Letters

Paul Light was right to sound the alarm about the "coming crisis" in service delivery at the Social Security Administration ("Harbingers of a Troubled Future," Last Word, April). As commissioner of Social Security from 1997 to 2001, I couldn't agree more that major steps are necessary to ensure that the public will get exemplary service. But while very real challenges are facing the agency, I believe they can be overcome if major steps are taken in several areas.

Light's key concern is the upcoming retirement of large proportions of the SSA workforce in the next few years. Staffing at SSA was cut significantly during the 1980s, leading to an overall aging of the workforce. The Clinton administration largely exempted SSA from overall government downsizing. But a number of managerial and overhead positions were reduced to put more workers directly on the front lines. While some steps were taken to prepare for the upcoming exodus in staff, many more will be needed, including better recruitment and training and the hiring of new staff well in advance of the upcoming wave of retirements.

While personnel issues will be critical to the agency, other issues also must be stepped-up if service to the public is to be strong. The long-term service vision that the agency developed must be continued and expanded to ensure that process improvements are institutionalized. And steps must be taken to continue to greatly expand technology and provide services directly through the Web.

But the key item missing in Light's analysis is the need for adequate resources. Investments in people and technology take money, and the upcoming retirement of the baby boom generation will take a commitment of more administrative resources. My budget requests to Congress called for sizable increases in funding for personnel, training and technology investments consistent with the agency's vision of providing exemplary service to the public. Adequate funding has not been forthcoming. I've called on the new administration and Congress to recognize that resources are part of the answer, but to date those calls have not borne fruit. Without a commitment to adequate administrative resources, SSA will face a crisis in service.

Americans deserve quality service from government. Let's make sure that a highly skilled federal workforce gets the tools, resources and processes it needs to serve them.

Kenneth Apfel
(Former Social Security Commissioner)
Sid Richardson Chair
LBJ School of Public Affairs
University of Texas, Austin

Style Vs. Substance

David Klaus' advice to incoming political appointees ("Big Changes Start with Day-to-Day Actions," Management, June) is good in theory and would be an excellent addition to a symposium on management philosophies. Unfortunately, his suggestions cannot happen.

First, Klaus presumes that political appointees know how to manage. As a (now retired) career federal manager who rose through the ranks to the so-called "political level," I can say that most of them haven't a clue. Many of them, especially the "30-somethings," lack the seasoning to hold high managerial positions and have never touched the essential bases of first- and second-line supervision. Often they are lawyers and academics, two groups famous for lacking essential managerial skills. In short, political appointees often are unqualified to manage, and the notion that they can instruct senior career managers on how to run their operations is specious, if not arrogant.

Second, most political appointees simply lack the time to get into the nitty-gritty of management. My boss at Defense (who was actually an excellent manager) worked 14 hours a day on numerous pressing issues arising from the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War. There wasn't time to examine performance standards and reviews.

As for career managers not dealing with problem employees, it's well known that most political appointees have only one fear-adverse publicity. Many times I have observed the politicos putting the quietus on appropriate actions against problem employees for fear of lawsuits, grievances and especially discrimination complaints (which might catch the media's attention).

As for failures of federal agency leaders to attract and retain valuable employees, that's a point that seems ironic coming from a veteran of the Clinton administration, which drove many skilled white males out with its relentless pursuit of diversity quotas, oops, I mean goals.

William Rudman
(Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense)
Attorney
Waltham, Mass.

Reassessing Rotations

So the Army is considering a policy of individual rotation to replace "the more disruptive practice of rotating whole units" in the Balkans ("The Peacekeepers," March). Disruptive to whom? The turmoil in units caused by individual short tour rotations will be more disruptive to unit cohesion and effectiveness, as well as mission accomplishment. I would have thought individual rotations were sufficiently discredited in Vietnam.

Shelton Jones
Cost Analyst
Headquarters
U.S. Army Forces Command

Combating 'Old Think'

In "Outsourcing Pits Mission vs. Money" (Viewpoint, April), the authors argue that outsourcing, particularly of military information technology activities, is a bad idea that costs too much and threatens mission capability. In making their case however, they ignored fundamental facts and realities, failed to consider good business practices and seemed oblivious to the very serious challenges the government faces, especially in the technology arena.

Contrary to the authors' assertions, outsourcing is about improving performance and enhancing efficiencies. Virtually all the independent reviews of competitive sourcing-including those by the General Accounting Office, the Center for Naval Analyses and Business Executives for National Security-conclude that competition and outsourcing save money and improve performance.

Moreover, while the authors assert that outsourcing causes the government to "lose control" of its operations, precisely the reverse is true. In fact, well-executed competitive sourcing leverages-to the government's benefit-the private sector's focus on profit and its desire for long-term business. In other words, with well-written performance requirements and good management, the government actually can and does exercise far more control than typically is the case with in-house performance.

The authors also cite the difficulties contractors face with recruitment and retention, but fail to recognize that attracting and keeping technologically skilled workers is a far greater problem for the government. They also ignore the fact that the government cannot keep pace with industry in the development and fielding of new technologies and capabilities. In other words, the government no longer is, nor can it expect to be, the owner of many of the very technologies-particularly information technologies-on which its mission, including battlefield dominance, depends. Thus, rather than trying the impossible-building an entirely organic IT workforce-the government would be far better served by building better business relationships with the private sector.

A philosophy of partnership, performance and communication must replace the "we can do it ourselves" tradition that is far too prevalent in government. Leveraging private capital, technology, and the competitiveness and innovation of the private sector is a "win-win" proposition for government. Hanging on to "old think" is a recipe for failure that will cost the taxpayer dearly and seriously threaten mission capabilities.

Stan Z. Soloway
President
Professional Services Council

Spacing Out

The article on NASA ("Effectiveness vs. Efficiency," Management, April) was very good and accurate. However, more should have been said about the failures of the X-33/34 programs and the space station's cost and scheduling failures. All of these came about for the same reason as that of the Mars failure: NASA's inexperience, lack of effective oversight and the agency's severe loss of technical expertise. Unfortunately, NASA has dug a hole for itself and won't be able to get out of it for another decade.

Comparing government centers and their efficiency and effectiveness criteria with the Defense Department and "wars" is in no way a valid comparison. What government entities, NASA included, need is accountability. In government, failures are abandoned or renamed with new designs and new funding, and no one is held accountable. This would not work in the private sector.

S. Enguehard
President and Senior Research Physicist
AMP Research Inc.

James Colvard distinguishes effectively between the bottom-line orientation of commerce and the mission orientation that should be the principal concern of government. But I believe Colvard is unfair when he writes about cutting defense costs. Specifically, in the case of NASA, Daniel Goldin's attempts to change the "old" way of doing business didn't produce much in the way of savings or scientific payoff.

What has happened with NASA's newly risk-averse approach is that low-cost access to space for research purposes has been limited, thus hampering training of space scientists at our nation's universities.

Colvard says, "Saving taxpayer dollars is always desirable, but agencies must remember that performing the mission is mandatory." It would be impossible to disagree when the mission is national defense, but public servants have the responsibility to weigh the cost and benefit to the taxpayer of each mission less critical to national security.

Joseph B. Gurman
U.S. Project Scientist
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Cultural Revolution

I agree with Paul Light's conclusions in "The Jurassic Park of Reform" (Last Word, May). But, I also think the proposition of filling mounting government vacancies with younger, entry-level applicants and keeping them is more complex than he proposes.

Recently, I took part in a teamwork class with a number of new employees. I was immediately struck by their impatience with not getting more authority and responsibility. In my agency, a certain amount of on-the-job experience is necessary before one can expect to fly solo.

I believed what was widely held 25 years ago, that women who then began rising to the upper echelons would have a big impact on the old-boy system. Not only would they bring a feminine demeanor to the boardroom, they would bring a less than absolute approach to authority and be more willing to challenge the status quo in the hierarchy. This did happen. As Generation Xers enter the workforce, we may be seeing another social phenomenon. Probably, their parents never served in the military. In fact, their households may have been headed by one parent. This may breed an even greater sense of independence among both men and women. Is their less-reverent attitude to absolute authority resulting in greater impatience with delays in being granted full autonomy at work?

If this is the case, new workers probably are inclined to change jobs for more reasons than simply getting higher pay. The government brain drain may continue long after the baby boomers begin to retire during the next four years. For most government agencies, the learning curve for many employees simply cannot be shortened. The status of flying solo in the government environment will continue to be difficult to attain. Impatience may lead many recent hires to leave government. If more frequent staff turnover begins, agencies will have to face the task of motivating and challenging those high achievers they want to retain. This may require real cultural change in some agencies.

Russ Gardiner
Management Analyst
Agriculture Department

Correction

Sen. George Voinovich's home state was misidentified in the June Editor's Notebook. He is from Ohio.