Government Executive - Authors - Mark Kukis

Getting ahead: Secrets to climbing the government ladder

Mark Kukis — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0400

"In those kinds of situations, people in my position look to who's volunteering to help," said Johnson, who took the helm in May after starting at the agency as a health scientist 25 years ago. "Who's volunteering to sacrifice and sleep on a cot in a conference room and to walk three blocks to get a shower occasionally?"

As Johnson stresses, the truisms about getting ahead in Washington apply to federal agencies: You have to work hard, know your stuff, and always seek ways to take on new tasks that broaden your skills. But in this Washington realm, the people who ultimately go the farthest aren't just the best wonks and most dedicated civil servants. Climbers at federal agencies tend to be the people who successfully navigate the tricky terrain where political appointees and institutional career officials collaborate on policy-making.

"Too often, people in federal agencies tend to be somewhat insular and underestimate the need to engage with the stakeholders," said Daniel Troy, who served as chief counsel of the Food and Drug Administration as a political appointee during President Bush's first term and is now a partner at Sidley Austin Brown & Wood. Troy said that policy disagreements between political appointees and career officials are to be expected. Agency employees who can argue them out gracefully often earn a reputation as leadership material among those in position to promote them.

"I never minded if people disagreed with me," said Troy. "And I hope people didn't mind if I disagreed with them, if we could talk it out and work it out and eventually come to some kind of consensus view."

Jim Miller certainly knows the value of impressing political appointees. In the early 1970s, Miller started in Washington as an economist focusing on aviation issues at the Transportation Department. By 1981, he was chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. After that, Miller served as director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan White House.

"I had a lot of people who, the way we Southerners talk, took a shine to me and gave me a helping hand along the way," said Miller, whose early work at Transportation drew the attention of GOP politicos. Miller, who also serves as a business and financial consultant to the Howrey law firm, said that part of his success was a constant pursuit of fresh skills and knowledge.

"One of the things about government, it's easy to ride on the knowledge you have. But after a while, that intellectual capital dissipates," said Miller, who is also currently serving as chairman of the board of governors of the U.S. Postal Service. "You need to keep constantly replenishing that reservoir of intellectual capital."

There's no clear starting point for a career at federal agencies. Some people are hired on the basis of their academic credentials. That's how Miller, who has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia, got his start. Others get hired because of their private-sector experience. Johnson, for example, served as the director of operations at Hazelton Laboratories and Litton Bionetics before applying for an EPA job. And of course some, like Kevin Kolevar, come from the Hill.

Kolevar, who is director of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability at the Energy Department, joined the department in 2001 as a senior policy adviser to then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. When Abraham was serving as GOP senator from Michigan, he hired Kolevar as a staffer. "When I first came over, I told myself I would stay here a year," Kolevar said. "Going into an agency from the Hill is a dramatic change. It took some getting used to, but I found that I enjoyed it."

Q & A

Jo Anne Barnhart, the commissioner of the Social Security Administration, began her Washington career in 1977 when she joined the staff of Sen. William Roth Jr., R-Del., who died in 2003. Before being named to her current post in 2001, Barnhart, now 55, held senior posts at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services in between return tours as a staffer in Roth's office.

NJ: When you started out in Washington, did you think you would wind up in the job you have now?

Barnhart: I can honestly say that I never dreamed that I could be commissioner of Social Security. I have always really just focused on whatever job I was doing at the time, and that remains true today. NJ: What do you think were some key turns in your career that led to success?

Barnhart: As I look back, I really see it more as a continuum. I think I learned things at every step that helped me as I moved to the next [step]. The things I learned contributed to the knowledge that I have, and the experience that I have, and the insight that I'm able to bring to bear on the issues I deal with today.

NJ: Do you think being a woman ever made it difficult for you to advance in the federal agencies where you've worked?

Barnhart: I've never seen it as an issue.

NJ: What do you think helped you the most in your Washington rise?

Barnhart: Without question, it was Senator Bill Roth. He gave me my very first opportunity to work in Washington, and you know how important that can be. He was also a wonderful role model for a young person new to Washington and beginning a career. And he supported those of us who were fortunate enough to work for him. He encouraged us. He was a wonderful mentor. I think having a supportive family has been absolutely key as well.

NJ: How important are connections?

Barnhart: I don't think it's that important, and I'll tell you why. People may be able to make phone calls. And they may be able to get you in the door. But they don't keep the job for you, and they certainly don't get you the next job.

NJ: Some career federal employees say that they face limits on how far they can rise without getting involved in party politics and campaigns. Do you agree with that?

Barnhart: Absolutely not. At Social Security, we have really a handful of political appointees at an agency of over 65,000 people. When you take a look at our deputy-level posts, most of them are held by career employees. The overwhelming majority of people who are in leadership posts here are career people at this agency.

NJ: What do you think is the quickest way to excel at a federal agency?

Barnhart: Generally, I'd say it's the same as anywhere else: Do the best job you can do where you are. I can't emphasize that enough. I think you also have to look for opportunities to show your own capabilities. Federal agencies offer a number of leadership and career-development programs. I think it's really important for people to take advantage of those. And keep a lookout for details and special assignments, short-term experiences that allow you to get outside the area where you're working every day and do something different. Sometimes, people go to the Hill. Sometimes, people go to other federal agencies. I strongly, strongly recommend taking advantage of those opportunities. And when they don't just come to you, seek them out and try to create them for yourself.

NJ: What kind of people do really well at federal agencies?

Barnhart: People who are able to synthesize voluminous amounts of information, because there is an awful lot to read, absorb, and assimilate. Also, people who do well go where the path doesn't necessarily lead. I feel very strongly that people who are looking for innovative ways to help their agency do a better job at succeeding.

NJ: What are some pitfalls for people working at federal agencies?

Barnhart: I think getting caught up in the status quo, not being willing to chart that new trail.

NJ: What's the biggest drawback about working in the executive branch, as opposed to working on the Hill or someplace else in Washington?

Barnhart: I'm not sure I would call this a drawback, but one of the real differences that I see is that on a daily basis on the Hill, you get a really broad perspective as far as what's happening on a range of issues. When you move into the executive branch, you really tend to focus pretty much on your programs, on the issues that are in your agency. I think the real challenge is not to become so exclusively focused on your own agency or the particular issue that you're working in every day that you lose an appreciation for what's happening elsewhere around the world and around the government.

NJ: What advice would you give to someone in the early part of his or her career at a federal agency?

Barnhart: Try to experience a lot of different parts of the agency you're in. Really try to get a varied experience. Test things out, and find what you like. And look for chances to show your talents, because odds are, if you've just come into the government, you're probably not doing the precise thing you want to do for the rest of your career.

]]>

Cult of personality

Mark Kukis — Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Like many federal buildings in the Washington area, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency has a gift shop, where employees can pick up souvenirs such as CIA T-shirts and ball caps, or browse a selection of work-related books.

Broadly, the writings available at the CIA store fall into two groups: spy thrillers written by agency scribes who apparently would rather be Tom Clancy, or wonkish nonfiction tomes about policy and espionage. Among the volumes these days, however, is a book that fits neither category. It's titled "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" and is written by an anonymous author who argues, among other things, that Osama bin Laden is more than a terrorist, and hence more dangerous than is generally thought. Bin Laden, according to Anonymous, is revered in the Islamic world much as Thomas Jefferson or Theodore Roosevelt is in the United States.

"Whether you like it or not, he is a great man," Anonymous said of bin Laden. "Without the connotation good or bad, he has changed history."

Such notions have stirred controversy at the CIA, where the author's identity is no mystery. Anonymous is a senior officer at the agency and has worked there for nearly two decades. The book went through the CIA's publication review.

"I gather that it's selling very well within the building," said Anonymous, who described how people at his office whom he's never met now sometimes introduce themselves and congratulate him on the book. He also described how he has been sidelined at work because of his decision to promote views largely out of step with the Bush administration's public characterization of the war on terrorism.

Anonymous's comparison of bin Laden to venerable historical figures is actually one of the least troubling points he makes in his current book and a second work he's now writing. More disturbing is his assertion that bin Laden and al Qaeda are not, as many U.S. officials claim, weakening after almost two years of intense attacks against them. Bin Laden is instead gaining ground, according to Anonymous.

"What we're really looking at is an insurgent-type organization, rather than a terrorist organization," Anonymous said. "Its terrorist or urban-warfare arm is really a small part of the whole."

As bin Laden sees things shaping up now, Anonymous asserts, Iraq has emerged center stage in an Islamic insurgency against the United States that spans several continents. Anonymous is convinced that bin Laden and the remaining Qaeda leaders understand the economic and political toll that insurgencies can exact on nations. Their precedent is the Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan, where a superpower not only fell militarily but also suffered politically to a point where the state itself began to crack. Bin Laden and his followers seek, Anonymous contends, to re-create such a victory against the United States by fomenting guerrilla attacks on military and civilian targets in many countries rather than just one.

"I think he's delighted since 9/11 that we turned up in the Philippines, in Yemen, in the East Coast of Africa, in Georgia," Anonymous said in describing how bin Laden likely views recent U.S. military deployments. "I think that's exactly the kind of thing he's looking for-to have Americans engaged against Muslims in as many places as possible."

A report released this week by a terrorism-monitoring group of the U.N. Security Council bolsters this argument. The report described an emerging generation of Islamic militants organizing themselves as a scattered guerrilla force for whom al Qaeda is both an ideology to follow and a group to join. The U.N. terrorism committee cited Afghanistan, Algeria, Kenya, the Philippines, and the Chechnya region of Russia as areas where guerrilla activity is tied to al Qaeda. Anonymous sees a similar pattern forming in Iraq, where fighters from neighboring countries are among the insurgents striking almost daily at U.S. troops. The recent suicide bombings in Morocco and Saudi Arabia also seem to bear al Qaeda's signature.

Anonymous suspects that at least in Morocco, however, the bombers were not agents of al Qaeda but men simply inspired by bin Laden's political vision of war against the West. Anonymous said the profiles of the attackers, all young men from Casablanca who apparently never had Qaeda training, suggest that homegrown Islamists are adopting the violent edge that bin Laden has long tried to foster, without being formally part of al Qaeda.

Certainly bin Laden's stature as a world leader continues to grow. A recent global survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed diminishing approval for the U.S. war on terrorism in most Muslim countries and, significantly, a groundswell of support for bin Laden. In Jordan, according to the Pew poll, people trust bin Laden as a world leader more than they do their own King Abdullah. Bin Laden enjoys greater support than Yasir Arafat in the Palestinian territories, while also holding considerable popularity in Indonesia, Morocco, and Pakistan.

"We still live in world where ideas count, and what we're fighting here is a man with ideas," said Anonymous. "The president has continually gone out of his way to say this isn't a war against Islam. Well, it may be turning into a war by Islam against us, and we at least should consider that."

]]>