Government Executive - Authors - Peter H. Daly

Great Expectations

Peter H. Daly — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0400

On the evening of Nov. 4, as the nation awaits the presidential election results, the best senior leaders in the federal bureaucracy already will have spent many months considering the effect that a new administration will have on the organizations and programs they administer. Many others, however, will have delayed such transition planning, running the risk of quickly falling behind the curve when newly appointed policy officials take office, assess the people around them and institute changes.

Here are key questions senior leaders must ask themselves as they prepare for the arrival of a new administration:

When should we start transition planning?

Presidential campaigns have been lengthening, often into the spring of election year before the finalists become evident. In any case, transition planning should begin by early summer of the election year.

How can we know what to expect?

Set up a research team to develop likely scenarios of policies and governance approaches of a new administration. Candidates' Web sites are replete with position papers on a variety of policy matters, and campaigns should be monitored for proposals that would have any bearing on the agency's mission.

Are we in for a change?

As scenarios begin to take shape, gauge how agency operations might be affected. For example, how might the support network of interest groups and legislators change? How might new policies affect access to resources? Will there be regulatory changes?

What strategic and process adjustments might be necessary?

If budget cuts are possible, for example, develop contingency plans for marshaling support for maintaining current levels or shifting resources from other operations. If new initiatives could place additional responsibilities on the agency, then planning should focus on the acquisition of resources and technologies to carry them out. A strategic review of organizational components or processes likely to be affected is key to the agency's readiness for change.

Are we prepared organizationally?

Take a hard look at staff capabilities. Are executive responsibilities aligned to smoothly carry out the sorts of changes suggested in the possible scenarios, or would the changes create turf battles? What skills do key staffers need to respond to the expected imperatives of a new administration? Are internal and external coalitions likely to be agile enough to facilitate change, or are they likely to be obstacles?

What can we do to avoid surprises?

Plans often are thrown off track by developments that really shouldn't have been surprising. A leader constantly must question the organization's preconceived notions about what kinds of problems are likely or not likely. Also, senior leaders must allow dissonant views to be heard to avoid an illusory consensus on what problems exist and what problems might arise.

How should we manage relationships with the outgoing administration?

Don't burn your bridges. Regardless of whether your working relationships with outgoing policy officials were constructive or contentious, parting on good terms is the best strategy for your agency and your career.

Peter H. Daly, a former federal executive, is co-author of The First 90 Days in Government: Critical Success Strategies for New Public Managers at all Levels (Harvard Business School Press, 2006). Contact him at peterhdaly@sbcglobal.net.

]]>

Great Expectations

Peter H. Daly — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Plan now for the presidential transition to guard against false starts in the new term.

Here are key questions senior leaders must ask themselves as they prepare for the arrival of a new administration:

When should we start transition planning?

How can we know what to expect?

Are we in for a change?

What strategic and process adjustments might be necessary?

Are we prepared organizationally?

How should we manage relationships with the outgoing administration?

]]>

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.

]]>

Moving Up

Peter H. Daly — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Seven ways to prepare for executive leadership.

Oscar Wilde once wrote that experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes. Mistakes have consequences beyond teaching a lesson; they can be costly to a career. Acquiring the skills and knowledge needed for senior- level responsibilities, while avoiding costly mistakes, requires astute career planning.

Competition for senior leadership positions always has been stiff, but today, constricted numbers of positions combined with changing responsibilities of public sector leaders make it even more challenging. The Senior Executive Service turnover rate is around 8 percent. About 120 SES positions are vacant at any given time and each generates up to 150 applicants. There are 7,900 SES jobs. Thirteen percent of SES members change jobs each year, and just over 33 percent are eligible to retire. The feeder groups for these vacancies are people at the GS-14 and 15 levels; there are about 93,000 GS-14s and 57,000 GS-15s.

The competition is made even more difficult by the fact that the federal workforce is among the best educated in the world. Preparation, therefore, is critical for middle and upper-middle managers to gain an edge in the competition for senior spots. Those who aspire to the executive ranks must plan their own development and acquire the special skills needed. Here are seven ways to prepare for advancement to leadership positions.

Make a list of target positions. Not everyone can reasonably seek a senior position. If you realistically aspire to the executive ranks, you will have a track record. It is likely to be in a technical or administrative specialty. Research and develop a list of executive positions for which your experience and training reasonably equip you to compete, and base your development planning on their requirements.
Look for role models, good and bad. Everyone has had experience with executives who were admired for their abilities and those who were not. Both are valuable as role models. Learning firsthand which leadership styles succeed and which don't can guide you in developing your style and help you avoid mistakes.
Be candid with yourself. Assess your readiness. Understanding your strengths and weaknesses is the first step toward closing any development deficit.
Get advice and counsel. Address your development needs by seeking help from trusted colleagues and mentors. The mixture of advice-givers is important. You might seek out technical advice on specific work-related matters, or aid in interpreting cultural or political issues. Learn to solicit and value feedback and incorporate it into your developmental strategy.
Be systematic. Use a structured approach that distinguishes between training, development and education.
Leap at chances to lead in new situations. Look for opportunities to serve as a task force or special project leader outside your usual area of interest. Every new leadership experience will teach you something about yourself and will be invaluable in building your executive qualification profile.
Never stop learning. Unlike university training, professional development is not neatly divided into hours and semesters. Instead, it is a career-long process whose objectives shift over time as political and governance conditions change. The more senior your position, the more essential advanced learning, not only to improve as a leader but also to guard against surprises.

The shifting emphasis from seniority to performance in evaluating senior executive candidates magnifies the importance of preparation. Structuring your plan to gain experience in leading amid ambiguity, inspiring people, handling change, building coalitions and managing risk will provide a valuable edge on the competition.

]]>