Government Executive - Authors - Michael Watkins

Into the Fishbowl

Peter H. Daly and Michael Watkins — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Forget about business-leading in the public eye brings a whole new set of hurdles and measures.

Business and government leadership are alike only in their least important aspects, Roy Ash, former head of Litton Industries and one-time director of the Office of Management and Budget, once said. Going from business to government, according to Ash, is like going from the minors to the major leagues.

Much of what makes the public sector different involves the very nature of democratic government, whose components often are designed to promote stability rather than change. Because of this, government leaders face distinct challenges. Missions and metrics often are dictated by statutes or regulations beyond their control. Performance is subject to transparency and public scrutiny. Stakeholders are more numerous, more diverse and more competitive. And bureaucracy can impede access to resources.

For those new to government, transitions can be daunting and replete with traps that threaten credibility and momentum. And, in contrast to business, performance failures can have consequences measured not only by financial standards but by embarrassment, political defeats and, in some cases, even life and death.

These common missteps often snare unwary business leaders moving to government:

Failing to understand government's fishbowl nature. Many new arrivals suddenly find themselves very much in the public eye. Heads of major businesses often are shielded from the sort of public, media and political scrutiny and second-guessing that accompanies high-profile government appointments. The admonition that new arrivals hear-"Imagine how this will seem on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper"-is not in jest.

Thinking too narrowly about stakeholders. Satisfying everyone is impossible, so creating coalitions is essential. In business, there are shareholders, Wall Street analysts, customers, regulators, partners and employees. In federal government, there are almost 300 million citizens, 535 elected representatives, 3,000 or so members of an elected administration, thousands of special-interest constituencies and lobbyists, unions, regulatory bodies and many others.

Not grasping how performance is measured. In government, finance is but one measurement to devising a strategy. The bottom line, if one even exists in government, is always trumped by political crises, public policy or constituent pressure. Success often entails tolerating financial conditions that would never be entertained in business.

Underestimating the constraints. Government executives do not have the option of selling off an agency that performs poorly. They must change and improve it. Private companies are constructed with change in mind, while government is designed for just the opposite-to remain stable. Agencies are governed by complicated regulations, staffed by people doing narrowly defined tasks and overseen by managers whose responsibility often is to assure that rules are followed.

Overlooking nonmonetary incentives. The currency of business is currency, but the currency of government is power. One of the starkest contrasts between the two is their incentives for motivating workers. In business, this means using "push tools," or sharing in the financial benefits of a successful business plan. In government, financial incentives can conflict with the concept of professionals who carry out policies to best serve the public, not for personal gain. Leaders, therefore, must rely on "pull tools"-a compelling vision, a culture that values and recognizes success, the potential for development and advancement, and the reward of engaged teamwork-which are more difficult to design.

Overestimating control over critical resources. Acquiring resources in government is heavily regulated by Cabinet agencies and Congress, creating a competitive environment where agencies not only vie against each other but must engage the political process and gain the support of allies. Even when support is strong, acquiring quick infusions of people, facilities or technology is unlikely, given complex personnel and procurement rules. Most new government leaders must start off largely with the resources they inherited.

Expecting government to move as fast as business. Government's rhythms are different from the quarterly and annual reporting deadlines of business. So for new leaders, getting up to speed could take longer than six months, which is typical in business. Still, they are not insulated from the impatience of stakeholders and are likely to face pressures for early wins. Targets for such wins should be selected wisely, despite insistence from some quarters for rapid action, because when they are met, they increase credibility and build momentum for success with longer-term changes.

Smooth transitions to government depend on the understanding that success is measured differently than in the private sector. In business, it is assessed financially, operationally and in terms of public confidence. In government, it is assessed in the broader context of national security, economic security, the public good as well as public confidence. In fact, public confidence is just about the only factor shared by business and government. And when that's lost, it's nearly impossible to reclaim.

]]>

Taking Charge

Michael Watkins — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0400

Beware of the pitfalls of new leadership positions.

very year, thousands of federal managers enter new leadership positions. Their actions during the first few months on the job can determine their success or failure, yet little first-rate advice is available on how to take charge in a new management role. Transitions are pivotal, in part, because everyone is expecting change. But they also are periods of great vulnerability for new leaders who lack established working relationships and detailed knowledge of their roles. Those who fail to build momentum during their transition face an uphill battle. Here are seven common traps:

1. BEING ISOLATED

An over-reliance on reports and analysis rather than devoting time to meet and talk with new colleagues can isolate new leaders. The need to "know" an organization before venturing into it is often the root of this problem. Isolation inhibits the leader's ability to develop important relationships and to cultivate sources of information. If this practice goes on too long, then the newcomer is inevitably labeled as remote and unapproachable.

New leaders must get out and about in their organizations quickly. Written assessments, although informative, are more valuable to people in the organization who understand the stories behind them. Impressions, ideas and strong feelings about how to deal with issues often are more important than formal analysis in making crucial early decisions.

2. COMING IN WITH "THE ANSWER"

Too many arrive on the scene with "The Answer"-a preordained fix for the organization's problems-or they reach conclusions too early in their tenure. Many fall into this trap through arrogance or insecurity. Others believe they must appear decisive and establish a directive tone. Staffers become cynical if they think their leaders deal with deep problems superficially, making it difficult to rally support for change. Employees who believe their leaders' minds are made up are reticent to share information, impeding a newcomer's ability to learn the true nature of a situation.

New leaders must embrace and project a spirit of inquiry, even if they are confident they understand the organization's problems and the best approaches to dealing with them. This means giving primacy, early on, to learning over doing. Time spent carefully diagnosing the organization's strengths and weaknesses seldom is wasted. The key is to be systematic and efficient at learning, establishing and refining an agenda, and adopting methods for gaining insight.

3. STAYING TOO LONG WITH THE EXISTING TEAM

Many, especially those with a collegial style, believe that the subordinates they inherit deserve a chance to prove themselves. Some see it as an issue of fairness; for others, it springs from arrogance, or hubris. Whatever the source of the impulse, it's not advisable to retain team members with a record of mediocre performance. Leaders are brought in to improve performance by imparting new ideas, making tough decisions and instilling a can-do spirit of achievement. Frequently, they encounter direct reports that are too inflexible to change.

New leaders generally are not held responsible for an inherited team's performance during the early days. But after a few months, that team becomes the leader's responsibility. Retaining direct reports who are not up to the task squanders precious time and energy. This is not to say that new leaders should be unfair, expect miracles, or seek to terminate people summarily. They should impose a time limit-six to 12 months, depending on the severity of the problem-for deciding who should be on the playing field. Personnel changes may be difficult in government, but they are not impossible, and the effort usually is worth it.

4. ATTEMPTING TOO MUCH

Some try to do too many things at once. The theory goes, "If I get enough things going, something is bound to click." Such leaders are trying to send the message that winners are active and able to handle diverse challenges simultaneously. This approach renders an organization confused and overwhelmed. Given the many demands confronting federal organizations, the risk of overload is great.

The roots of this pitfall often lie in lack of prioritizing or poor planning. Early on in their transitions, leaders must identify the vital few top priorities for the first year. Then they must discipline themselves and their organizations to focus on those priorities.

5. BEING CAPTURED BY THE WRONG PEOPLE

The arrival of a new leader inevitably precipitates jockeying for positions in the new regime by those who had influence in the old organization. Among the many people vying for the new leader's attention will be those who are incapable, well-meaning but out of touch, intent on misleading, or in search of power for power's sake. New leaders must exercise great care in deciding who to listen to and to what degree. Advisers who don't represent a broad constituency, have skewed or limited information, or use their proximity to the leader to advance partisan agendas that alienate others and close off valuable input.

Whether they come from outside or are promoted from within, new leaders must keep lines of communication open to balance that internal influence. Just as one is known by the company one keeps, judgments about new leaders are based on perceptions of who influences them.

6. SETTING UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

Managing expectations starts the moment a new leader arrives on the job. For those hired from the outside, it begins even sooner, during job interviews. It's easy to set unrealistic expectations about what can be accomplished during transitions. New leaders want to impress, and new bosses too often expect miracles. Performance expectations typically are negotiated early, before new leaders have a thorough understanding of the situation.

New leaders should never presume that their initial mandate will or should remain unchanged. They should devote considerable effort to dialogue with their superiors and other key constituencies.

7. FAILING TO BUILD COALITIONS

Many devote too much time during transitions to the vertical dimension of influence-upward to bosses and downward to direct reports-and not enough to the horizontal dimension of peers and key external constituencies. This is understandable, since leaders naturally gravitate to the people they report to and who report to them. But sooner or later (probably sooner), new leaders need the support of people who aren't under their authority.

Building coalitions is especially critical for federal leaders who have to manage in a political environment. This means identifying who influences key decisions and what they care about, mapping networks to figure out who influences the influencers, and crafting a plan to reach out and build support.

Avoiding these pitfalls depends on how well new leaders prepare for and manage their transitions. This means carefully diagnosing situations, identifying personal vulnerabilities, accelerating their learning, negotiating success, building coalitions, and securing early victories.

Michael Watkins is an associate professor at the Harvard Business School and formerly a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. His most recent book is The First 90 Days: Critical Success Strategies for New Leaders at All Levels (HBS Press, 2003). ]]>