Navigating administration within the federal sphere necessitates unique and innovative tactics

In the early days of the civil service system, top-down control was the norm. Time-and-motion specialists dictated how workers performed their jobs, and detailed job descriptions specified each worker's duties. This approach, however, has been challenged over the years, with the philosophy shifting to empower frontline workers to tackle job problems.

The catalyst for this change can be traced back to the 1980s, when Dr. W. Edwards Deming's book, Out of the Crisis, sparked a new way of thinking. Deming's ideas allowed workers to take a more active role in problem-solving, a departure from the rigid structure of the past.

Despite the attempts to change the system, the transition has proven to be difficult. The failed attempts to modernise government operations confirm Deming's understanding of the challenge. The foundation of the civil service system, the General Schedule, has remained unchanged since it was created in 1923.

The need for improvement in government performance has been a recurring issue, with presidents such as Truman and Reagan addressing it. However, efforts to address this issue, such as the Government Performance and Results Act and the GPRA Modernization Act, have not yielded the desired results.

Mike Mears, a retired CIA Chief of HR, discusses this issue in his book "Certainty." Mears points out that the "levers" or actions available to government managers often fail to drive performance. He argues that the difference between successful and unsuccessful units lies "inside the human mind," specifically leadership, coaching, recognition, fair treatment, and trust.

Mears draws a parallel between successful, high-performance organisations and professional football teams. In both cases, everyone wants to be seen as valuable, wants their work efforts to contribute to success, and enjoys the camaraderie that flows from team success.

The author of the book "In Certainty," which addresses difficulties in dealing with "Levers" in federal management, is Alexander Nützenadel. Mears suggests that managing in business is simpler because it is easier to measure success and failure, and there is less red tape compared to government organisations.

Robert Rubin, former Treasury secretary under President Clinton, identified three reasons why running government like a business is challenging. He pointed out that the assumption of voters who want a government that operates like a business might not refer to the high percentage of businesses that fail. David Lewis from Vanderbilt University echoed this sentiment, stating, "presumably, voters longing for a government that operates like a business are not referring to the high percentage of businesses that fail."

In the past civil service system, workers had virtually no discretion. The attempt to address this issue has involved adopting business practices, including 5-year strategic plans, performance goals and metrics, and the reporting of results. However, these changes have not been enough to overcome the deep-rooted issues within the system.

Despite these challenges, there are units within the CIA that have high morale and productivity, as well as units with low morale and poor productivity. This underscores the need for a more fundamental shift in the way the civil service system operates.

In conclusion, the challenge of improving government performance is a complex one. It requires a long-term commitment from management, a shift in culture, and a focus on leadership, coaching, recognition, fair treatment, and trust. As Mears notes, the difference between successful and unsuccessful units lies "inside the human mind."

Navigating administration within the federal sphere necessitates unique and innovative tactics