TOPICS

USDA secretary favors strong link between performance measures and goals

By Jerry Hagstrom CongressDaily March 27, 2009

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack believes results-oriented management is central to running his department effectively -- and technology and federal employees are essential to that effort.

"Tying what we do to specific articulated results is a very important function of what the management side of this agency has to do," Vilsack said in a March 17 interview with Government Executive. "To do that not only requires a commitment by leadership to make that happen, the president has been very clear in his expectation in that respect."

The former Iowa governor, who became Agriculture secretary in January, said he wants to improve performance measures to achieve results the public expects, including a safer food safety system, more vibrant rural communities and jobs, and greater opportunities for farmers and ranchers to prosper.

RELATED STORIES

Vilsack also said that he and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., both understand that achieving good performance at USDA requires modern technology. "It is frustrating to farmers and ranchers who want to be able to access information that we are still in a more paper orientation than a technology orientation. It is also frustrating that it seems to people it takes forever to implement the farm bill and the recovery and investment act, because we have to rewrite old, old software so that it is available to calculate the new programs."

The third component of managing USDA well, Vilsack said, is to recognize that the department's workforce is aging and that many employees will retire during the next few years. Vilsack pointed out that 54 percent of USDA's workforce is older than 45, compared with 41 percent of workers in the general population who are over 45.

"We have to look forward and say to ourselves, 'What does this mean?'" he said. "What do we have to do in terms of institutional knowledge? What does that mean for USDA?"

Peterson noted in a recent interview that Vilsack took a great interest in management when he was Iowa governor and eliminated several agencies during his tenure. Peterson, who believes that management at USDA has been deficient for years, would like to look into reorganizing the department. The last restructuring at USDA occurred in 1994 during the Clinton administration.

VIEW ALL 19 COMMENTS POST COMMENT

COMMENTS

  • I strongly agree with Chairman Peterson regarding deficient managers in USDA for a looooong time. In order for any process, equitable performance system, or improvement to our true customers, management must be fixed and trained and weeded before it is implemented into the field. If strong leadership, high ethics, and accountability is lacking, nothing will be successful. Who pays? Customers. I think it appalling to have watched an agency decline over several years. Performance systems have come and gone, some before managers and employees were even familiar with the intent. We need to know what we want before we start and it should be consistent throughout. We measure things but are they true measures. No, every two weeks when time goes in we know better. Reorganize, yes. Train managers and leadership to LEAD equitably and fairly. Other things will fall into place. It starts at the top. Employees and public are watching.
    ES Posted April 2, 2009 9:42 AM
  • The problem with all these performance measures is the politicians and senior executives prefer to deal with glitzy goals and objectives. All these special initiatives detract from the routine business of the agencies: processing application, giving technical assistance, monitoring compliance with the regs, etc. Career staff don't want to invest in these projects because the sponsors come and go, and the staff are blamed when routine work isn't done.
    henry barber Posted March 31, 2009 3:14 PM
  • I'm not sure how we jumped from performance measurement to NSPS. Performance measurement applies to processes and NSPS is a personnel system. Like Deming, I believe individual performance appraisal systems are counterproductive because they encourage competition between employees and discourage teamwork. As far as abuse and cronyism go, the GS system is subject to the same problems. If I were a GS-9 or GS-11, I would much rather convert to NSPS and have the potential to earn up to GS-13 salary without ever changing pay bands. And unions don't currently have a stake in NSPS, because DoD converted only non-bargaininig unit employees (those not represented by unions.) Anyway, the main focus of this article was on measuring processes, not people.
    bigtom Posted March 31, 2009 11:39 AM
VIEW ALL 19 COMMENTS

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR