Shows & Panels
- Accelerate and Streamline for Better Customer Service
- Ask the CIO
- The Big Data Dilemma
- Carrying On with Continuity of Operations
- Client Virtualization Solutions
- Data Protection in a Virtual World
- Expert Voices
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal IT Challenge
- Federal Tech Talk
- Feds in the Cloud
- Health IT: A Policy Change Agent
- Improving Healthcare Outcomes through IT Policy
- IT Innovation in the New Era of Government
- Making Dollars And Sense Out of Data Center Consolidation
- Navigating the Private Cloud
- One Step to the Cloud, Two Steps Toward Innovation
- Path to FDCCI Compliance
- Take Command of Your Mobility Initiative
Shows & Panels
Shuffling the SES deck
Tuesday - 3/13/2012, 2:00am EDT
The answer is, it's probably your boss. Maybe your immediate supervisor, maybe the Senior Executive Service official who runs your part of the operation. Political appointees come and go (average work life span is 18 months), but career SES people can be forever.
Several members of Congress think the SES has gone stale. That it isn't living up to its promise (or promises) because only about half its 7,000- plus career people have experience in more than one agency. Some good-government groups agree.
In the late 1970s, Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull wrote a book called "The Peter Principle." It was supposed to be funny, but with a message. Which, in a nutshell, is that "in hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." In other words, a great scientist (or an expert in his or her field) is promoted and becomes a lousy manager. Then stays in that job meaning the organization has lost a great employee and found a lousy boss.
(As one who hasn't been promoted in years I have mixed emotions about this theory. But I digress ...)
So, does the SES deck need to be shuffled? And, if so, how often? Can agencies realistically be expected to hand off their best and brightest to another agency? Or do they propose people they want to get rid of for promotion and transfer?
Consider this comment from a fed who was around when the SES was created. She says:
I don't know what prompted Congress to think SES would be a good idea, but at the time they started it, there was a very popular management theory that taught that good managers should be able to get good results no matter what business they were managing. This led to the disastrous spectacle of companies acquiring other companies about which they knew nothing. The only example I can cite, but there are many others, is RCA's acquisition of Banquet Foods, Random House publishing, Hertz car rental, Coronet carpets, etc. plus an ill-considered foray into the computer field to compete with IBM. The only accomplishment of all the fevered activity was GE's takeover of RCA in the mid-80s. Once a management fad takes hold, it can take years for it to be replaced and the damage repaired.
I worked for RCA for a decade while all this acquisition was going on. RCA sent me to college to get a degree in business administration. I wrote a couple of papers about the folly of buying companies about which they knew nothing. We studied the then-current Japanese business methods which seemed to me to be fine for Japan, and later, after I joined NASA, we had to put up with TQM (total quality management) and a couple of other fads.
At the time SES was instituted, I was close to an associate administrator at Goddard Space Flight Center. He told me, so few people volunteered for SES that NASA basically shanghaied senior civil servants and told them they would be SES or else. Until his death in 1984 he complained bitterly about what a lousy idea it was.
The shoemaker should stick to his last. I retired from NASA in in 2003. As far as I know none of the SES people, at least at Goddard Space Flight Center, ever worked at any other agencies. It takes very specialized education and years of experience to succeed in the space business. None of this education and experience would be a good fit with any other agency. To even try would be a waste of time all around.
Just my two cents. E.J.
NEARLY USELESS FACTOID
By Jack Moore
Constructing the Great Pyramid of Giza today would take about five years with 2,000 workers and would cost about $5 billion, according to Life's Little Mysteries.
MORE FROM FEDERAL NEWS RADIO
DoJ holding more managers accountable
The Justice Department will begin evaluating managers based, in part, on their adherence to its diversity management plan. It's the latest step in a diversity strategy that began in 2010 and which faces a March 16 deadline.
Senate amendment would extend pay
freeze through 2013
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) introduced an amendment Thursday to the Senate Highway Bill that would extend the federal pay freeze for another year as part of a special deficit reduction trust fund.
OPM cites 'great strides' in hiring reform
OPM met just more than half of its two dozen performance measures for 2011, according to an annual performance report released in February.