The Future of the SES

Mark W. Huddlestonis chairman of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. In a recent study funded by the PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government, Huddleston interviewed 21 federal executives who received the Presidential Distinguished Executive Rank Awards in 1997. His research revealed insights into the future of the Senior Executive Service.

On changing attitudes toward public service: One of the first questions that I asked in every interview was, "What led you into the federal service?" With all but a few of the executives, I got answers that started with words like "calling" or "vocation." These are men and women who are products of the 1960s-the early 1960s-a time before Americans became deeply and routinely cynical about government and what it could accomplish.

Phrases like "the nobility of public service" were spoken with a sort of guarded embarrassment. After he talked about the continuing importance of attracting young people to government to work for "the public good," one executive asked, "Does that sound corny?" To some young people, it may well sound corny. And that may create new challenges for the higher civil service and American government down the road.

Although most executives expressed high levels of satisfaction with the quality and character of new recruits to their agencies, there was a pervasive sense that a sea change is under way with respect to motivation and commitment. The widespread expectation is that most people entering government service today will be around for a few years and then move on.

On the SES system: As it was originally framed, the SES was to be far more than a classification and pay scheme for the "supergrades" (GS-16 to GS-18) it mainly replaced. Instead, it was to constitute a governmentwide corps of senior executives, high-performing generalist managers who would be flexible, responsive and mobile.

This is not how the system has worked. Although hanging prominently on the wall in almost every winner's office was the framed Distinguished Rank certificate, no one had any sense of identification with the SES as a system. It is simply a pay grade or a vehicle for receiving a well-deserved cash bonus.

On using recognition as a reward: [Executives] feel, in a word, unappreciated. It really isn't a lot to ask. It costs politicians and the public nothing. But it is a lot to receive. In fact, the symbolism of Oval Office visits and presidential handshakes means more than a lot to members of the SES. It is a source of vitality. It buttresses their sense of professional responsibility and nourishes their deepest motivation for public service.

On upward mobility: Beyond basic appreciation, the one incentive that several executives believed was absent from the current system was opportunity, specifically the opportunity to rise to the assistant secretary level in the federal government. Although such opportunities are officially countenanced by the Civil Service Reform Act, they are almost never made available. The main reason is the widespread but unfounded belief that only political appointees can be entrusted with the administration's policy agenda. Under the circumstances, there is little room at the top for career federal executives in America.

On the keys to executive success: The recipe, according to these distinguished executives, is deceptively simple. It has only four key ingredients: have a clear strategic vision for your agency, animate other people, work hard and have integrity.