This comment is also published by the Centre for Public Impact, a BCG Foundation.

Roughly 10 years ago I participated in a meeting with CFOs from around the federal government where we discussed what the next decade would have in store for public sector managers. What was the dominant concern on everyone's mind that day? The workforce.

The baby boomers within government were set to begin retiring in 2010, meaning we were on the relative cusp of losing many leaders with great institutional knowledge and productivity. It was becoming increasingly apparent, even in 2005, that technology was accelerating and that we lacked the right skill sets in government to fully and timely leverage it. We also recognized that government operations promised to become more complex as the nature of threats to American security – terrorism, natural disasters, financial improprieties – were becoming increasingly more serious and diverse.

As a result, we concluded that the government was at a critical juncture in terms of our workforce. Our solution involved investment in the workforce of the future through enhanced recruiting, retention, training, etc. If not, we concluded, we could expect to see a degradation of government management effectiveness. At that time, no one in the room could paint an accurate picture of what form the degradation would take, but we knew it would manifest itself in one form or another.

Crisis as the new normal

A troubling narrative of the U.S. government over the past several years has been the emergence of a series of management and leadership crises, that some have gone as far as to characterize as "scandals."  The IRS, GSA, VA, OPM, and HHS have all dealt with a substantial and acute management misstep of some kind in recent years. The aftermath has included public outcry, intense media coverage, and large-scale congressional investigations, all of which have justifiably focused on what were the particular events or mistakes that led to the crisis and who should be held accountable. However, less prominent in this public dialogue has been whether the challenges we are seeing today are borne, at least in some part, out of a longer-term and steady divestment in our workforce.

In 2005, we were concerned about emerging skill gaps resulting from retirements and rapid changes in technology and mission threats. In response, have we done enough to nurture and grow the skills and disciplines that are the necessary enablers for strong government performance?  I believe many federal managers today would respond with an emphatic "no" and point to recent hiring freezes, furloughs, and reduced emphasis on training as evidence of systemic under-investment. If the answer is no, then perhaps the spate of management crises over the past several years should be the subject of an additional line of questioning. Specifically, has an underinvestment in developing and growing the talent base of the government's workforce contributed in some way to some of the higher profile challenges we have seen recently in government performance?   

Going for "good' government

I should be very clear that the notion of greater investment need not equate or lead to a larger workforce. In fact, I believe it could be argued quite convincingly that we are better off with a smaller highly skilled and highly trained workforce than a larger one that does not meet the key benchmarks of excellence and preparedness.

Thus, I believe I am raising an issue that is bi-partisan at its core. In our political discourse today, there are very legitimate differences of opinion and perspective on the role of government. However, I believe both sides agree that whether large or small, proactive or reactive, the government we do have should function effectively and with integrity. For the public servants in government working to keep our skies safe,  our roads safe, our food safe, our water supply safe, our schools safe, and our borders secure, how do we ensure they have the right tools to perform at the highest possible level of excellence? If you are of the belief that the government has some role to play in these various efforts, whether that role be large or small, I think it's fair to say we want the right people with the right skills and tools on the job.

And we very often have just that. While the public's attention on the government often feels like it is exclusively on where we fall short, there have been numerous remarkable accomplishments of federal employees and teams over the past decade that would make even the most strident critic of government feel a sense of patriotism and pride.  If you doubt this conclusion, I encourage you to spend some time at http://servicetoamericamedals.org/, where thanks to the important work of The Partnership for Public Service, some of the most inspiring federal work is recognized and celebrated.

I believe a fair assessment of government effectiveness would recognize extraordinary pockets of success, remarkably consistent and noteworthy performance in many key areas that improve the quality of life for all Americans, however, a variety of areas with systemic underperformance, and periodically, pockets of acute failure. The right investments in our workforce over the next several years can make the difference between the scale balancing more towards the former categories than the latter.      

The right question is… 

A high functioning federal workforce opens the door to many critical advancements in government excellence. But it needs to be cultivated and treated with care and diligence. In the wake of some of the recent high profile management crises, our focus rightfully began with: How did this happen? and Who is responsible? But we need to transition the conversation in due time towards questions with longer term and lasting implications: What did we learn? and What investments will be necessary to ensure better results in the future?   

Although I spent nearly 20 years as a federal employee, it is when I am away from work that I have the greatest appreciation of the importance of a well functioning government. When I prepare my children's breakfast before school in the morning, I expect that food to be free from contaminants. Or when my family and I board an airplane to visit extended family over the holidays, I expect that all the right controls will be in place and executed to ensure the plane takes off and lands safely. It is in these moments that I realize just how high the stakes are to make sure we sustain a high performing government.

Danny Werfel held leadership positions at the Office of Management and Budget during the administrations of both President Bush and President Obama as well as serving as the Acting Commissioner of the IRS. He currently serves as a Director at The Boston Consulting Group, Washington DC.

 

Share:
In Other News
Load More