Working With Career Executives

by

Dr. Dana Michael Harsell

Dr. Dana Michael Harsell

One of the most popular downloads from the IBM Center’s website is a 2005 piece by Dr.  Dana Michael Harsell, “Working with Career Executives to Manage for Results.”  I thought it might be worth highlighting and posting it for those interested in presidential transition issues, since it seems particularly relevant.

 

He begins his essay noting: “Historically, the relationships between political appointees and career executives have been marked with some degree of tension, especially during a transition in leadership.”  He conducted in-depth interviews in three federal agencies and found that two management reforms, the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and President Bush’s President’s Management Agenda (PMA) helped create a new environment in these agencies that helped bridge these tensions.

 

He concludes:  “ . . the results-oriented management reforms embodied in GPRA and the PMA have helped to mitigate historic tensions between political appointees and career civil servants by creating a common ground around achieving mission results.”

 

He supports his conclusion with nine findings:

 

Finding 1:  GPRA has created a common language for politicals and careerists, and this common language offers a number of benefits to the political/careerist relationship.

 

Finding 2:  The GPRA process helped smooth the transition in political leadership from the Clinton to the Bush administration.

 

Finding 3: Updating GPRA required plans to better reflect the policy goals of the new  administration during the transition of political leadership was a beneficial exercise and, in principle, has the potential to strengthen or accelerate productive relationships among careerists and political appointees.

 

Finding 4: Setting ambitious goals may also help improve relationships.

 

Finding 5: The GPRA process is perceived as being “owned” by careerists; however, it is also seen as a tool that can be used to help political leadership advance the goals and policy agenda of the current administration.

 

Finding 6: Generally, the political staff tends to be more focused on the President’s Management Agenda, and career staff and managers tend to be more GPRA oriented.

 

Finding 7: Congressional interest in GPRA may be waning.

 

Finding 8: Interviewees in all three agencies reported a positive shift in department culture and internal management practices and generally attributed these shifts to GPRA.

 

Finding 9: Under some conditions, the GPRA and PMA process may help to exacerbate tensions between political appointees and career managers.

 

His story sounds plausible based on what I’ve been seeing.  I wonder if it holds up in the next transition?

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: