of keeping government employment free of politics. Under the Republican administration the safeguards in the Federal Civil Service system have been eroded under the guise of "being free to select the best person unempeded by regulations" - what it really translates to is "being free to use the 'point system' - that is point to someone who has help in the last or upcoming political campaign" that help geing money, connections, etc and the heck with the expertise needed to run the agency effectively. Put integrity back into the Federal Civil Service system or it is going to regress to 1935 spoils system to the detriment of America. Get an OPM director who knows what their job is and not just go around demanding limousines to drive them to tour agencies but know nothing about that agency's mission and public interest. Rebecca C. Trevino Posted September 19, 2005 11:23 AM
GovExec Live!
Contemplating Retirement? Will it mean sandy beaches or a new job in the private sector? As the baby boom generation begins to approach retirement age, bringing with them a potentially soaring turnover rate, Life After Government is on the minds of many.
From 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. EST on Wed., Sept. 21, GovExec.com reporter Karen Rutzick, author of a five-part series "Life After Government" running Sept. 19-23, will take your questions and comments regarding when to retire, what to do after retirement, financial concerns and the big picture for federal retirement trends. You can submit your questions early or during the live online discussion.
