Government Executive - Authors - Robert Goldenkoff

Management Research Falls Short

Robert Goldenkoff — Mon, 01 Sep 1997 00:00:00 -0400

ead any good public management research lately? If not, perhaps it's because the academic and practicing sides of the public administration profession are worlds apart. Sure, the research is typically sound. But is it relevant? Does it help federal managers find solutions to the real-world problems they face? Pick up any public administration journal and you'll see that the studies can be described collectively as "the good, the bad, and the barely useful." Unfortunately, the latter category seems to predominate.

At a time when federal managers are trying to run their programs more effectively-when they face constrained resources, competing demands, and low regard for government-solid research, analysis, and solutions to these challenges are needed. Academia has the talent, time and mandate to do this kind of research. But much of it misses the mark.

Academia hasn't necessarily been remiss. On the contrary, scholars don't always understand practitioners' research needs because practitioners rarely communicate with or enlist the assistance of faculty and students.

Washington is an excellent example. Five major universities are close to the downtown federal establishment-some federal managers have even received degrees from these schools-but only a handful of managers have attempted to build bridges between their offices and related university departments or programs. Ignorance of university resources and a "not invented here" attitude toward campus research, among other factors, have led federal managers to let a lot of academic talent go to waste.

Meeting Demand

A new market-driven approach to public administration research would better link the academic and federal communities. Universities could generate ideas that could be refined and implemented at government agencies. Students would be better trained to enter the federal government because they would understand its theory and practice.

The needs of the marketplace-in this case the federal and nonprofit sectors-should shape the university research agenda. Researchers may balk at being suppliers in a supplier-customer chain, but graduate programs should be a source of innovation and of the next generation of federal managers and scholars. Research done without the needs of the end user in mind is unlikely to improve the structures, products and processes of public administration, or to train students for an increasingly complex and demanding profession.

Missing the Mark

Currently, university faculty and doctoral candidates test new or existing theories to advance a basic understanding of public administration concepts. These ideas often are published and disseminated to the federal community, where they may or may not be put into practice.

The approach is similar to traditional scientific research, where technological innovation occurs on a spectrum that begins with basic research and ends with commercialization. Ph.D.s and engineers pursue knowledge for its own sake, without any specific products or applications in mind. Then the knowledge is passed along to the private sector, whose manufacturing and marketing people figure out how to commercialize it.

This research theory has led to the introduction of thousands of products and pharmaceuticals, but it has been criticized in recent years for its high cost and low payoff. Indeed, as the global economy became more competitive, corporate spending got tighter, and technology aged more rapidly, flaws became apparent. First, the approach assumes there is a dividing line between theory and practice. Basic research and commercialization are not two ends of a spectrum. Knowledge flows both ways and can even occur simultaneously, as in molecular biology and genetic engineering where researchers are engaged in both research and commercialization.

Second, the time lag between basic research and commercialization, which in some cases could be measured in decades, is unacceptable to private industry, which wants to get new products to consumers in mere months.

Some companies have become disenchanted with academic research. It wasn't that the talent is lacking, but corporate executives don't see the research as relevant to their needs.

Public administration research faces the same predicament. The major forces shaping how federal agencies are run today--total quality management, business process reengineering, the National Performance Review and the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act-are based on concepts that originated in the business world, not in government.

A Partnership

Market-driven research has helped the scientific community to better link the research capital of universities with the research needs of private industry. It has sped the innovation process and helped restore the country's ability to compete in the world marketplace. How was it done?

Universities and private companies began a variety of collaborative efforts. For example, companies began participating in university industrial liaison programs (ILP), where, for a fee, they received privileged access to university research information. ILP membership gives companies a university contact who can identify ongoing research of interest to the company, or identify a specific researcher at the university who may be able to assist companies with problems. Industry has endowed research, donated equipment and funded entire research labs that put corporate scientists and engineers in daily contact with their university counterparts.

Other companies have forged closer ties with university research by sending people instead of dollars to campuses. Japanese companies, for example, renowned for their ability to turn basic research into consumer products, reportedly send their best scientists and engineers to study at universities.

The result has been that universities better understand the needs of private industry. Universities are aligning their research with business objectives. What's more, students graduate with a better understanding of production and marketing practices, thereby facilitating innovation.

Public administration researchers can benefit from the lessons the scientific community has learned in fostering closer ties between academics and practitioners.

Professors and federal managers need to talk so that faculty members can understand government's needs, and federal managers can become familiar with campus resources. Just like in the hard sciences, federal managers should be encouraged to study at colleges and universities, explore the training opportunities at campuses, and work with faculty members to tailor courses for federal employees.

Federal managers should teach at universities, and academia should welcome them. Their practical experience would clearly benefit students, but universities seem to place a higher value on recruiting those with doctoral degrees, research and publications. Doesn't practical knowledge count for anything anymore?

Federal managers should make a greater effort to engage faculty and students in their work. Faculty members could serve on advisory panels, act as a sounding board for new ideas and work as consultants. Students can be brought in as interns, part-time employees or to help out on special projects.

Such relationships help build a stronger public administration infrastructure-a powerful network of students, faculty and public managers that develops, shares and applies the tools, techniques and personnel essential for good government.

Conferences also can forge closer partnerships between the academic and federal communities. The American Society for Public Administration, for example, a professional organization with large contingents from both sectors, could help develop a research agenda of the most pressing problems facing public service. Universities could use the agenda to guide their research, knowing that the results could have immediate application.

For the scientific community, failure to close the gulf between universities and industry would have further eroded the nation's ability to compete in the global marketplace. For the federal community, the consequences of failure are just as dire: more ineffective, costly and unresponsive government.

Robert Goldenkoff is a senior evaluator at the General Accounting Office and co-author of Federal Jobs: The Ultimate Guide (ARCO, 1997). His opinions are his own.

]]>

Report Card on Downsizing

Robert Goldenkoff — Sat, 01 Feb 1997 00:00:00 -0500

t's been four years since the Clinton administration promised to reduce the size of the federal workforce. It should come as no surprise that the federal workforce has downsized to its lowest level in more than 30 years. If federal downsizing was only about numbers, the data would show that it's been successful.

However, as envisioned by the administration, downsizing was supposed to occur in conjunction with reinvention. The administration calculated that streamlining government processes could render about 250,000 budget, procurement, accounting and other administrative positions unnecessary. Downsizing was not just intended to get enough people to leave, but to get the right people to leave. Measured against this standard, downsizing has had mixed results.

"In terms of numbers, agencies are meeting their downsizing targets," says Timothy Bowling, director of operations at the General Accounting Office division that has been monitoring downsizing activities. "However, there's little evidence that the reductions were carried out with an effective plan to reshape the workforce to better fit a reinvented government. What we got were across-the-board reductions rather than carefully planned cuts aimed at positions no longer essential to agencies' core missions."

Rationale for Reductions

Reducing the size of the federal workforce was one of President Clinton's earliest initiatives. Within three weeks of his inauguration, the President, by executive order, called on agencies to cut 100,000 federal jobs over three years. At least 10 percent of those reductions were to come from the GS-14 level and above.

Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review expanded the administration's downsizing goals. In its September 1993 report, the NPR called on agencies to make management reforms to clear the way for elimination of 252,000 positions over five years. Included in this number were the 100,000 positions the President had cut by executive order. Workforce reductions were to be aimed at "management control" positions that the administration claimed added little value to serving taxpayers. Managers and supervisors, headquarters staff and employees in personnel, budget, acquisition and accounting/auditing occupations all fell under the NPR's definition of management control positions.

The NPR recommended that agencies cut the ratio of supervisors to employees from 1-to-7 to 1-to-15, and halve the number of other management control jobs, all by the end of fiscal 1999.

To minimize the need for reductions in force, the NPR called for legislation that would allow non-Defense Department agencies to pay buyouts of as much as $25,000 to eligible employees if they voluntarily left federal service. Defense agencies had been offering buyouts since January 1993 to ease reductions following the end of the Cold War. In 1994, Congress enacted the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, which gave agencies buyout authority, placed annual ceilings on personnel levels for fiscal 1994 through 1999, and raised the federal downsizing target to 272,900 positions.

The Numbers Game

Downsizing is ahead of the schedule mandated by the Workforce Restructuring Act. At the end of fiscal 1996, federal employment stood at about 1.94 million, nearly 63,000 employees below the target. Since 1993, the workforce has been reduced by 11 percent, but the cuts were not evenly distributed. Agencies making the largest percentage cuts in their staffs include:

Office of Personnel Management (38 percent)
General Services Administration (23 percent)
Defense Department (16 percent)
NASA (15 percent)
Agriculture Department (13 percent)

Moreover, although the NPR's reinvention efforts were supposed to drive workforce reductions, the decrease in federal employment was largely a peace dividend from the ending of the Cold War. Between fiscal 1993 and 1996, Defense civilian jobs accounted for about 64 percent of workforce reductions. Further, while DoD's civilian workforce dropped by 16 percent during that time, the non-Defense workforce shrunk by just 7 percent. This trend is expected to continue. In fiscal 1997, DoD is expected to absorb all of the anticipated 30,300 workforce cuts, as well as an additional 2,600 reductions to offset an increase in the non-Defense workforce of 2,300 positions.

In addition, management control positions have not been reduced as intended by the NPR. Although many of these positions have been eliminated, their representation in the workforce has shown little, if any change, and some positions have actually increased proportionally. In August 1996, GAO reported that between September 1992 and March 1995, personnel, budget, accounting/auditing and headquarters positions increased slightly as a proportion of the DoD workforce. The number of DoD supervisors decreased, but by less than 1 percent. At non-Defense agencies, the proportion of personnel, headquarters staff and supervisors decreased by less than 1 percent, while other management control positions showed no change or increased slightly.

Buyouts Helped

Buyouts were responsible for a large portion of workforce reductions. According to OPM, about 113,000 employees received separation incentives. At the same time, buyouts, along with voluntary early retirement authority and other mechanisms, helped minimize the need for RIFs. The NPR reports that of the more than 239,000 people who have left federal service so far, fewer than 9 percent were involuntarily separated, easing adverse affects on morale, agency operations and workforce diversity.

While there were reports that some buyout recipients violated the buyout terms and returned to federal employment, such incidents were rare. Recipients had to meet certain conditions to be rehired by the federal government. Initially, DoD buyout recipients could not be re-employed by any DoD installation within a year of their separation dates. However, no restrictions were placed on their ability to return to a non-DoD agency. The Workforce Restructuring Act changed that, requiring buyout recipients to fully repay their incentives if they were rehired by a federal agency within five years of leaving their jobs, unless they received waivers. Of the nearly 88,000 people taking buyouts between January 1993 and June 1995 reviewed by GAO, only 11 appeared to have been rehired in violation of either DoD buyout authority or the Workforce Restructuring Act.

Downsizing From Here

Downsizing continues to be a work in progress. Although the non-DoD buyout authority expired in March 1995, Congress renewed it for most agencies under various pieces of legislation in 1996. The DoD buyout program will continue through fiscal 1999.

Given the workforce reductions yet to come, what lessons can be applied from the first phase of downsizing and buyouts? According to Bowling, planning is essential. It helps ensure that mission-critical employees are retained, while those positions no longer consistent with an agency's future goals are eliminated. Private firms have found that downsizing without adequate planning leaves fewer people doing more work and diminishes customer service.

For federal agencies, planning means deciding which functions are mission-essential and identifying the skills necessary to accomplish them. Planning also means developing downsizing strategies to eliminate positions peripheral to core functions. Agencies also must address how they will accomplish the work with fewer employees. Will the work be outsourced, privatized, automated, reengineered or eliminated altogether? Will workers be retrained or redeployed? Across-the-board cuts and the lack of workforce restructuring suggest that most agencies have not been downsizing with meaningful workforce or strategic planning.

In the end, the size and capabilities of the workforce must equal the magnitude and complexity of the work. At a time when the federal workforce has been scaled back to its lowest level in decades, it is not at all clear that agencies are taking adequate steps to ensure their work can still be accomplished efficiently and effectively.

]]>

Rethinking Career Resilience

Robert Goldenkoff — Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 -0400

or the last several years, management consultants have been telling us job security is dead. To be competitive, organizations must be lean and agile, and capable of responding to changing market conditions by re-deploying workers when possible and releasing them when necessary. In an era of downsizing, delayering, layoffs, restructuring and reengineering, employees can no longer cling to the notion that if they work hard and add value to an organization, it will take care of them.

Job security has been replaced by the concept of "career resilience," where organizations provide workers with resources and opportunities to assess their interests and capabilities, and with training to improve their job skills. In exchange for enhanced "employability," workers are expected to be more productive and more committed to the organization. As described by Alan Balutis in this column last February ("Getting Thin the Healthy Way"), "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."

Career resilience-as part of a re-employment program when an organization is, or expects to downsize-is a great idea. In such situations, at-risk employees, especially those who have not recently been job hunting, need help not just in finding new jobs, but in identifying positions that best suit their interests and abilities.

In response to a presidential directive aimed at employment opportunities for displaced employees, executive branch agencies were required to submit career transition assistance plans to the Office of Personnel Management by the end of last February. Consistent with the career resilience philosophy, the plans help employees find new positions through services such as skills assessment, resume preparation, counseling and job search assistance.

Even among stable or growing organizations, career resilience programs make sense-they can refresh employees and help them move on to other jobs or career paths. Long before it began downsizing, the General Accounting Office had an office that provided greater internal and external career mobility to employees through workshops and counseling.

Not a Substitute

The danger of career resilience programs is the current trend to use them to supplant job security. In such circumstances, the programs do little more than treat employees as mere cogs in a machine-except that the cogs are polished before they are discarded.

Clearly, to remain productive, organizations may find it necessary to downsize. And few would argue that organizations should maintain bloated and inefficient bureaucracies simply to uphold job security. Indeed, downsizing-when done as part of a carefully planned and managed corporate restructuring effort-has been shown to increase an organization's overall performance.

Nevertheless, job security, when provided to an organization's "dynamic doers," also has its place. In fact, job security is a much better way of bringing out the best performance employees have to offer.

Job security does not mean job guarantee. Rather, with job security, employees know that so long as they contribute to an organization, it will reward them with continued, and presumably upwardly mobile, employment for as long as possible. Poor performers would be let go, leaving a core of highly motivated, productive employees. As such, job security establishes a mutually beneficial relationship that recognizes employees' hard work, commitment and sacrifices.

At the heart of this relationship is loyalty, where employers and employees are dedicated to the long-term health of the other. The benefits can be seen in better quality work, lower absenteeism, future-oriented perspectives and higher morale. Furthermore, job security creates an environment where employees are unafraid to take risks, knowing that if well-intentioned gambles don't pay off one day, they'll still have their jobs the next.

Fragile Relationship Career resilience turns this mutually beneficial relationship on its head. From the employer's perspective, employees are merely contingent workers, valued so long as they are needed and easily discarded when they are not. Employees, knowing their jobs are vulnerable, are more likely to jump ship to avoid being pushed, even when their jobs are still relatively safe. The interests of employers and employees, which coincide when there is job security, work in opposition under the career resilience philosophy.

Moreover, the employability training provided under career resilience programs may not provide a good return on employers' investments. Indeed, what's to stop an individual from going to another organization, applying all that costly training at the offices of a competitor?

For federal organizations, particularly in an era of downsizing, career resilience certainly has its place as part of an overall outplacement program. However, as a replacement for job security, it does nothing more than replace the old corporate employment contract with a marriage of convenience.

Get It on the Web

The Government Executive Web site (careers) is full of online resources to help federal employees plot their next career moves. The features of the Careers section include information on federal job openings from the Office of Personnel Management and individual agencies and links to federal and private-sector career services.

]]>

Rethinking Career Resilience

Robert Goldenkoff — Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 -0400

Not a Substitute

Fragile Relationship

Career resilience turns this mutually beneficial relationship on its head. From the employer's perspective, employees are merely contingent workers, valued so long as they are needed and easily discarded when they are not. Employees, knowing their jobs are vulnerable, are more likely to jump ship to avoid being pushed, even when their jobs are still relatively safe. The interests of employers and employees, which coincide when there is job security, work in opposition under the career resilience philosophy.

Get It on the Web

The Government Executive Web site (/careers) is full of online resources to help federal employees plot their next career moves. The features of the Careers section include information on federal job openings from the Office of Personnel Management and individual agencies and links to federal and private-sector career services.

]]>

Re-Entering the Job Market

Robert Goldenkoff — Thu, 01 Sep 1994 00:00:00 -0400

t's been called streamlining, rightsizing, downsizing and dumbsizing. But if the law mandating cuts of nearly 273,000 people from the federal workforce is implemented as planned, you might be calling it unemployment.

While buyouts will help ease the pain of these job cuts, people who leave federal service intending to look for jobs elsewhere may be in for a difficult transition. If the experience of laid-off workers in the private sector is a guide, comparable jobs may be hard to find. And the buyout money may well run out before a new position is found. Particularly discouraging for feds is the fact that government downsizing is targeting the same kinds of middle- and upper-level management jobs that private companies are also casting off.

Tens of thousands of federal jobs are to be cut in order to meet the government's downsizing goals by 1999. What survival strategies should you adopt if you find yourself without a job?

Keeping Your Spirits Up

First, you'll have to deal with your emotions. Robert Worley, who manages counseling for Manchester Inc., an outplacement and career development company, says most newly unemployed people run the gamut of emotions "from anger, shame, fear, sadness and self-pity to relief." Dana Morgan, a career counselor who leads outplacement seminars for private companies, says people experience a grieving process similar to that felt upon the loss of a loved one. "A displaced employee will first feel denial ('there must be some mistake!'); then go through a bargaining process ('maybe I could just move to another division'); then experience anger ('how could they do this to me?'); and finally, acceptance," Morgan says. Displaced workers may feel the loss of security, status, workplace friends and self-esteem.

Not only are these emotions normal, Worley says, but you have the right to feel any or all of them. While it's essential to behave professionally, he says, you should find a way to express your feelings. "Don't think your emotions will go away if you simply ignore them," he says. "Talk to someone who is supportive and will listen empathically."

An important factor in keeping your spirits up is building self-esteem. Morgan recommends reviewing your lifetime accomplishments. She also suggests getting involved in non-work related activities such as volunteer projects that can both be enjoyable and provide a way to make connections.

By all means stay active! Sleeping late, watching television and raiding the fridge will ultimately lower your sense of self worth. Experts advise keeping the same routine you had while you were employed. Get up at the same time, have lunch at the same time, and set aside specific times for researching new positions, mailing resumes, correspondence, job interviews, exercise, etc. Landing a new job is a full-time task in its own right. Plan on spending at least 30 to 40 hours a week at it.

The Need to Network

Job hunting in mid- or late-career differs little from one's first job search and may in fact be easier. "In both cases, job seekers should rely heavily on networking strategies and touching base with contacts in all life situations -- including friends, neighbors, church, school and so on," says Morgan. "But later in your career, you've already established a broader range of relationships."

Networking is critical to re-entering the workforce. While newspapers list hundreds of "Help Wanted" ads, the Department of Labor reports that only 14 percent of all positions are filled this way. By contrast, 63 percent of all jobs are obtained through informal methods such as networking. This is not to say that you should ignore the newspapers; if nothing else, they can indicate which job skills are in demand. Nevertheless, organizations often use want-ads only as a last resort. Most job openings are never advertised.

Aside from networking, other methods of tapping this "hidden" job market include contacting employers directly -- by mail, phone or in person. Some excellent books have been written that explain each method. Two that stand out are Job Strategies for Professionals, edited by J. Michael Farr (JIST Works Inc., 1994); and Howard E. Figler's The Complete Job Search Handbook (Henry Holt, 1988).

It is always worthwhile to make contacts at an organization, even if it does not currently have an opening. Farr observes that while you should try to be interviewed for specific vacancies, you should also arrange "interviews with people who don't have a job opening now but hire, need or supervise people with skills similar to yours." These contacts can pay off when vacancies do occur, or your contact may refer you to other organizations that are hiring. In addition, you should portray yourself during these "informational interviews" as a person with services to sell rather than someone looking for a job. The former attitude emphasizes the value that you would add to an organization, rather than your own needs.

Though want-ads may omit many opportunities, Worley recommends consulting local and national newspapers as well as publications like National Business Employment Weekly, National Ad Search and city business journals. (About 20 cities have these; in Washington, it's The Washington Business Journal.)

Worley also notes that public libraries offer job seekers various directories, reference books and data bases that you can use to research prospective employers and get information on job openings. Chambers of Commerce, college alumni associations and the trade and professional associations connected with the fields you want to pursue may also provide assistance. If you have previous military experience, Worley advises joining a retired officers or noncommissioned officers group, which offers counseling for a nominal fee.

To increase your prospects in today's job market, try to improve yourself. "Attend courses to further your education, improve interpersonal skills, learn public speaking, improve your appearance," suggests Worley. "People who are satisfied with their status quo will find themselves further out of the mainstream than ever before."

Federal Pluses and Minuses

Fortunately, federal workers already have many of the skills employers are seeking. Worley suggests emphasizing your abilities in "analytical skills, complex problem solving, ability to adapt and manage change (gained through working for numerous bosses), dependability, the ability to make presentations to higher-ups, and the willingness to work long and hard to get a job done."

Adds Morgan, "Typical federal employees must develop excellent writing skills while employed in the public sector. They must also work well as members of a team." She also says that employers, when hiring mid- and upper-level managers, typically look for candidates with good people skills. "Employers want someone who knows how to make groups function productively and who can communicate effectively," she says. All of these abilities can help displaced federal workers land jobs outside of government.

On the other hand, job-hunting federal workers may find that many private employers have stereotypes of government workers -- for example, that feds are risk averse, or are "nine-to-fivers." Morgan suggests that during an interview, "job seekers can, through an assertive and enthusiastic attitude, impress upon prospective employers that they don't fit the federal-worker stereotype."

Overall, job loss, while traumatic, can enhance your life if you approach it positively. A man I know was out of work for a year after his construction-management company downsized. He viewed his termination less as a crisis than an opportunity. It was stressful, but searching for a new job kept his skills fresh and enabled him to explore fields that he might not otherwise have considered. Ultimately, he found a new position that gave him greater freedom to apply his talents, and he has been more successful as a result. With effort and patience, federal managers who find themselves on the job market could be similarly rewarded.

]]>