 |
|
|
|
Government Leader home > news stories
06/13/06
Agencies can improve performance by learning from big business
By Stephen Barr
Special to Government Leader
Congressional committees are debating whether to reform the Federal Emergency Management Agency while keeping it in the Homeland Security Department or to restore FEMA to its premerger independence.
The General Services Administration is reorganizing by pulling together separate divisions that provided technology and an array of supplies and services.
To a large degree, the FEMA debate and the GSA restructuring are being driven by a sense of crisis. Hurricane Katrina provided a powerful reminder that the nation requires a top-notch FEMA. Contracting irregularities, declining revenue and shifting federal buying habits have led GSA to restructure and reduce staffing.
Significant reforms in the federal government, especially in the late 1990s, also were often undertaken when Congress or the White House perceived that an agency was in crisis. Two agencies that play key roles in the lives of most Americans—the Federal Aviation Administration and the Internal Revenue Service—faced pressure to change and restructured their organizations.
An analysis in a recent Harvard Business Review (www.hbr.com) underscores what many in the federal community know—that agencies operate with handicaps that are largely unseen in the private sector but still can overcome their moments of crisis and become even more successful in serving the public.
The article, “Change Management in Government,” was written by Frank Ostroff, the managing partner of Ostroff Associates Inc. of Washington. The Harvard journal publishes relatively few public management critiques, but Ostroff offers case studies showing that federal agencies can improve their performance by adapting goals and methods used by big business.
The handicaps facing federal agencies are well-known, Ostroff points out. Political appointees are not chosen because of their commitment to or skill in leading management reform efforts, and most serve only from 18 months to 24 months. The rules for procurement, personnel and budgeting are complex and create workplaces less flexible than they might be. Most agency operations are in the line of sight of Congress or an interest group, meaning that almost every initiative is bound to have a critic.
Despite such disadvantages, Ostroff identifies five principles that he thinks characterize successful reform in public agencies. They are:
- Improve performance against agency mission. The mission of agencies often get blurred as political priorities shift, but effective and efficient execution of a mission is what taxpayers pay for and what motivates employees, Ostroff says. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Government Accountability Office and the military’s Special Operations Forces made significant change to their operations by focusing on mission and choosing clear goals for improvement, he writes. “In the process, performance or skill gaps in the organization will be exposed,” Ostroff says.
- Win over external and internal stakeholders. After the failed 1980 attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran, the military reconstituted its Special Operations Forces to address the concerns of Congress, Pentagon officials and military personnel. GAO works hard to understand the issues and concerns important to members of Congress.
- Create a road map. Agency leaders must identify performance objectives, set priorities and roll out their change program, Ostroff says. “It also helps to pursue tangible results that can be achieved quickly, even if they are not the ones that will have the biggest impact,” he advises.
- Take a comprehensive approach. “For organizations to perform at a superior level, the full range of factors—leadership, structure, processes, infrastructure (including technology), people and performance management—must be integrated and aligned,” Ostroff writes. “Yet the tendency within government is to seize on whichever organizational element the particular person or group driving the change effort knows best, at the expense of other elements.”
- Be a leader, not a bureaucrat. Good leaders show respect for the rules, and understand what can and cannot be done. Political appointees, in particular, must convince agency employees and stakeholders of their sincerity. Agency heads, Ostroff says, must convince the rank and file that “this time is different” than previous management fads and that the agency head will invest the personal time and energy required to pull off a reform effort.
“Public agencies can be mysterious places,” Ostroff writes. “But the solutions to reforming them are not.”
Speaking of tough challenges and leadership to match…
Patricia McGinnis, president of the Council for Excellence in Government, offers some case studies on federal leaders who use innovative techniques to improve agency performance in the spring issue of The Public Manager (www.thepublicmanager.org), a journal sponsored by LMI Research Institute of McLean, Va.
“Public managers who would lead well must know private, as well as public leadership techniques,” McGinnis writes. They should get the chance to meet and consult with inspiring leaders and learn how to inspire quality performance … They should understand why original thinking, beyond conventional boundaries, is so useful…They should grasp certain operational truths: that communication is vital, teamwork is indispensable and better relationships with subordinates, superiors and colleagues are essential.”
McGinnis adds, “Most critical is self-knowledge. Potential public leaders must learn to clearly identify their own core values and embrace them.”
Stephen Barr writes the Federal Diary column for The Washington Post and hosts an online discussion each week at washingtonpost.com.
|
|
|
![Government Leader[purity]](/images/govleader_smlogo.gif "Government Leader [purity]"){kind=small}
