Government Executive - Authors - Alan P. Balutis

Let's play a drinking game

Alan P. Balutis — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:17:00 -0500

At a recent conference focused on “reimagining government” a panel member suggested that whenever a certain term/phrase was used, we ought to all have a drink. And then we’d all be drunk by 10 a.m. (the panel has started at 8:30 a.m.). That term or phrase might well have been Americans’ declining trust in government. It’s well known, and much discussed these days, that Americans’ trust in government is a quarter of what it was in the 1960’s.

Just look at recent reports from the Pew Research Center. Pew began asking about this issue almost 70 years ago – in 1958, during the Eisenhower Administration (Richard Nixon was Eisenhower’s vice president). Then, 73% of Americans and majorities from both parties said they trusted the government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time”. Trust peaked at 77% in 1964, shortly after Lyndon Johnson became president after the assassination of John Kennedy.

And then Johnson declined to run in 1968, both Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated in 1968, the Watergate break-in occurred in 1972 and Nixon was nearly impeached and then resigned in 1974. By the end of that year, after Nixon had flown off to exile in San Clemente, California, just 36% of Americans said they trusted their government. Garrett M. Graff, author of the book “Watergate: A New History”, describes Watergate as a dividing line in history: “The Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers and Watergate ... fundamentally rewrote the relationship between the American people and their government and caused a collapse in the public’s faith in those institutions that our nation’s leaders are still struggling with today.” Recent reports released by Pew (Dec. 4, 2025) show that today 17% of Americans say they trust their government to do the right thing all or most of the time.

Democracy’s foundation is built on trust. But alarms are being sounded by multiple good government groups and leaders about the decline in trust. How can we explain such a decline? And how concerned should we be about it? What should be done to rebuild and restore trust? Let’s explore these topics a bit more.

Other venerable polling organizations have reported similar disturbing trends. In July, Gallup reported that just 27% of Americans expressed confidence in their institutions – the lowest level of trust since the questions were first asked over 50 years ago. And that lack of confidence was widespread. Just 7% have confidence in the legislature. A tad over 20% in the presidency. Just 25% in the Supreme Court – and dropping. And not just government institutions. Just 11% of Americans have confidence in television news; 16% in newspapers. So the problem exists across the board – not just with Congress, the presidency and our high court, but also with the military, business, police, media, churches, schools and more – 14 institutions in all. The average confidence level (27%, as noted above) has declined from 46% in 1989. Americans also reported having more animosity towards one another than they used to.

Political scientists Nathan Kalmoe and Liliana Mason, based on their research, found that nearly half of registered voters think that the opposing party is not just bad but “downright evil”. Nearly a quarter concur that, if that party’s members are “going to behave badly, they should be treated like animals”. So when we have conversations about the declining trust in government, it is probably important to note that the issue of “trust” is NOT reserved for JUST government. Levels of trust in this country – in our institutions, in our politics and in one another – are ALL in decline. And while opinions of individual institutions do vary among groups, the overall distrust of institutions is universal, with little variation by gender, age, race, education or even party.

Are these findings of mistrust distinctly American? Idrees Kahloon, in an excellent New Yorker article, points to The World Values Survey that has asked residents in scores of countries about their beliefs for the last 40 or so years. The most recent data shows that Americans have a bit less trust in one another than the Germans do, but a bit more than the Japanese and South Koreans do. Kahloom notes, “As low as Americans belief in government can seem, it is exactly as predicted by this global trend line”.

So the United States in not unique. Nor is the decline in trust confined to government alone, as noted. Nonetheless, any explanation on our country’s decline in trust over time? Answers are hard to come by, but Benjamin Ho, a professor at Vassar, offers some options in “Why Trust Matters”. One factor may be economic stagnation. Social scientists tell us that 90% of Americans born in 1940 could expect to make more than their parents; for those born in the 1980’s, the rate has dropped to only 50%. It’s likely even lower for those born in 2000.

Another factor identified by Professor Ho is an increase in ethnic diversity – the prospect of a nonwhite majority in the U.S. may be intensifying tribalism. And technology has made it easier for media outlets to cater to niche audiences, for listeners/viewers to place more trust in news and news sources that confirm what they already think or already “know”. In a recent article, Rutgers professor Stuart Shapiro looks at how criticism of government and bureaucrat bashing by presidents and presidential candidates since 1960 may likely have affected trust in government.

But perhaps we should ask how trustworthy our indicators of trust are today. The partisan rancor that is so common now actually makes it much harder to measure trust. Survey questions that have been part of research studies for decades (e.g., an approval rating of the president or the Congress) seem much less useful nowadays when public sentiment hinges almost entirely on partisanship.

And technology may be playing a role as well. Author Rachel Botsman argues that advances in IT have created a new paradigm – that of “distributed trust”. In “Who Can You Trust?”, she suggests that the old hierarchical model in which trust was transmitted from institution to individual – think the earlier media days: CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite (as opposed to the 2026 CBS Evening News with Tony Dokoupil) – has been replaced by a lateral model in which trust flows from individual to individual.

Finally, the philosopher C. Thi Nguyen raises some interesting arguments in his new book “THE SCORE: How to Stop Playing Somebody Else’s Game”. We lose so much when we demand measurability of things that are difficult to measure, such as trust. Indeed, some metrics can be so distortive that they tempt us to care about “what’s easy to measure” (i.e., Do you trust the government in Washington to do what is right….?) than what is truly important (how is government performing/serving).

So what can we learn from the varied research on declining trust in government and the many panel discussions on how it might be restored? First, while there are many good reasons to make government work better and to focus on improving service to citizens – and we should most certainly continue to strive to do so – there isn’t much evidence that we should count on any of these initiatives to change the decline noted by Pew and Gallup.

For the reasons noted above, I’d argue that today this indicator is outdated and flawed. What to look to instead? I’d suggest we turn to the American Customer Satisfaction Index – satisfaction ratings meant to serve as a cross-industry metric of how customers rate the quality of products and services in the United States based on a survey of about 7,000 people over the course of the year. Interestingly, citizen satisfaction with the federal government was on the rise according to ASCI findings released in November 2025. This is in spite of government layoffs and the work of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The results put satisfaction with federal government services at 70.4 (out of 100), which was a 19-year high. The report points to a renewed focus on citizen services under the President’s Management Agenda(s) and the power of new technologies as driving forces for the rise. Nextgov/FCW's Natalie Alms wrote an excellent piece on the report on Nov. 18, 2025.

So do we Americans really want good government? The muckraker Lincoln Steffens posed that question in McClure’s magazine in 1903. It appears we do. Presidents from Ronald Reagan, with his Reform ‘88 initiative, through the Clinton/Gore Reinventing Government, to the time when we expect a President’s Management Agenda to be part of the annual budget request to the Congress all demonstrate our leaders recognize and are responding to that desire. But as Steffens went on to ask “Do we know it when we see it?” That remains to be answered. In the meantime, good government conferences and panel discussions will continue until trust improves.

]]>

The High Cost of Leaving Key Federal Management Jobs Unfilled

Alan P. Balutis — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:27:24 -0400

In late June, Government Executive reported that the Biden administration was moving forward on its management priorities despite key vacancies at the Office of Management and Budget and elsewhere in government. OMB Deputy Director for Management Jason Miller said, “the administration is already full speed ahead on implementing ambitious actions towards a more effective, equitable and accountable government that delivers results for all Americans.”

On July 10, the Washington Post picked up on that theme, looking a bit more broadly than just at OMB, which still lacks a director, a head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an administrator of federal procurement policy and a chief financial officer. Their focus was on positions that have direct involvement in crisis areas that the president prioritized at the start of his administration—the pandemic, the economy, climate change and racial inequity.

The article listed a host of key jobs that remained unfilled, including the head of the Food and Drug Administration, the solicitor general at the Justice Department, a seat on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the comptroller of the currency, the assistant attorney general for antitrust, and the chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

So where are we now? As they used to say in fundraising telethons,, "Let's go to the big board." The Partnership for Public Service is tracking 796 government positions among about 1,200 that require Senate confirmation. As of July 28, 100 had been confirmed, 14 picks were awaiting formal nomination, 184 nominations were being considered by the Senate, and 274 positions had no Biden nominee.

The Partnership also has identified 228 appointees so far who are serving in term appointments or were held over from previous administrations. Many of the latter are career foreign service officers at the State Department serving as ambassadors in smaller nations around the world.

Let's take a more detailed look at the management cadre within the ranks of the still-unfilled positions.

Of the 184 nominees being considered by the Senate, I found 32 that I would characterize as being in management roles—chief operating and financial officers, inspectors general, general counsels and those in charge of policy, planning, evaluation, acquisition, installations, logistics, human resources, and so on. That’s 17 percent of the openings. Ten general counsel positions are open and six financial management ones. Of the 274 jobs still lacking a nominee, 48 are management roles—also about 17 percent. Of the positions awaiting formal nomination, one is in the management arena: the assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics in the Air Force.

At the pace the administration and the Senate are moving, and with so many issues on the legislative agenda well into the fall, we may be seeing some presidential appointees just coming into their jobs in 2022, even as some of the very first Biden appointees start to leave. The average tenure of a Senate-confirmed appointee is 18 to 22 months.

Why should we care about this situation? Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, has compared acting officials in appointed positions to substitute teachers. Even if they’re good at their jobs, it’s hard for them to implement far-reaching changes or strategies.

The government faces a number of hard challenges in the management arena—aging information technology infrastructures, legacy systems, workforce shortages, skills gaps, and more. Who will fix them? The Biden administration has laid out an ambitious policy agenda. Who will implement it? The elections in 2022 and 2024 will turn in part on how well policies and programs are working—how legislation has been turned into actions that make life better for Americans. Can so many substitute teachers come through in our increasingly unruly classrooms?

Management matters—for the American people and for political decision-makers. We need to find a solution to close the gap between when a president is sworn in and when they are able to get a full team in place. That may require some streamlining of the appointments, making fewer positions Senate-confirmed, or some combination of both. It makes little sense to continue down the current path.

]]>

Ditch the Massive Three-Ring Binders Full of Charts

Alan P. Balutis — Fri, 08 Jan 2021 16:53:24 -0500

Presidential transitions don’t begin when the election ends or a losing candidate concedes. They start months earlier (at least under ordinary circumstances). Nor do they end with the inauguration of a new president.

Particularly for career federal employees, the real work starts when a new president and his team take charge and begin the process of learning how things really work and communicating their own priorities. It can be a delicate dance.

In 2008, Alan Balutis, a former federal executive with more than 30 years of government experience who is now senior director and distinguished fellow at Cisco Systems Public Sector, compiled a series of articles with advice for federal managers and executives on dealing with a new administration. They have stood the test of time, so we present them again as the Biden administration prepares to take over the reins of government.

Do’s and Dont’s

Top tips for career managers on working with the new administration.

Mars and Venus

A former career executive advises current advises current execs on successfully courting political appointees.

Two Schools of Thought

What incoming political appointees are thinking—and what should be on the minds of career executives.

What Appointees Want

Advice from a veteran of government service who served two stints as a political appointee.

]]>

When It’s Time for You to Go

Alan P. Balutis and Pete Tseronis — Mon, 05 Aug 2019 09:00:00 -0400

The decision to leave public service can be a difficult one. You took an oath to serve. You honored that oath. You lost weekends and holidays to the demands of the job. You endured shutdowns. You made many friends along the way, working on issues vital to the nation’s health and safety. And every two weeks, your check has been deposited into your bank account. You’ve had life insurance, disability protection, health care coverage, annual vacation time, sick leave. Perhaps you’ve taken some of these things for granted—not everyone in the private sector receives such benefits. But something has changed. You’re reconsidering your career prospects. What should you do next?

We know what you’re experiencing—we’ve been there. We overlapped for a time in government and have maintained a personal and professional relationship, based on mutual respect, over many years now. While we took different paths after we left public service, we share similar views about what federal executives should consider as they eye retirement or just moving on from government service.

Both of us have been surprised to see “govies” who have worked for years in high-pressure, demanding jobs leave their government job on a Friday and begin working in a new private sector role on Monday. We have some advice for you.

Lesson No. 1: Plan to take some time off. Relax. Do some of those things you’ve put off. Enjoy yourself. Decompress and think about some of those options you considered before you left government. Even better, before you leave government or commit to something new, think seriously about what you really want out of this upcoming adventure. Your work in government probably gave you exceptional experiences, lessons, managerial insights, and entrepreneurial opportunities. You have so much more to offer than your Rolodex.

Lesson No. 2: Start this process while you are still in government. Do your research. Learn how companies operate. Where would you best fit, both organizationally and culturally? Companies have their own cultures, just as government agencies do. Where would you be most comfortable? Meet with some friends or colleagues from industry that you know and respect—not to talk about specific opportunities, but rather fit, process, what to do and not do, and who else it might be wise to speak with. It is important that you understand you are interviewing your next employer at the same time they are interviewing you. You bring value, insights, wisdom, experience, a knowledge of the inner-workings of government. These are unique capabilities—your ace in the hole—and they differentiate you from others.

Lesson No. 3: It’s not enough to know what you don’t want to do. So often, when we’ve asked about plans after leaving government, we hear “I don’t want to be in business development! I don’t want to be a door opener.” Business development is so much more than that. But regardless, one needs to be able to articulate clearly and directly “This is what I’m interested in and here’s what value I could add.” It is paramount that you can summarize your many years in government in a succinct way, that you can tell a story. But it is equally important that you can say what you want to do—and be—next. Know your value, how to express it and how it aligns with the mission and business strategy of the company you are meeting with.

Lesson No. 4: Begin with the right questions. Sit down and start the winnowing process. Do you want to work full-time or part-time? Big company or small? One of us used to joke that if he wanted to work in a big company, he would have just stayed in government. It is after all, the Fortune One Firm. Would you prefer a non-profit, a university, a think tank, or an industry association? We’re not trying to compile a complete list, only enough to get you started. One of the former colleagues we saw make the happiest transition cobbled together a mix of consulting roles that would pay the rent with volunteer positions that gave him personal satisfaction. Everyone’s situation is different. You now have a rare opportunity to decide who you want to work with, how you want to work and where you want to work. You are a sought-after commodity, with valuable knowledge and insight about how government works, how to get things done. Study how all this might benefit an organization you would value.

Lesson No. 5: Security comes from you, not from the job. Leaving public service and joining a firm provides a degree of assurance and a sense of security. Paychecks come regularly, the benefits can be generous. But don’t rule out striking out on your own. Believe in your talents, connections, and abilities. Talk to a financial advisor, a tax accountant. While the process of weighing all these options might feel overwhelming, just remember: you have options. That’s a good problem to have.

Alan P. Balutis is a senior director and distinguished fellow in Cisco Systems’ U.S. Public Sector. Pete Tseronis is founder and chief executive officer of the consulting firm Dots and Bridges.

]]>

The President’s Management Agenda Turns One

Alan P. Balutis and Terry Gerton — Wed, 20 Mar 2019 01:00:00 -0400

Today is the one-year anniversary of the Trump Administration’s president’s management agenda. While this milestone may not be celebrated with cake and balloons, it is nonetheless important to recognize the progress that has been made over the past 12 months.

The eagerly-awaited Trump PMA was met with both surprise and admiration by good-government mavens. Many gave credit for sustaining protocols that had been established in previous administrations, suggesting that this would enable good management practices to continue and improve without major disruption. Others praised the PMA’s tight focus on people, data and IT modernization. The assignment of specific names and organizations to each cross-agency performance goal and quarterly online progress updates were welcome efforts at transparency and accountability. Most welcome, however, was the emphasis on the end goal – improved government service to citizens.

Since the PMA’s release, prominent federal leaders have spoken frequently about efforts to turn the agenda into reality. It is certainly important to understand how current leaders are approaching the implementation of the PMA. But it is equally important to understand from those who have seen PMAs come and go what lessons might be applied to avoid pitfalls, shorten implementation cycles, and increase institutionalization of goals and processes. In short, to understand what might increase the likelihood of the PMA’s long-term success.

Working with government agencies at every level across the country, the National Academy of Public Administration and its distinguished fellows have developed valuable insights and expertise in effective, innovative and transformational management strategies. The academy today released a collection of essays on the PMA by some of our fellows, featuring their perspectives on how this president’s management agenda compares to its predecessors and what the Trump administration might do in the coming years to ensure its sustained progress.

As Office of Personnel Management Acting Director Margaret Weichert notes in the book’s foreword:

“We face an urgent call to action to improve and modernize our federal government, so that it better lives up to the expectations of the American people . . . the PMA represents the starting point for aligning federal government resources with the leading practices of the private sector, academia and the ‘good government community’ . . . this volume is a promising contribution to the bipartisan spirit of support that will be central to translating government reform and modernization ideas into action.”

In the book, academy fellows examine each of the PMA’s focus areas, looking in detail at workforce modernization strategies; opportunities to improve acquisition and management of the contractor workforce; innovation in local governments that might be incorporated at the federal level; improvements in customer experience through transformed delivery of government services; and new ways to incorporate technology to improve how government does its business. The essayists also examine the critical role program evaluation and data can play in improving program management, employee engagement and organizational health.

Not surprisingly, change has occurred since these essays were written and the Trump administration is making progress along the lines recommended by some of the authors. For example, we’ve seen new legislation enacted, including the 2018 Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, that advances the data agenda. We also have seen a presidential executive order that adds impetus to the application of artificial intelligence to government functions.

We are pleased that the President’s proposed budget for 2020 includes a number of proposals that address specific aspects of the PMA, including increasing the Technology Modernization Fund to $150 million, establishing a U.S. Federal Data Service, and directing agencies to establish multi-year learning agendas to strategically plan their evidence-building activities. But like many other evaluations of government programs, we find that while progress has been made, much remains to be done.

Many of the PMA goals focus on processes internal to the federal government. However, the government is seldom the only agent in the delivery chain. The academy’s recommendations address our concern that agencies must involve all the participants in that value chain, including state and local governments, contractors, non-profit organizations and customers, in developing process improvements and measuring success.

For example, we suggest that federal agencies explicitly engage industry experts to increase access to the latest innovations in processes and technology. We recommend a dramatically increased focus on customer experience as a measure of success and trust. And we suggest establishing and elevating performance measures for every aspect of contract and grant management to help ensure that the government gets the very best value for its spending.

Our intent is not to critique, but to advise, and to identify opportunities for improvement in both approach and program that can lead to better outcomes from the worthy initiatives included in the Trump PMA. If we are successful, we will have advanced the academy’s vision of “a government that works, and works for all.” The practices, prophecies and proposed improvements contained in these essays seek to contribute to the management agenda. President Trump has the opportunity to set policy that improves government operations and execution. This special volume from the academy outlines how it can be done.

Ms. Gerton is the President and CEO of the National Academy of Public Administration. Mr. Balutis, an Academy Fellow, is a Distinguished Fellow and Senior Director, North American Public Sector for Cisco Systems’ Business Solutions Group. He organized and edited the collection of PMA essays.

]]>

10 Things to Know About Government Reorganizations

Alan P. Balutis — Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:00:00 -0500

I have had a long and somewhat checkered career in public service. Among the things that stand out to me are the research and work I’ve done related to government reorganizations. I was involved in creating two new agencies, abolishing two others, and moving an agency from one Cabinet department to another.

While much has been written about the topic in general, a search for information about the effects of reorganizations is an unrewarding task. Almost no one has asked the question: What difference have past reorganization plans and executive orders made? How have they been implemented and with what results?

Here’s what we do know:

1. Reorganization is not a cure-all. At times, a careful analysis would have shown that a problem is caused more by faulty processes, a poorly trained workforce, or weak leadership than by the structure. Maybe the cause is a combination of the three. Success with large-scale reorganizations depends on the extent to which all three of these basic elements are addressed in tandem.

2. Lift the veil of secrecy quickly. Reorganization plans often need to be crafted relatively secretly, to ensure ideas don’t emerge stillborn. But once released, the circle should be expanded quickly to engage employees, unions, key stakeholders, substantive congressional players (not simply the government operations committees), and so on.

3. Reorganizations are often overhyped. Reorganizations are usually “designed” to simplify and streamline, bring about greater efficiency and economy, eliminate fragmentation, and so on. These goals are consistent with traditional public administration doctrine and characteristic of what Harold Seidman regarded as “administrative orthodox.” But it will be difficult, if not impossible, to measure success in terms of such proverbs or organizational platitudes.

4. There’s savings! What savings? Reorganizations always are justified in terms of a traditional public administration doctrine: economy and efficiency. But tracking agency savings, as almost any seasoned budget officer would tell you, is dealing with funny money. Most reorganization assessments have verified Rufus Miles’ assertion that savings, as a ground for a major reorganization, is a will-o’-the-wisp.

5. Implementation doesn’t follow automatically after policy formulation. Results will deviate from expectations. Any reorganized agency undertakes a heavy load of bureaucratic activities—budget, finance, grants, personnel, acquisition, security, real and personal property, and other administrative services. The magnitude of these endeavors can only be understood by someone familiar with the complexity and arduousness of federal management systems. But implementation often seems the missing link in reorganization.

6. Reorganizations have traumatic effects. Related to the above, serious concern with implementation is typically too little and too late. Enormous attention is devoted to analyzing and deciding what changes should be made. The problem of getting from here to there is addressed only belatedly. Government reorganizers must pay special attention to the problems that can be caused by excessive tinkering, Miles has noted:

“Traumatic reorganizations may be analogized to surgical operations. It is important that their purposes be carefully assessed and a thoughtful judgement reached that the wielding of the surgical knife is going to achieve a purpose that, after a period of recuperation, will be worth the trauma inflicted. And the surgical knife should not be wielded again and again before the healing process from earlier incisions has been completed.”

7. Measure twice, cut once. The executive and legislative branches need to strike the right balance: a high-level blueprint, same flexibilities for the new leadership team to work out the details, engagement of empowered career executives as “co-owners,” with specifics on critical administrative authorities. It is important to get the newly created entity off on the right foot.

8. The “soft” stuff often turns out to be the hard stuff. This ties back to my earlier points that reorganizations often are driven by hard-nosed finance and budget types who want to focus on “savings” and capture those up front. I was one of them when I was in government. But when you are phasing out programs and processes and standing up new ones—in effect, running them in parallel—costs will increase for a short transitional time before they level out. If one tries to make cuts then, programs are disrupted, services suffer, employees and customers are dissatisfied, and the reorganization falls under additional scrutiny and criticism. So patience, avoiding the thirst for instant gratification, treating employees properly, putting customer service at the forefront, all these “soft things” often have the larger impact on ultimate success and hence the bottom line.

9. If you do it, do it right. That encompasses all the points I’ve made earlier about the importance of implementation, but also includes using a reorganization to re-engineer, to rethink the field structure, and to use technology to transform the way one does business.

10. Finally, build a 21st century government. In his State of the Union address in January 2011, then-President Obama noted, “we cannot win the future with a government of the past.” Months later, he proposed a 1950’s or 60’s box shuffling trade reorganization “designed to eliminate government redundancies and consolidate overlapping functions.” Instead, as Chris Mihm of the Government Accountability Office has argued: “Federal reorganization should be more focused on creating and sustaining what has been referred to as ‘virtual organizations’ that use collaborative mechanisms to knit together various related programs and efforts that cut across federal agencies, levels of government, and even sectors.”

Alan P. Balutis is a senior director and distinguished fellow in Cisco Systems’ U.S. Public Sector.

]]>

The Path to Better Management of Government’s Huge Programs

Alan P. Balutis, Dan Chenok, Jim Williams, Greg Giddens, and Stan Soloway — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 15:14:23 -0400

With the enactment of the Program Management Improvement and Accountability Act late last year, the federal government has the opportunity and mandate to address two long-standing challenges: delivering successfully on large-scale change initiatives and addressing the dearth of well-qualified program managers across executive branch agencies. For a government that operates through the execution of programs -- many of them large and complex -- such gaps represent enormous risk.

Even in a modular, agile world, the role of program managers remains essential, because change initiatives are more likely to cross multiple organizations. After all, the federal government manages more than $3 trillion in annual budgets and hundreds of huge programs critical to the nation and its citizens.

But the federal landscape remains littered with what Peat-Marwick once dubbed “runaway systems” -- projects that are over budget, behind schedule and failing to deliver promised benefits and functionality. Thanks to the PMIAA, the Office of Management and Budget now has the responsibility to implement a set of policies to improve program management in government. As the Trump administration takes shape, OMB should leverage this opportunity to increase the probability of successfully delivering on its initiatives.

About a decade ago, the five authors of this article began meeting as a group over breakfast (with the self-imposed moniker the “Breakfast Club”) to discuss the need for better program management. We all have served, or currently serve, in senior government management positions. Our focus then and now has been on mission outcomes and results. We believe results begin with effective management, which is built on a legacy of successful practices often referred to as portfolio, program or project management.

We came at the issue with the shared conviction that the dynamics of the environment demanded aggressive steps to modernize the government’s human capital structure and processes. Nowhere is this truer than program management. Almost eight years ago, we set out our thoughts in a paper, issued under the auspices of the then-Council for Excellence in Government, that outlined a set of steps essential to the performance improvement and results American taxpayers expect.

Of course, some things have changed since then. The pace of technology is more rapid today. Government, like the commercial sector, has changed its approach to the concept of programs, shifting to a model in which modular steps and agile processes have largely displaced traditional, large-scale “waterfall” strategies. Still, the need for strong program management skills remains central to success.

With the passage of PMIAA, a key step has been taken: recognition of program management, and the unique skills that comprise it, as a distinct career field. For our initial paper, we were able to document through survey research and focus groups that far too many agency program managers actually had little to no training in the skill sets of program management. As we noted at the time, “outside of the Department of Defense and a few civilian agencies, program management is not ‘institutionalized’ as an established management discipline.”

In the intervening years, some progress has been made, and the recently enacted legislation represents another significant step. But as OMB implements the current statute, several additional measures should be taken to make the objectives of the legislation a reality.

First, we believe there needs to a clear line of leadership. Program management is a core component of agency success and should be treated and embraced as such. Leaders -- including program managers, acquisition executives, chief information officers and heads of other key stakeholder groups -- should be held jointly accountable for success based on a common set of measures.

Second, we need to establish clarity of responsibility and accountability for the delivery of program results. The program manager should be the tip of the spear, with both the authority to make decisions and the responsibility for program outcomes. Today, lines of authority and accountability are far too often blurred or nonexistent. Having a consistent measuring system for large programs, linked to governance, is essential in every agency and should be viewed as such by agency leaders.

Third, with the establishment under PMIAA of the program management career field, we must move quickly to design and implement a consistent training and professional development process for program managers, as well as a clear and contemporary set of requirements for hiring them. We should foster the kind of cross-functional and cross-sector training and development that is the norm in the commercial sector.

Change management, a skill critical to driving success in managing complex programs involving multiple stakeholders, should be a key element of this curriculum. Other components of training can be found in industry best practice documents, such as the 7-S for Success framework for information technology programs released by the American Council for Technology/Industry Advisory Council.

Fourth, to help program managers continue to grow and learn, OMB should ensure that the Program Management Policy Council created by the statute is set up effectively. Through such a forum, program managers can share best practices, develop and pursue new ideas and collaborate with other functional leaders. Creating a community around a culture of strong program management is an integral part of building capacity. Moreover, the council, chaired by the deputy director of OMB for management, should meet regularly with top agency and administration officials, as well as other functional leadership councils, to review program progress, identify potential fixes for ongoing problems and gain broader insights.

With these building blocks in place, agencies can zero in on what is most important: performance. Programs fail for many reasons, including inadequate governance, meaningless metrics, and insufficient capacity for or willingness to change. Strong program management can help overcome each of those barriers; without it, they are likely to endure.

PMIAA provides critical fuel for a vital mission. Now it’s up to all of us to build the high-performance engine that will use that fuel to drive us forward.

Alan Balutis is a distinguished fellow and senior director, North American Public Sector, for Cisco Systems’ Business Solutions Group. Dan Chenok is executive director of the IBM Center for the Business of Government. Greg Giddens is executive director of the Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction at the Veterans Affairs Department. Stan Soloway is president and CEO of Celero Strategies. Jim Williams is a partner at Schambach and Williams Consulting.

Photo: Flickr user markjhandel

]]>

Get Ready: Presidential Transitions Are Full of Surprises

Alan P. Balutis — Thu, 03 Nov 2016 15:26:53 -0400

In early August, shortly after the party conventions ended, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump moved their transition teams into office space near the White House. Briefing books were prepared for the teams, and both nominees began receiving intelligence reports. The search for 100 pre-cleared individuals who could move quickly into sensitive roles following the Nov. 8 election began. The General Services Administration and the Office of Management and Budget are playing the lead roles in coordinating all of this.

On Wednesday, Nov. 9, a new and different phase of the transition will begin. The pre-inauguration phase encompasses the 73 days between the election itself and Jan. 20, 2017, when the nation’s 45th president will take the oath of office. Agency-specific transition teams, or “landing teams,” will move into space around the city. Cabinet secretaries will be selected, with certain departments (Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State, etc.) at the head of the queue. And the bureaucratic march towards assuming power will begin in earnest.

Much can change during a presidential transition – people (obviously), but also priorities, policies, enterprise focus, organizational alignments, the game plan, and budget initiatives and particulars. The new administration must craft a budget for the 2018 fiscal year to present to a new Congress. And key sub-Cabinet picks will need to be designated.

The New Yorker reported late last month that Trump aides are organizing what someone close to the campaign calls the First Day Project: “We want to identify maybe 25 executive orders that Trump could sign literally the first day in office.” Trump’s transition team is also reported to be identifying executive orders issued by President Obama that can be undone in the first days as well.

On the morning of Jan. 20 the president-elect will visit President Obama at the White House for coffee, before they share a limousine ride to the Capitol for the noon inauguration. And so begins the third phase: the post-inauguration transition, which may last well into the early fall of 2017. This can be a time of surprises -- even crisis.

The Partnership for Public Service and others have noted that the first 270 days of an administration can bring major challenges. Just look at this partial list of presidents and what they confronted shortly after taking office:

John F. Kennedy – Bay of Pigs
Lyndon Johnson – Gulf of Tonkin incident
Ronald Reagan – Assassination attempt
George H.W. Bush – Panama invasion
Bill Clinton – World Trade Center bombings
George W. Bush – Sept. 11 attacks

Obama’s initial years in office marked the first time in 50-plus years that no crisis marred the start of an administration (if you don’t count the financial crisis he inherited in 2008).

Other surprises can occur. In 1997, everyone expected Sam Nunn to be nominated as Secretary of Defense; instead, it was William Cohen. In 2001, Dan Coates was the anticipated nominee; instead it was Donald Rumsfeld. Expectations can clash with reality. Again at Defense, Caspar Weinberger was viewed as someone who would cut the budget; instead President Reagan increased it. A surprise choice as secretary may upend months of preparatory transition work.

Finally, the new administration will have about 1,000 senior appointee positions to fill – from tens of thousands of candidates. Due diligence is required. Job seekers need to be recruited and screened. Interviews need to be scheduled. Selectees must navigate a challenging disclosure and compliance process. And then there’s the tyranny of time:

A White House decision may take two weeks
FBI clearance will take at least 10 weeks
Ethics/financial reviews will take another two weeks
Courtesy calls and confirmation will take another three weeks

And these are optimistic estimates, applicable to those who enter the process early.

For jobs that hold special interest for federal management – the federal chief information officer and chief financial officer, the head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, the deputy director for management at OMB, GSA administrator and departmental counterparts – it will likely take much longer. It may be months before we see a quorum at any meeting of the Chief Information Officers Council or Chief Acquisition Officers Council. So be patient, and be considerate of the career officials who will be in “acting” roles. It may be summer before the new administration fields a full team and we are reviewing a new management agenda, a budget with new priorities and initiatives, and have a clear sense of what will carry over from the Obama-Biden years.

Alan Balutis is senior director and distinguished fellow at Cisco Systems’ U.S. Public Sector.

]]>

The Upcoming Presidential Transition: A Guide for Career Managers and Executives

Alan P. Balutis — Wed, 03 Aug 2016 17:10:31 -0400

The political party conventions are over and earlier this week the transition teams for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump moved into office space near the White House. Departmental briefings are underway in preparation for an orderly transfer of power to the 45th president of the United States, who will take office on Jan. 20, 2017.

Both parties are hoping for a smooth change in administrations under the Presidential Transitions Improvement Act of 2015, signed by President Obama in March, and the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010. The laws call for the current administration to begin planning for the transfer of power no later than six months prior to the swearing-in of the next president. The General Services Administration and the Office of Management and Budget play leading roles in coordinating transition briefings and logistics.

With the transition beginning to hit full stride, Government Executive is reprising a four-part guide for career managers and executives originally published in 2008. The guide was assembled by Alan Balutis, a former federal executive with more than 30 years of government experience. He guided three presidential transitions and seven secretarial transitions while serving in a senior leadership role at the Commerce Department. He also got a glimpse from the other side as a member of the Obama-Biden Technology, Innovation and Government Reform Transition Team in 2008-09.

A shortened version of this series won the H. George Frederickson Award for best article from the American Society for Public Administration in 2012. Balutis currently is senior director and distinguished fellow, U.S. public sector, at Cisco Systems.

Preparing for the Transition: A Four-Part Series

Do’s and Dont’s

Top tips for career managers working with the new administration.

Mars and Venus

A former career executive advises current advises current execs on successfully courting political appointees.

Two Schools of Thought

What incoming political appointees are thinking — and what should be on the minds of career executives.

What Appointees Want

Advice from a veteran of government service who served two stints as a political appointee.

Photo: Flickr user Dave Newman

]]>

Preparing for the Transition: What Appointees Want

Alan P. Balutis — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0500

This article has been updated.

This four-part series on preparing for the presidential transition is the result of surveys and interviews conducted by Alan Balutis, a former federal executive with more than 30 years of government experience. Balutis, who served as the Commerce Department's first chief information officer, is now a senior and distinguished fellow in U.S. public sector for Cisco Systems Inc. He also served as a member of the Technology, Innovation and Government Reform team for the Obama-Biden transition team in 2008-09.

The series ends this week with advice for career professionals from a 31-year veteran of government service, who asked to remain anonymous. This source served two stints as a political appointee, one for a Democratic president and the other for a Republican.

While career employees likely are familiar with the usual transition preparations, such as writing briefing papers and books, counseling staff members, and preparing a possible exit strategy in case the new boss is intolerable, they can take other steps.

1. Ask some hard questions about the programs you manage, such as "Why do we do it that way?" If the answer is, "Because we always have," think again. You need a better answer than that for a new appointee.

2. Try to anticipate the questions appointees might ask and have good answers ready. Good answers can and sometimes should include this type of statement: "That's the way the last administration wanted it done, but here's why I think there's a better, more effective approach." But don't say that just to dump on the previous administration and get in good with the new one. If the incoming appointees are any good, they'll despise you for that.

3. Do your homework. Review all recent criticisms of your program and organization, including outside evaluations, opposition party railings, and Government Accountability Office and Office of Management and Budget findings. Valid or not, you need to know the complaints, because your appointee has the right to expect thoughtful, professional assessments and recommendations from you. Be in a position to deliver.

4. Relax a little. This may be the most important advice. You can't control who is elected or who is appointed so don't spend too much time playing what-if games. If you can do this -- and an awful lot of Senior Executive Service members will have trouble -- you'll feel better. In the end, you also will perform better and be a more pleasant colleague and family member.

5. Always remember, your family members still matter more than almost anything that can happen at work, so don't neglect them by obsessing over what is going to happen in the office.

]]>

Preparing for the Transition: Two Schools of Thought

Alan P. Balutis — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400

This article has been updated.

This week former government executive John Marshall points out that knowing what political appointees are thinking can help with developing a plan to respond to the incoming administration. He also offers advice on what should be on the minds of career managers. Marshall was an assistant administrator for management and chief information officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development during the early years of the Bush administration. He is the founder and CEO of the Shared Services Leadership Coalition.

What political appointees are thinking:

1. Align agency policies with administration policy.

2. Coordinate with White House policy and personnel staff.

3. Determine who knows what they're doing and can get things done.

4. Find the straight shooters, who can explain things clearly and honestly.

5. Seek out the nonpartisans, who won't subvert the agenda of the new administration.

6. Administrative and information technology issues are lower priorities than policy and personnel issues.

What career managers should be thinking:

1. Change is inevitable, so embrace it, be ready for it and be confident about it. Change can bring about a chance for personal and career development.

2. First impressions count. Communicate clearly and avoid techno-speak.

3. Don't appear too personally attached to a particular initiative. When briefing political professionals, present both pros and cons in a neutral and balanced way. Let the new team decide what to do.

4. Respect roles. Be careful about proposing grand solutions, at least until you've established a trusting relationship. Career people are implementers. Let big ideas come from the political leadership.

5. Play it straight with both sides. The outgoing team might be back before you know it.

6. Avoid displays of partisanship, even if your candidates win. Practice "Don't ask, don't tell."

]]>

Preparing for the Transition: Mars and Venus

Alan P. Balutis — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400

This article has been updated.

This week Steve Dewhurst, who served as director of budget and program analysis at the Agriculture Department from 1978 to 2005, advises career executives on successfully courting political appointees.

1. Accentuate the positive. Working with political officials on important national issues is a privilege.

2. Put your best foot forward. Present yourself with a professional demeanor. Demonstrate objectivity and detachment from issues. Outline facts and minimize the use of adjectives.

3. Be patient. The most common questions from policy officials -- especially new policy officials -- are procedural in nature. Often they are encountering federal systems for the first time. You should treat these questions, no matter how basic, as important. Answers should be complete and in plain English. You will never have credibility on substantive issues until you've established credibility on process.

4. Mind your manners. Everything you do is as a representative of your organization. Do not personalize issues.

5. Listen. The purpose of the relationship is not to talk about what you want to do, but to learn and understand appointees' goals and to carry out their policies.

6. Pay attention to detail. Be precise with language and accurate with numbers. Pay attention to small issues.

7. Follow up. Don't let work assignments disappear into a black hole.

8. Anticipate needs. Policy officials appreciate staff that foresee problems and reduce their workload.

9. Show your sensitive side. Policy officials are human beings. Staff must be sensitive to their desires, moods and needs. Do not ask a tired or sick policy official to make a complicated decision.

]]>

Preparing for the Transition: Dos and Don’ts

Alan P. Balutis — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0400

This article has been updated.

In addition to his insights, Balutis has culled advice during the last two presidential transitions from political appointees and government executives, including John Marshall, a former chief information officer at the U.S. Agency for International Development; and Steve Dewhurst, former director of budget and program analysis at the Agriculture Department.

Government Executive will publish these installments on transition preparation, as well as one from an anonymous former career professional and political appointee, every Wednesday for the next three weeks. This week, Balutis presents some top tips for career managers working with the new administration.

1. Do establish a transition team and a schedule, if possible. Balance long- and short-term interests and rely on outside help to make your case, if appropriate. Make sure you play it straight with the new team. The team can prepare the new secretary and others for confirmation hearings, including an assessment of the department's strengths and weaknesses.

2. Don't give appointees' ideas short shrift with the line "We tried that five years ago." Remember that appointees are new to the process, so be supportive and responsive.

3. Do designate a departmental liaison to work with the transition team and the bureaus. Each bureau should designate a transition contact.

4. Don't forget career managers have responsibility for the stewardship of the federal government until the new political team is in place. That leadership can last up to a year after the election.

5. Do provide appointees with written and verbal guidelines on workplace issues and ethics. More than half of survey respondents did not receive an orientation from the Office of Personnel Management or Office of Government Ethics.

6. Don't overdo it. You only ratify the stereotype of a government bureaucrat when you show up for the first meeting with an armful of three-ring binders full of organizational and budget charts.

7. Do establish an agenda for the first meeting with the presidential transition team. Give detailed briefings early in the process and tailor them to an individual's experience and knowledge.

8. Don't assume that the transition team members know all the acronyms and inside-baseball government terms. Start with the absolute basics until you establish the appointees' level of understanding and degree of comfort.

9. Do try to understand the background and context of new appointees. Have they worked in government before? What do they hope to accomplish during their service?

10. Don't appear to be a back-stabber or intent on maintaining the status quo. Any bad ideas usually will fall by the wayside so don't fight appointees. Try to interact with them routinely, and to paraphrase a real estate saying, the three most important things are listen, listen, listen.

11. Do stress cooperation between political and career management to meet the goals of the secretary and the department. Almost all appointees leave government grateful for hard-working and dedicated careerists who helped them do their jobs well and kept them out of trouble. The sooner you establish that relationship of mutual trust and appreciation, the better for all.

12. Don't speak or write in bureaucratic language. One of the things appointees will look for is someone who can explain things clearly.

13. Do prepare a management pocket guide. At the Commerce Department, we created the "Management 101 Notebook," a primer on the budget, travel, procurement and hiring practices. Career personnel, when preparing materials, should step back and view their work from an outsider's perspective.

14. Don't be a "yes" person. Careerists must speak their minds as a professional, and part of your obligation is to speak truth to power. Keep in mind, though, the delivery of that message also is important.

]]>

Getting Thin the Healthy Way

Alan P. Balutis — Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:00:00 -0500

bout a year and a half ago, I had the opportunity to present a paper on downsizing at a Cutback Management Training Conference sponsored by a regional association of the American Society for Public Administration. Back then, Vice President Gore's National Performance Review was calling for a reinvented government that worked better and cost less. Reducing the size of the civilian workforce was one piece of this effort, but it wasn't viewed as an end in itself. Agencies had been assessed their share of an overall goal of cutting 272,900 federal jobs-an average of about 12 percent to be achieved over five years. The hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing were proceeding in earnest.

Oh, how the world has changed since then. Now we've lived through a budgetary train wreck, a series of partial shutdowns of the government and steep cuts in agencies' appropriations.

Human resources managers, who bemoaned the consequences of a 12 percent cut over five years, now face reductions of 15-20 percent in a single year. And me? Well, my agency, the Commerce Department, barely escaped with its life last year, and is still targeted for elimination by zealous budget-cutters. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration-where I work-is planning for a 25 percent cut and young staff members I recruited, hired, trained and promoted see the prospect of being out of work.

As a result, I have a new understanding of downsizing. So let me offer some thoughts to my fellow career managers as we try to cope with new challenges that require faster action, more creativity, more flexibility and closer partnership with employees and customers than is typical in the traditional bureaucracy.

Downsizing for Success

Downsizing is, without a doubt, a growing trend. More than 85 percent of Fortune 1000 firms cut employment between 1987 and 1991. Between 1991 and 1994 alone, U.S. job cutbacks increased from 111,285 per year to nearly 400,000. News headlines report the grim statistics on a weekly basis across virtually every industry: "IBM trims 20,000 workers," "Frito-Lay pares staff by 30 percent," "AT&T cuts 40,000 employees," "Digital to cut workforce by one-fourth," "Aetna cuts 2,600 employees."

The American Management Association (AMA) has reported that 69 percent of companies it surveyed have downsized at least once since January 1988; 48 percent at least twice; and 26 percent three times or more. Downsizing has become the norm in corporate America and, since the creation of the National Performance Review, in the federal government as well.

In early 1991, the Wyatt Co. conducted a study on corporate restructuring practices that companies used in the late 1980's. The conclusions of that study can be summarized as follows: Much restructuring (primarily downsizing) took place in order to improve profits and reduce expenses, yet few companies achieved their profitability and expense reduction goals through restructuring. Morale and motivation among the surviving employees suffered.

Fortune magazine summarized these findings more succinctly: "Downsizing, as commonly practiced, is a dud."

Examples of successful reinvention may be elusive, but several can be found in "The Reinvention Roller Coaster: Risking the Present for a Powerful Future," an article that appeared in the November/December 1993 Harvard Business Review. In this article, management consultants Tracy Goss, Richard Pascale and Anthony Athos argued that organizations must abandon their most basic assumptions and manage from a vision of a seemingly impossible future. British Airways, Eurocar and Haagen-Dazs, for example, all boldly stated what they wanted to become and set up management processes as if that future were already in place.

The notion that companies should stretch themselves to achieve unprecedented goals is spreading to more and more companies in the private sector. In last year's letter to shareholders, General Electric Chairman John F. Welch Jr. told them that "stretch is a concept that would have produced smirks, if not laughter, in the GE of three or four years ago, because it essentially means using dreams to set business targets-with no real idea of how to get there."

Incremental goals, argued Welch, "inspire or challenge no one, capture no imaginations. We're aiming at . . . the introduction of more new products in the next two years than we've developed in the last 10. In a company that now rewards progress toward stretch goals rather than punishing shortfalls, the setting of these goals, and quantum leaps toward them, are daily events."

Before and After the Cuts

Unfortunately, achieving such lofty goals often involves downsizing, and downsizing is a lot like surgery: It is traumatic, tedious and emotionally draining. In a 1977 article in Public Administration Review, Rufus Miles argued, "It is important that . . . a thoughtful judgment [be] reached that the wielding of the surgical knife is going to achieve a purpose that, after a period of recuperation, will be worth the trauma. And the surgical knife should not be wielded again and again before the healing process from earlier incisions has been completed."

Many managers believe that once they've decided whose services no longer will be required, informed those individuals and worked out severance and outplacement programs, the hard part is over. But the real work doesn't begin until after the downsizing. Morale of those who remain hits an all-time low, confidence is shaken, communication is fragmented and trust becomes a memory. Most employees are in the midst of their own individual grieving process for colleagues who are no longer there and for an implicit employment agreement that is gone.

At the same time, those who remain are trying to figure out why they were chosen to stay with the firm. Was it because they had some sort of special talent? Or was it simply a roll of the dice?

Amid this spiraling confusion, the employees who remain often don't understand the firm's new vision. With one skeptical ear they listen to management's messages. With the other, they expect to hear the thud of another shoe dropping.

This situation calls for leaders who can manage in a changing environment-a new breed of managers who are more entrepreneurial, more attuned to their customers and better able to instill confidence, trust and stability.

The starting point is preparation prior to actual downsizing. At that point, senior managers must clarify their objectives and define their strategic goals. Fundamental questions need to be asked, such as: Where is the organization going? What does it want to achieve? What is in the way? And what needs to be done to overcome all of these obstacles?

David Noer, author of Healing the Wounds (Jossey-Bass, 1993), a book about helping companies recover from layoffs, says executives should never talk about job cuts solely in economic terms. That, he writes, "is like going to a funeral and reading a statement to the widow that her husband's death, while regrettable, was actuarially necessary to make room on the planet for other people."

Recognize too, Noer counsels, that the organization is literally in mourning. One of the fundamental ways management can help is by providing those who remain with the opportunity to deal with their sense of loss and the tools to deal with the changes that are occurring.

The next step, of course, is to take all that grief and concern and convert it into positive action. It's important to have everyone pulling in the same direction. Training, retraining, recognition for significant contributions, meetings to discuss future opportunities and the like-all are necessary.

During the process, it's important for top managers to listen as well as to talk. After a major downsizing, senior managers at Bank of America held many brown-bag lunch meetings with employees. This gave employees the opportunity to discuss how they felt about the layoffs, the company's future and their future with the company. At Commerce, we've had a series of "all-hands" meetings and several brown-bag sessions to explain the current budgetary and organizational situation, and we've used e-mail messages from Secretary Ron Brown to communicate with employees.

How well do most organizations do in this regard? "See you later," appears to be about the only warning most veteran workers get in the 1990s before they are laid off. More than half of workers laid off between 1991 and 1993 who had worked for their employer for at least three years got no written advance notice of termination, the Labor Department reports.

Renewal and Revitalization

Change is not something employees are universally ready to handle. To a large extent, management's role is to prepare people to adapt to changing environments, providing employees with the tools to better deal with the future.

In today's turbulent times, much of the ownership for career management will shift to individual employees. Equipping people with the skills to understand their own strengths, limitations and motivations and to define their career needs and goals can ensure they create the right places for themselves.

In the July/August 1994 issue of Harvard Business Review, Robert H. Waterman, Judith A. Waterman and Betsy Collard argue that organizations must now shift from the traditional focus on employment to a new focus on employability. "It is the company's responsibility," they write, "to provide employees with the tools, the open environment, and the opportunities for assessing and developing their skills. And it is the responsibility of managers at all levels to show that they care about their employees whether or not they stay with the company. The result is a group of self-reliant workers-or a career-resilient workforce-and a company that can thrive in an era in which the skills needed to remain competitive are changing at a dizzying pace."

In March 1995, months before fears that the Commerce Department would be dismantled or at least cut back severely, the department established a Career Reinvention Center. "The world and the workplace are changing rapidly," said Secretary Brown. "Department of Commerce employees will thrive if they learn to embrace change and steadily reinvent their skills and careers. At the Career Reinvention Center you will find the tools to craft your future."

What are some of those tools? Workshops on making over your career, composing a resume that sings, assessing your strengths and stretching interviewing and networking skills. Self-assessment computer programs to help employees explore their work and life options. Brown-bag lunches on career issues. And confidential sessions with certified career counselors to help employees find motivation and assist them in setting goals for their careers. Since the job outlook has turned troubling, the Career Reinvention Center has been inundated.

The Cutting Edge

These days, organizations that were recently superstars find themselves stagnated, frustrated and often in seemingly unmanageable crises. The phenomenon is by no means confined to the United States. It has become common in Japan and Germany, the Netherlands and France, Italy and Sweden. And it occurs just as often outside business-in government agencies, hospitals, museums, libraries and churches. While the United States has been on the cutting edge (no pun intended) in streamlining, other countries are now stepping up to the challenge of restructuring their workforce-Canada, the United Kingdom and Uganda, to name a few.

These countries can call on a variety of tools to get the job done. Management theorist Peter Drucker has noted that not in a very long time have there been as many new major management techniques as there are today: downsizing, outsourcing, total quality management, economic value analysis, benchmarking and reengineering. Each is a powerful tool, but each is primarily designed to do differently what is already being done.

We also need to be aware, though, that what to do is increasingly becoming our central challenge. Drucker calls for the development of a new "theory of the business." It's the old "vision thing." And we will need to focus on it in the months and years ahead.

]]>