Page 16 - FCW, September 15, 2017

Commentary|BY BOB WOODS
Can’t we all just get along?
BOB WOODS is president of TopsideConsultingGroupandformer commissioner of the General Services Administration’s Federal Technology Service.
Some friction between senior careerists and political appointees is inevitable, but a little empathy can go a long way
As the Trump administration continues working to fill key leadership slots and as some longtime IT leaders have been moved to new roles, the issue of how senior career leaders and political or temporary appointees get along is squarely back in the public debate.
The federal workforce is made up of two basic groups. The permanent workforce is generally hired under a rule-based merit system that emphasizes skills, knowledge
and abilities with some veterans’ preferences and affirmative action considerations. The temporary or noncareer workforce is generally appointed by the administration based on far more flexible criteria. Those hires are often referred to as political appointees.
When both groups are thrust into the demanding atmosphere of doing the government’s business, conflicts can arise. Often the simplistic view is that career employees are concerned about keeping existing operations going while political appointees
are focused on implementing the president’s agenda. Career staffers are often seen as bureaucrats who only do what’s written in the law or regulations. Political appointees, in turn, are often seen as unqualified hacks whose daddies donated to the president’s campaign.
Partisanship in any form undermines our government and is a disservice to the public. So how should the system work?
As with any dispute or bias,
some grain of truth perpetuates
the situation. Career staffers are indeed responsible for day-to-day operations and are evaluated on that basis. If your job is to ensure that the trains run on time, you’re rewarded on metrics of timeliness and quality. Being on time when it suits you
is not an option, and you will be replaced by others who are better at keeping things moving.
Both groups need to understand that they share in each other’s successes and failures.
Political appointees, from Cabinet secretaries down to Schedule C clerical assistants, have railed against a career staff that is tone deaf to the administration’s priorities. Those more-or-less temporary employees feel a sense of urgency that career staffers often do not.
When assembling any high- performance team, it is essential
to establish common goals and empathy among teammates. Career employees and political appointees must try to understand why they see the world differently.
The key is knowing where other team members came from and how they got to the team. An appointee who worked for a small company
will bring a different perspective from the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs. Likewise, the career staffer who started as a GS-2 in the mailroom will differ from an Ivy Leaguer
who came to the government as a Presidential Management Fellow.
Leaders from both sides of the aisle — careerists and appointees — can make all the difference because subordinates often emulate the behavior of their leaders. Early in a new administration, careerists need a transition plan, knowledge of appointees’ backgrounds and
a rudimentary understanding of
the new political priorities. Often the biggest schisms develop from ignorance or misperceptions.
Political appointees have a challenging task. They often don’t know much about the organization or function in which they now serve. Or they might have misconceptions about the agency and believe it is in worse shape than the public realizes. In some cases, appointees think the organization is in a “rescue” situation and they need to set it straight.
A few deep breaths and a per- sonal reset are needed by both groups. Many appointees want to make the government more respon- sive to those it serves. Similarly, careerists are often more frustrat- ed by hidebound rules than new appointees are. Both groups need to understand that they share in each other’s successes and failures. See- ing differences as assets is essential for any organization to do extraor- dinary things. n
14 September 15, 2017 FCW.COM