Government Executive - Authors - Robert Maranto

Here Come the New Appointees: 6 Ways to Smooth the Transition

Robert Maranto and Michael Astrue — Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:56:51 -0400

The next wave of political appointees is almost at the gates. In just three months, roughly 3,000 of them will begin to assume their new roles. Between an onerous vetting process, controversy about past actions and statements, and a sometimes reluctant Senate (about 550 positions—way too many—require confirmation), it typically takes almost a year for the transition period to end.

A Donald Trump victory would undoubtedly mean immediate housecleaning of all appointees, but a Hillary Clinton administration could bring big change, too. During the 1989 transition, President Bush replaced about two-thirds of President Reagan’s appointees—often to their surprise. The Obama administration already includes many Clinton loyalists, particularly in economic roles, but history suggests that their holdovers are likely to accept new positions.

This massive turnover invariably stresses senior career executives. These officials tend to have worked their way up the ladder by paying attention to detail and by always being ready to advise, and then follow, their political supervisors. For months, they may not know who will be joining their agency, and even then the newcomers’ agendas may be difficult to discern.

Despite a common perception to the contrary by appointees, civil servants tend to have a strong vested interest in enabling the success of their new bosses. Prestige, resources and promotions are all at stake. No career employee wants to be embarrassed by the likes of a Michael Brown at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

How can anxious civil servants avoid unnecessary battles and enable the success of the new arrivals? We offer six suggestions:

First, work hard to understand the entire new team so you can anticipate its needs. This task used to be far more demanding and risky than it is today; with social media and internet searches, it’s usually easy to learn about the background, political goals and temperament of the new team. If appointees have served in previous administrations, you surely can find people you trust who can discreetly talk to you about foibles that may not be part of the public record.

Second, don’t be passive. As soon as you have official notice about a new appointee, congratulate them, offer assistance, and ask about their preferences in terms of process (e.g., all paper, one-on-one briefings, small group briefings). Asking for guidance is an important symbolic start to a relationship in addition to being the most efficient way to get moving.

Third, in the beginning, grade on a curve unless there is an ethical problem. Some appointees will know a lot about your agency, but some will not. Some will understand agency culture, and others will make comments they eventually will regret. Accept that the education process will be longer for some of the new people.

Fourth, as soon as the new appointees have digested their briefing books, look for opportunities to ask them about their goals. Make suggestions that will help the appointees achieve those aims. Be careful about seeming dismissive. Avoid sentences like “Congress won’t pass that” and use sentences more like this: “That will probably be a push with Congress, so we’ll need to develop a strategy for getting as much as we can.”

Fifth, if the transition is making you miserable, don’t dig in out of spite, frustration or inertia. The best and the worst appointees tend to stay the longest; the former because they are dedicated to the mission, the latter because they have no comparable options. If you suffering under toxic appointees, don’t hesitate to find a place out of the limelight within your agency or a new challenge in another agency.

Sixth, if a transition is a largely new experience for you, remember to stay open-minded and to nurture an ongoing dialogue. Many of the most successful initiatives in recent history, such as Bill Clinton-Newt Gingrich procurement reforms, the Food and Drug Administration’s first accelerated drug approval regulations, and the Social Security Administration’s compassionate allowance system for disability applicants, faced misplaced initial resistance from the civil service.

Finally, remember Rahm Emanuel’s immortal words: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” In our democratic system, transitions are unsettling, but the greatest opportunity to make meaningful improvements will come before your environment achieves a new equilibrium after the transition.

Michael Astrue is a former Social Security commissioner who has served in senior roles during four federal administrations and participated in both presidential and gubernatorial transitions. Robert Maranto is the 21st Century Chair in Leadership at the University of Arkansas, and served in the federal government in the 1990s.

Photo: Flickr user takomabibelot

]]>

Getting Acquainted

Robert Maranto — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Seven months after President Obama took office, more than a third of his administration is finally on its way. By the end of August, The Washington Post's nominee tracker Head Count showed 35.4 percent -- or 230 -- of President Obama's 501 Senate-confirmed posts are filled, with another 14.4 percent -- or 72 -- nominated or announced. An unknown number of lower level officials have been on the job for a while.

Each presidential transition seems slower than the last, although Obama has stepped up the pace. From John F. Kennedy to Bill Clinton (when I stopped counting) each president took more time to fill executive branch positions than the one before. An obstacle course-like appointment process of endless financial reports, FBI checks, internal vetting and increased congressional scrutiny delays selection and confirmation of nominees, and discourages some of the most sought-after candidates.

Most observers agree simpler ethics rules and fewer political appointees are needed. Last spring, the Democratic Leadership Council released a paper by Edward Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute that proposed cutting the numbers of Senate-confirmed presidential appointments and simplifying the vetting process, echoing calls by public administration experts dating back to the 1987 Volcker commission.

But reducing the numbers of Senate confirmations would alienate senators, and streamlining their vetting would put off good government groups. Serious reform of the political appointment process is just not going to happen. Career bureaucrats will continue to face a steady stream of late-arriving political appointees, some of whom will not stay long enough to learn their jobs. So what can bureaucrats do to work with the political appointee system we have, as opposed to the one we would like?

Having written two books on the subject, I must admit that as is typical of social science -- vast scholarly research simply confirms common sense. In two surveys of more than 1,200 political appointees and career bureaucrats, I found that if the president supports an organization's mission, as in the Reagan Defense Department or the Clinton Health and Human Services Department, then relations between political appointees and career bureaucrats start well and stay that way. But even the most conflict-prone agencies usually undergo what authors and public administration specialists James P. Pfiffner and Paul Lorentzen have called a "cycle of accommodation." That's when political career relations start badly, but gradually improve, in part since the longer careerists and political appointees work together, the more they come to respect each other.

So what can career executives do to speed the cycle? Years of surveys and interviews offer the following common-sense prescriptions.

Avoid stereotypes

Most political appointees are qualified. As David E. Lewis documents in his book The Politics of Presidential Appointments (Princeton University Press, 2008), they have less agency-specific experience and are not as effective at internal management than career bureaucrats, but political appointees generally have more education and more varied experience. Careerists must remember that "every political appointee has something you don't," as one Clinton appointee said. It could be knowledge of the budget process, or public relations skill. It could be state government experience. It could be a White House, Office of Management and Budget or congressional connection. Whatever it is, find out what political appointees bring to the table, and how they can help your agency work better.

Put new appointees in touch with their predecessors

These new leaders find themselves entering an unfamiliar organization and knowing few or none of its people. Not surprisingly, 81 percent of the Clinton appointees surveyed said they wanted to consult their predecessors. Some agencies include as part of their orientation materials for new appointees the names and contact information of their predecessors, regardless of political party or administration.

Communicate first

According to a career executive in Clinton's transition, "The trouble with the civil service during a transition is that we're just too civil. We don't say anything." Career executives should request a one-on-one meeting with a new appointee to get acquainted, to explain what they do, and to see what the appointee wants and needs. After all, if you don't know what they want, then you can't help them get it. During such meetings, it is bad form to bad-mouth the prior leadership.

Forgive them their trespasses

Just as career executives often stereotype political appointees, appointees start off with their own preconceptions about bureaucrats. Negative views usually become positive, but this will happen more quickly if everyone remembers Proverbs 15:1: A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger.

Know how to say no

Most appointees join government out of idealism; they want to improve public service. At the same time, not all their ideas will be practical, or even legal. When you disagree with an appointee, try to explain why in terms of the law or external political forces, some of which might be changeable over the long term. Try to provide other options to achieve their goals. And some ideas might be practical, but for you, unacceptable. As one career executive said, "I was once proposed to be detailed to a position supporting a political official … I suggested that this would be a bad idea for me and for the person for whom I would work, because I had a very basic disagreement with the policy. I was not detailed, and this is the way these matters usually are resolved."

Move if you must

But suppose you disagree with your boss's entire agenda, or simply can't work with him. Should you wait this out? Maybe not. During the Reagan years, appointees in two-term administrations served for a mean of 2.6 years in their position but 3.7 years at their agency -- a long time. And the best and the worst appointees often stay the longest, the former because they love the work and the latter because no one else will hire them. Rather than persevere with a toxic boss, you could seek a soft landing elsewhere. This is doubly true if the boss is a career executive, since they tend to stay in place longer.

Be nice to appointees on their way out With exceptions like Defense Secretary Robert Gates, holdovers from one administration to the next are rare. Sooner or later, for better or worse, your political boss will be out -- but not necessarily gone. Many former appointees continue to influence the executive branch as lobbyists or congressional staffers. And someday, in the not too distant future, that GS-12 Schedule C could return as an undersecretary. So treat appointees with respect, from the orientation to the farewell party. Put yourself in their shoes. In Washington, just like the real world, it's nice to be smart, but it's also smart to be nice.

Robert Maranto is 21st century chair in leadership at the University of Arkansas' department of education reform. Among his books is Beyond a Government of Strangers: How Career Executives and Political Appointees Can Turn Conflict to Cooperation (Lexington, 2005). He can be reached at rmaranto@uark.edu.

]]>

Politicals Deserve Praise

Robert Maranto — Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:00:00 -0400

The number of political appointees has nearly doubled since 1960. President Bush has more than 3,000 political offices to fill, far more than leaders of other democracies. Public administration scholars fear that political appointees are less effective than career executives. While longtime career executives are hired and promoted based on their expertise, political appointees are chosen for any number of reasons and may not serve long enough to learn their jobs.

After all, whom would you rather work for in the Pentagon-an experienced professional or Monica Lewinsky? Not surprisingly, some career executives see political appointees as "Christmas help" to be waited out. Since the Volcker Commission of the 1980s, public administration analysts have argued for reducing the number of political appointees by a third or more. But would cutting political appointments actually lead to better government? Probably not, because most political appointees are competent and hard-working, do vitally important political work and help keep their agencies accountable to the public.

Contrary to stereotypes, most political appointees are competent. Syracuse University's Jude Michaels found that most of George H.W. Bush's Senate-confirmed appointees were doctors, lawyers or Ph.D.s with considerable experience. Lower-level appointees, however, are less credentialed. Even so, tens of thousands of campaign workers and contributors seek jobs in government, but only a few hundred are chosen.

The relatively few campaign workers who do win jobs are usually capable enough to help government. In surveys of career executives in the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, pluralities said the appointees were competent. Most appointees also stay in place long enough to do some good. In a study of Reagan appointees, I found they served an average of nearly three years in their posts and nearly four years at their agencies-long enough to have an impact and too long to be waited out.

Political appointees work hard. A study by the National Academy of Public Administration found that three-quarters of appointees in the Reagan administration reported working more than 60 hours a week. Nearly as many reported work-related stress in their private lives. No one thinks the workload has declined since then. As a Clinton appointee told me, "There is something to be said for having a group of people who will burn themselves out for the President . . . and then go back to what they were doing before."

What do political appointees do in those long hours? Chiefly, political appointees do political work, dealing with the White House, congressional staffs, interest groups and the news media. This is high-risk activity that most career civil servants would rather avoid. It isn't presidential empire-building, but rather the growth of the political class as a whole, that explains the mushrooming number of political appointments. While the number of political appointees has nearly doubled since 1960, the amount of congressional staffers, interest groups and political action committees all more than tripled in the same period. In Washington, politics is a growth industry.

And even if President Bush were to cut back on his own political helpers, Congress would not follow suit. Any President who slashed the number of political appointees would be committing unilateral disarmament in relations with Congress. Aside from their political role, political appointees ensure that public bureaucracies reflect changing public needs rather than organizational "group think." As one career executive told me, political appointees "have a more strategic view of the public interest, one less tied to the agenda of the organization" than some of their career counterparts. The American bureaucracy is more efficient, more open and more innovative than its European counterparts, partly because of its oversight by political appointees.

In short, political appointees play vital roles in keeping their agencies accountable to the public and representing agencies to the rest of the political system. Maybe the bureaucracy doesn't like living with political appointees, but it definitely wouldn't work as well without them.

Robert Maranto teaches political science at Villanova University in Pennsylvania, and co-edited Radical Reform of the Civil Service (Lexington, 2001). ]]>