This comment is also published by the Centre for Public Impact, a BCG Foundation.
“If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.”
I have a lifelong goal to eradicate my chronic long-windedness. As a result, the lesson that underlies the famous quote above has always resonated with me. Using fewer words, if they are the right words, is undoubtedly the best way to make your point. But finding the right words requires effort. And absent this investment, you risk diluting the effectiveness of your message.
The notion that proper investment can lead to a smaller, yet more impactful end-product applies in many contexts. It is a notion that I believe has particular relevance for our government and its workforce. Investment to ensure we have the right people with the right skill sets and tools can open the door to a smaller and leaner government with the potential to be higher performing than the government we have today. But absent that investment, we place much at risk. And it is this risk that I believe should be squarely on the radar screen of our current candidates for president.
Promises, promises
We are now firmly in the midst of election season. Candidates from both parties are outlining competing visions for the future. In many cases, the visions stand in stark contrast with one another, and as a result, spawn passionate and intense debate. The policy and political tensions involved in today’s high-profile issues (e.g., immigration, national security, health care, etc.) are currently playing center stage, with valid questions being posed to candidates on how promised reforms will obtain sufficient support from a divided Congress and how we will pay for bold change initiatives. However, a question less frequently heard in the national debate is whether our government workforce is adequately equipped to meet new mandates.
Take for example the issue of immigration, where candidates’ visions fall across a wide spectrum — from new paths to citizenship to unprecedented increases in security along our southern border. In either scenario, there is the common expectation that implementation and execution will be free from glitches and backlogs, within budget, and on schedule. And in either scenario, an important question remains:… Will the new president inherit a government that is capable of successfully executing on the promised visions of change?
Big vs. small government
Traditional notions of American politics would lead some to conclude that only the candidates who embrace a larger role for government will be susceptible to fail in their endeavors due to an under-performing federal workforce. I believe this would be a flawed view of the realities of executive branch leadership. No matter whom our next president is or how big or small they envision the government’s role, our next chief executive will invariably find themselves in need of a high-performing federal workforce in order to be successful.
At the very minimum, our new president will want federal agencies (no matter how large or small their role) to avoid management-related failures, which often get characterized as “scandals.” Not only do such missteps negatively impact citizens; they also divert the attention of a chief executive and his/her top leaders from their original agenda and priorities. A quick look back at the last two decades informs us that government failures take many forms: — logistics miscues during an emergency response; flawed and highly scrutinized approaches in federal hiring; blatantly wasteful spending at government-sponsored activities; critical information technologies that fail to work as intended at scheduled launch times; backlogs and other bureaucratic snafus that prevent citizens from receiving essential benefits and services in a timely and effective manner; cyber breaches that expose sensitive information. Any president, regardless of political stripe, will certainly want to avoid such failures “on their watch.” And any experienced leader will attest to the fact that an under-trained, under-resourced workforce will increase the likelihood of such organizational mistakes and missteps.
Beyond avoiding mistakes in ongoing operations, a new president will inevitably initiate a series of actions intended to reshape government operations in a manner that aligns with their priorities. No one would argue that designing and launching new programs or initiatives will require the federal workforce to operate with competence and skill in planning and execution. However, the same point can also be made in those scenarios where programs and initiatives are dismantled or significantly down-sized. To successfully and timely reduce the footprint of government operations will require the workforce to engage in robust planning, precision in execution, and highly effective risk mitigation strategies to ensure that actions taken are done so in a manner that achieves the intended outcome with equity, efficiency and integrity.
Thus, I believe it is in any president’s best interest (and by extension the best interest of the American people) to cultivate a high-performing government. Any president with a bold change agenda will not only need to navigate a divided Congress and find funds within a constrained budget; he or she will also need to rely on the federal workforce to address challenges and execute mandates. Unfortunately however, our new president will inherit a workforce that has been under-nourished as of late. Hiring freezes, cuts in training budgets, and a growing drain in talent through retirement and departures to the private sector are taking their toll on the capacity of our government to perform at a high level.
That said, I have no doubt that there will be an eye-opening moment for incoming political officials when they bear witness to the extraordinary talent that resides across our government and they will further be inspired by the passion for good government and sound policy that is at the cornerstone of our civil servant workforce. Despite these various shining stars through the government, years of systemic divestment in people — and the tools they need to succeed — will be equally apparent and troubling to the next administration.
The small finish
Similar to my quest for brevity, we hear related themes and aspirations from our future potential leaders when it comes to cutting some of the fat in government. Candidates from both sides are using terms and phrases like “simplify,” “streamline”, and “accelerate,” all with an eye towards smarter government. In some cases, candidates are maintaining even more aggressive postures to “downsize” and “eliminate.” For all candidates with aspirations of re-shaping our government to require fewer resources while being more effective, I think the following variation on the famous quote that begins this blog should be heeded: “If we had invested more in our federal workforce, we could have had a smaller 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 D.C.
