GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Poor performance leads to budget cuts at some agencies

• 761
  

  I've appreciated the coverage GovExec has given to the discussion on performance. As I progressed through this story, a few points came up that I would like to address - with a view to provoke a look at the issue from a different angle. As government executives have moved toward accomplishing the current administration's management agenda, your journal and a few others are in a unique position to provide more pointed stories on the challenges they face.

  One aspect of performance management needing much more attention in the literature (not least, in practice) is the culture of any given agency and the mindset of its employees. Our society cultivates good managers. However, it cultivates far better specialists and technicians. There is much room for improvement on the management side when it comes to managing and changing cultures. In the Defense Department, the military leadership is successful in creating a "volunteer mindset" in its ranks, which contrasts sharply with what some have called an "entitlement mindset" seen so often in the civilian ranks.

  This is the challenge civilian Marines face. Perhaps as much or more than any other agency, the Marine Corps is gaining on the analytics. The financial management community has what it calls a real time data capability at its disposal. If used effectively, this capability will be a determining factor in the USMC's effort to transform the way installation managers do business. The problem is the veracity of the data, which in large part is determined by the quality of the employees in charge of collecting, culling and analyzing that data. Some managers will say it's a matter of training. In the trenches - where I happen to be - I have observed that we spend a great amount of time and money on developing our military members and civilian employees. What is missing in the civilian ranks is the energy, motivation and work ethic to make the management reform initiatives meaningful. My civilian colleagues and I share anecdotes every day that confirm this.

  This wouldn't be a good message without a bottom line or three: Government executives and especially managers at the field activity level need to take back their right to manage. Corporate America, for the most part, is doing a better job at being efficient and keeping their arms around their operations because they employ innovative practices that foster productive cultures. Our leaders must aggressively develop their own practices and must guard against a tendency to fall back on "sound-bite" understandings, fashionable business panaceas, and false claims of efficiency. They must roll up their sleeves and confront the ineffective elements of their own cultures openly and honestly.

  The next step will be to challenge the veracity of data in an environment where there is strong incentive to pad budget requests by inflating expenditures. Only then can an agency get an accurate "as-is" picture on which it can assess its performance and make good management decisions. Until this happens, any decision by the Bush administration - or any administration - to increase or decrease funding to an agency will amount to arbitrary and capricious management and could have ungovernable and confusing consequences. At best, it will just shock agencies that happen to be on the short end of the stick and make a false example of them. Bad leadership, by any example.

  Having said all that, this administration has added to the effort which began before GPRA that I hope and trust will be positive in the long run. Ironic given what is written above, but no paradox by any performing measure.

  Anonymous Posted June 16, 2003 1:28 PM
• 91
  

  Enjoyed the article. Can't help but wonder if anything will come of the initiative with the world situation being what it is these days. We do lots of work for the feds, and agencies have ways of manipulating data to get almost any result they want, i.e, see the A-76 debacle. It is mired in so much rhetoric that agencies will fight for years to retain staffs instead of outsourcing work to those organizations who can do it more efficiently and cost effectively.

  Anonymous Posted February 25, 2003 11:22 PM
• 90
  

  A key factor of performance management needing much more attention in the literature (not least, in practice) is the culture of an agency and the mindset of its employees. Our society cultivates good managers. It cultivates better specialists and technicians. There is much room for improvement on the management side when it comes to managing and changing cultures. In the Department of Defense, military leadership is successful in creating a "volunteer mindset" in its ranks, which contrasts sharply with what some have called an "entitlement mindset" seen so often in the civilian ranks.

  Some managers will say it's a matter of training. In the trenches - where I sit - I have observed that we spend a great amount of time and money on developing our military and civilian personnel. What managers need to cultivate in the civilian ranks is enthusiasm, a sense of mission, and a strong teamwork ethic. Until this process begins, any management reform initiative will at best have spotty success. Some of my civilian counterparts and I share anecdotes every day that confirm this. Managers need to develop effective media in which they can convey the vision and mission of their organization - media in which character assessment and development are intrinsic to broader management strategy.

  Government executives and especially managers at the field activity level need to take back their right to manage. Corporate America is doing a better job at being efficient because they innovate in ways that cultivate productive cultures. Our leaders and managers must aggressively develop their own innovative practices in very constrained regulatory environments. When pressed by their leaders for positive results, they must guard against the tendency to fall back on "sound-bite" understandings, fashionable business panaceas, and exaggerated claims of efficiency. They must roll up their sleeves and confront the ineffective elements of their own cultures, openly and honestly. They can start by positively (or perhaps negatively) influencing undesired behavior and by weeding out inefficient and illegal practices. This will require a very personal and unprecedented commitment from the manager to match the unprecedented challenge of currently mandated reforms.

  The next step will be to challenge the veracity of performance data in an environment where there is a systemic incentive to pad budget requests with exaggerated program requirements. Only then will an agency get an accurate "as-is" picture on which it can assess its performance and make sound management decisions. Until this happens, any decision by the Bush administration - indeed, any administration - to increase or decrease funding to an agency based on performance measures will appear arbitrary and capricious.

  1stLt Schneider, J. R. USMC Posted February 25, 2003 11:20 PM
• 89
  

  Why aren't the "poor performers" held accountable? Why the entire agency?

  The poor performance comes from poor management. But the managers are never held accountable for their incompetence. The agencies have a job to do and the taxpayers need the services provided by the agencies. Cutting the budgets only hurt the taxpayers.

  There are problems at all the agencies and have been for years. The problem is poor management. If the president wants better performance from the agencies all he needs to do is replace the managers.

  Anonymous Posted February 25, 2003 11:15 PM