Government Executive - Authors - Cameron Kennedy

How Healthy Is Your Agency? It Could Be Time for a Checkup

Cameron Kennedy and Nora Gardner — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:23:05 -0500

Government departments and agencies are under increased pressure to perform effectively in the midst of budgetary and political uncertainty, but a high grade for performance doesn’t necessarily make for a clean bill of organizational health.

Over the decades, there have been initiatives (for example, National Partnership for Reinventing Government and the Government Performance and Results Act) aimed at pushing the federal government to deliver greater operational, mission-related, or financial results.

This focus on performance is understandable. The government is responsible for varied and crucial missions, and the public wants to know how well it is delivering. Department and agency leaders, employees, Congress and other stakeholders likewise want to understand where the government is performing well and where it is falling short. The government has improved its performance on a variety of indicators.

But with all the focus on performance, agencies may not be paying enough attention to their own organizational health—that is, their ability to sustain performance over the long term.

Worrying Symptoms

As individuals, we understand the importance of paying attention to our health as well as our performance: We learn to monitor our health outcomes (for example, weight and strength) and to follow certain healthy practices (for instance, diet and exercise). Outcomes and practices matter for organizational health, too. Organizations benefit from pursuing healthy outcomes, such as a unified direction, and from promoting specific practices, such as defining a shared vision and involving employees in bringing that vision to life.

In the past several years, we have seen signs that the federal government’s organizational health may be faltering. As one example, the latest Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey highlights potentially worrying symptoms for the federal government’s organizational health, with overall employee satisfaction scores below 60 percent. Agency leaders, members of Congress, employee unions, and President Obama have likewise noted declines in morale caused by the government shutdown, pay freezes and political fights.

In and of themselves, low morale and low scores on employee satisfaction surveys are problematic. In addition, and perhaps of even greater concern, they also may be symptoms of more fundamental problems with the federal government’s organizational health—problems that could affect performance in the future.

Health Drives Performance

The positive link between organizational health and long-term performance is well established. Indeed, we’ve found that organizations that rank in the top quartile in McKinsey and Company’s survey of organizational health are twice as likely to outperform their peers. For companies, this can mean better financial or operational performance; for government agencies, it can mean better fulfillment of their mission.

For example, several years ago a federal agency that was facing internal and external crises used an organizational-health assessment to benchmark itself against others, identify strengths and weaknesses, and design initiatives to improve its health. Within two years, the agency showed double-digit improvements in its health scores, earned a place on a “10 best places to work” list in one of its top locations, and stabilized its operations.

So how could a government agency conduct an organizational-health checkup? The first step is to review existing data on employee satisfaction, organizational alignment, leadership, and other indicators of organizational health. Second, where possible, agencies could benchmark themselves against their peers in the public and private sector—and use these benchmarks to identify strengths and opportunities for improvement. Once agencies have a fact-based assessment of their top health challenges, they can more easily begin the process of developing initiatives to address them.

As 2015 gets under way, government leaders and employees may feel too busy and stretched to check on their agencies’ organizational health. But just as we individually put off checkups at our own peril, so do organizations. In fact, an organizational checkup and a plan to improve health practices may be just what these organizations need to sustain strong performance in the future.

Nora Gardner is a partner at McKinsey & Company in Washington. Cameron Kennedy is a senior manager of the firm’s public sector practice.

(Image via Nomad_Soul/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

4 Ways to Get Better People in the SES

Cameron Kennedy and Nora Gardner, McKinsey & Company — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:06:00 -0400

Earlier this month, the Senate and the White House devoted significant time and political capital to trying to break the logjam of stalled confirmations of presidential nominees. Indeed, filling our nation’s top political positions is crucial.

But a task that’s perhaps almost as crucial—yet gets much less attention—is ensuring that the government gets the best people into senior career positions, particularly those at the level of the Senior Executive Service (SES).

The federal government’s effectiveness at tackling major issues—such as reducing unemployment, supporting disaster recovery, and keeping the nation secure—depends, in large part, on the abilities of the 7,200 men and women in the SES. The complexity of these issues requires federal leaders who are not only technical experts but also strategic thinkers and skilled problem solvers.

Recent research by the Partnership for Public Service and McKinsey & Company examines how well the federal government is preparing a “pipeline” of leaders to take over SES roles. In our report, titled “Building the Leadership Bench: Developing a Talent Pipeline for the Senior Executive Service,” we discuss a number of factors that get in the way of building a robust SES pipeline.

One factor, for example, is the lack of a standardized approach to talent development. But we also found that some agencies are using thoughtful and innovative practices in one or more of the four phases involved in developing a leadership pipeline.

First, an agency must define its leadership needs and assess how well current employees meet those needs.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is widely cited by other agencies as excelling in this area. Its annual Leadership Succession Review (LSR) process yields valuable insights into the agency’s bench strength. As of November 2012, LSR data showed that the IRS had 10 candidates ready for every department-manager position and 5 candidates for every senior-manager position; the LSR also brought to light a weaker leadership bench in certain geographic locations.

Second, agencies should tap into both internal and external talent pools. Agencies should prepare internal candidates for SES positions using a combination of formal training sessions, on-the-job experience, and coaching from mentors and peers.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for example, begins cultivating potential executives well before they reach the senior level; its 12-month Leadership Potential Program, targeted at GS-13 to GS-15 employees with little or no supervisory experience, offers classroom-style training as well as rotation assignments.

As for attracting external candidates, some agencies including the National Science Foundation have benefited from the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, which allows for short-term personnel transfers between federal agencies and state or local governments, academic institutions, and other outside organizations.

The third phase consists of selecting SES members from the candidate pool. Some agencies have simplified and streamlined the application and selection processes for SES jobs.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for example, has rewritten job announcements to make them more inclusive and less agency-specific. As a result, according to one VA interviewee, since 2010 the fraction of SES executives coming from outside the agency has risen from almost zero to about 30 percent.

Finally, agencies should evaluate the effectiveness of their leadership-development approaches. Are their programs producing leaders in the right numbers, in the right time frames and with the right skills?

NASA, as part of its “Return on Engagement Model,” asks participants for feedback on its leadership-development programs, whether they would recommend the programs to colleagues and if they’ve applied the skills they learned.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) looks to several sources for feedback, including employee interviews, internal and external audits, and client surveys—all of which help GAO make continuous improvements.

The federal government and its agencies could build upon these pockets of success by creating central responsibility and accountability for developing a strong SES pipeline, establishing a comprehensive leadership-development approach that incorporates best practices, making sure that senior agency leaders prioritize talent management and opening SES pipelines more fully to external candidates.

Acting on these options can help our government ensure that the next generation of leaders is ready to meet the complex challenges ahead.

Public sector human capital experts Cameron Kennedy and Nora Gardner are leaders in McKinsey & Company’s Washington, D.C. office. Kennedy is Senior Public Sector Practice Manager and Gardner is a Principal in McKinsey’s Talent and Leadership Practice. For a copy of the Building the Leadership Bench report, go to ourpublicservice.org.

Image via Mopic/Shutterstock.com

]]>