SES in The Governmentwide Culture Change Effort

Strengthen the Senior Executive Service So That It Becomes a Key Element
in the Governmentwide Culture Change Effort

Background

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 established the Senior Executive
Service (SES) as a separate personnel system.  Incumbents of the SES
include most of the top policy and managerial positions in the executive
branch except for those requiring Senate confirmation. SES executives
potentially serve as key links between the top political appointees and
the rest of the career civil servants that staff federal agencies.

By September 1992, about 8,800 SES positions had been allocated by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and 8,200 positions had been
filled. About 700 of these were filled by political appointees.  The
political appointees provide the necessary policy controls, while the
career SES managers provide a politically neutral, responsive, skilled
group of managers and leaders. As originally envisioned, SES members

[s]erve the twin objectives of change and continuity: on the one hand,
helping the top officials of a new administration to steer their
agencies in the directions set by the newly elected President; on the
other, carrying forward the institutional memory of Government and
maintaining high standards of public service. It is a balancing act of
great delicacy.(1)

Need for Change

OPM's role.

The original vision of the SES, as outlined above, is still valid.
Missing, at this juncture of its history, is an institution and process
to give its members a focus and mission that takes them beyond their
individual job and organization performance concerns.  OPM's role has
been more administrative and technical; as a result, the SES has not
evolved to the extent originally envisioned. If the SES is to evolve,
OPM's role must become more facilitative and consultative, working in
concert with the agencies.

Change involves a long-term commitment. The SES can provide the
continuity and long-term tenacity required for significant change
governmentwide. This change will involve the federal government
culture. Managers at all levels will have to view their roles
differently than many do now. A recent Brookings Institution report
called for "[a] performance-driven federal government . .  . staffed by
managers and administrators imbued with a new entrepreneurial spirit. .
. . What matters is the ability of the leaders to inspire, to infuse
value. . . . Such leaders are in short supply."(2)

The Complex Mix of SES Positions and Roles.

It was intended that the SES consist of generalist managers with the
ability and incentives to take on assignments where they would be most
effective in accomplishing agency missions. For many reasons, however,
this objective has not been met.

There is a small group of senior executives who occupy key leadership
positions linking the President's top appointed officials with those
charged with carrying out public policy.  These key executives can be
career or non-career. They will play a pivotal role in the success of
government programs and policies and in reinventing the executive
branch.

The majority of senior executives, however, now serve in the SES
because of their technical expertise, often as key advisors and
managers of support staffs or as operational managers responsible for
parts of line (legislative) programs, rather than as agency-level
leaders and program executives. While all are important positions, this
mixture of roles makes it difficult to develop and manage the SES as a
resource for agency management as originally intended.

Tensions Between Career Senior Executives and Political Appointees.
Both the Merit Systems Protection Board and the General Accounting
Office have pointed to the poor relationships that often exist between
career SES members and political appointees.(3) These relationships
often emerge as significant management problems. A certain amount of
tension is natural; however, there are a number of aggravating
circumstances that should be alleviated.

Over the years there has been an increase in the number of non-career
SES appointees. This in turn has meant fewer career executives in key
leadership positions and fewer career jobs that are meaningful.(4) In
addition, the short tenure of political appointees means that they
provide less program stability and continuity because of the abbreviated
time frames in which they operate. Change in large organizations takes
time, is usually incremental, and needs tenacious and persistent
leadership over a period of years.

Agency Weaknesses in Managing the SES.

Compounding this problem has been agency behavior in selecting,
developing, using, and rewarding executives. Whereas some agencies have
done a good job in creating an effective executive cadre, others have
not treated their senior executives as a key resource or integrated the
selection and development of their executives with their vision of a
more effective agency. Because OPM can continually allocate additional
SES positions, agencies have less incentive to rethink their current use
of SES positions. In many cases, the focus needs to be changed from
creating more SES positions to better use of current positions.

The need to more effectively select and develop agency SES cadres is
compounded by the expected exodus of SES members in the coming years.  A
National Academy of Public Administration study estimates that over "one
third of the SES--or 2,600 executives--will be eligible to retire" by
January 1994.(5) Most will also have completed three years at their
highest salary rate, thus creating another incentive to retire. This not
only provides opportunities to select executives who can contribute
quickly to agency change efforts, but allows agencies to improve the
diversity of their SES membership. To achieve this, agency leadership
must focus on these needs and incorporate solutions into their
strategic planning efforts.

The SES as a Culture Change Force.

For the most part, the executive branch projects an image of a
hierarchical, highly conservative, and risk-averse culture. Trust
levels are low at all levels of government and in most organizations.
Most employees including executives are uncomfortable with this
situation and are ready to work toward solutions.

Vice President Gore has offered one alternative. He expects that the
National Performance Review will result in and require significant
culture change in the executive branch. The real drivers of change will
have to be the career and non-career executives. In other words,
significant culture change must rely on leadership.

The reinventing government effort intends to decentralize authority and
accountability to a greater extent. Management will have fewer rules,
will be held accountable for results, and will be responsible for
significant changes in the years to come. Because culture change on a
scale as envisioned by the President, Vice President, and Cabinet is a
long-term endeavor, institutions and processes must be developed to
support this change. The SES should be managed as a strategic resource
to bring about change governmentwide and at the agency level. If
institutional leadership means cultivating a shared view of a new
direction and culture, then OPM and its director must create new
vehicles that help build such a shared view and remove the perception
of OPM as a controller and regulator.

The following actions have been developed to support these culture
changes. Agency leadership must bear a large measure of responsibility
for culture change and the creation of very different management values
and behaviors. These changes cannot be made immediately; rather, they
will take time to allow for adequate research, experimentation,
learning, and consultation with an array of stakeholders. The actions
provide for such a beginning.


Cross References to Other NPR Accompanying Reports

Creating Quality Leadership and Management, QUAL03: Strengthen the Corps
of Senior Leaders.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA04: Develop a Skilled
Management Team Among Political Appointees and Career Staff.

Reengineering Through Information Technology, IT13: Provide Training and
Technical Assistance in Information Technology to Federal Employees.

Endnotes

1. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Handbook for the Senior
Executive Service," Washington, D.C., July 1993, p. 3. (Draft.)  2.
DiIulio, Jr., John J., Gerald Garvey, and Donald F. Kettl, Improving
Government Performance: An Owners Manual (Washington, D.C.:  The
Brookings Institution, 1993), pp. 73-74.

3. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
Subcommittee on Civil Service, "Political Appointees in Federal
Agencies," testimony by Bernard L. Ungar, Director, Federal Human
Resource Management Issues, General Government Division, General
Accounting Office, October 26, 1989, p. 13.  See also U.S. Merit System
Protection Board, The Senior Executive Service: Views of Former Federal
Executives (Washington, D.C., October 1989), pp. 19- 21.

4. Ibid.

5. National Academy of Public Administration, Paths to Leadership
Executive Succession Planning in the Federal Government (Washington,
D.C., December 1992), p. 1.

6. Sanders, Ron, "Reinventing the Senior Executive Service," Virginia,
June 1993, p. 8. (Draft.)

7. National Academy of Public Administration, Paths to Leadership,
Executive Succession Planning in the Federal Government: Report Summary
(Washington, D.C., December 1992), p.  4.