The President's Call: Executive Leadership From FDR to George Bush (53 page)

BOOK: The President's Call: Executive Leadership From FDR to George Bush
11.85Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
Page 167
ment off our backs" was no last-minute opportunistic gambit on his part. As early as 1976 he had said, "The best thing government can do is nothing" (Kelman 1982, 17). And while Reagan's interests were largely in the area of "regulatory relief," he made great electoral strides by attacking the bureaucracy in general, which enabled him to turn his sights to a social agenda.
Negative consequences of bureaucrat bashing soon followed Reagan's election and proved to be self-defeating for the health of the federal bureaucracy. According to some, many agencies lost their best people while the dead weight stayed; the sense of mission, so vital to public service, was damaged. Performance declined, and demoralization set in, thanks to RIFs, pay increases of less than half the rate of inflation, and static ceilings on the salaries of top careerists (ibid.). OPM chief Don Devine's personnel philosophy that "the public deserved a competent, but not necessarily stellar, federal workforce angered many employee organizations."
2
Bureaucrat bashing only defeats the purpose of having a public service. Indeed, bureaucrat bashing brings its own punishment.
The unavoidable conclusion, in sum, is that Reaganism's onslaught against the bureaucracy can only hinder any effort to eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse that constitute the most wide-spread beef against "big government." The attack is likely to nurture indolence and incompetence by decreasing the proportion of able, eager people in career civil service positions, and by undercutting the ability of government agencies to instill the requisite sense of mission. (Ibid., 17)
Added to bureaucrat bashing is what might be termed government bashing and a generalized negative image of public service and its servants. Candidates Carter and Reagan both played to this image to advance their campaigns, though the latter significantly more than the former. "This phenomenon has several explanations, the most obvious being the general antipathy of Americans since colonial days toward 'big government' and 'bureaucrats.' To many citizens, 'big government,' 'fraud, waste, and abuse,' 'bureaucracy,' and 'bureaucrats' are terms synonymous with a system of governmentand of government spendinggone out of control" (Levine 1986, 202).
Another factor contributing to poor morale among government workers in the domestic agencies was the all-out attack on most agencies' missions or on the agencies themselves by Reagan and his appointees.
Particularly since 1981, budgetary cutbacks, program terminations, and a
 
Page 168
general decline in program activism have combined to reduce the sense of achievement that prevailed during the sixties. Few people who have contributed to the creation, development, and growth of a program can be expected to approach its retrenchment with equal enthusiasm. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that adapting organizations and programs to cope with conditions of austerity will strike many potential federal employees as a rewarding challenge. (Ibid., 202)
Given all these negative factors, the wages of bureaucrat and government bashing should come as no surprise. Surveys continue to report federal executives' lack of enthusiasm for recruiting newcomers to their ranks. In the 1984 survey of the career members of the Senior Executive Service, ''72% responded 'No' when asked if they would recommend a career in the federal government for their children" (ibid., 203). In 1988 only 13 percent of SES members reported that they
would
recommend a government career to young people (Ventriss 1991, 275).
All told, it remains to be seen which estimations are most accurate, the early hopes for the SES or the quiet crisis assessment.
The recent history of executive pay in the federal government is one of lost economic ground. As the purchasing power of federal executives fell, relative to the nongovernment sectors, it caused a brain drain as careerists topped out and then got out of government service. As discussed above, after several false starts the situation was finally remedied with the large salary increase that went into effect in 1991 as a result of the 1989 Ethics Reform Act.
3
This separated senior federal workers (PAS and SES) from congressional pay and established the increases at .05 percent below that of the civil service workers, GS-1 to GS-15, for increases after 1991. It is generally believed that tenure is increasing in the career SES ranks as a result of the salary jump.
Despite President Bush's exhortations about the value of public service and the absence of bureaucrat bashing in his administration, CSESs did not seem to feel any better about their situation than they had during the Reagan years. According to a GAO study, the percentage of career respondents dissatisfied with the public image of federal employees decreased only to 71 percent in 1991, though it was down from 85 percent in 1989 (GAO 1992, 4).
Interestingly, feelings of harassment by supervisors did not decrease significantly in Bush's administration. While 92 percent of both career and noncareer respondents indicated in 1991 that they had not themselves experienced abuse such as "shelving" (when an SES executive is reassigned to non-SES type duties), 51 percent of the careerists and 34 per-
 
Page 169
cent of the noncareerists believed that this has happened more than once in their department.
Only 53 percent felt that their supervisors viewed their job as an opportunity to make positive, long-term improvements to government. Even fewer (40 percent) agreed that their supervisors supported merit principles in hiring most or all of the time: 58 percent saw self-interest as a greater motivator for their supervisor's actions than public interest. While 90 percent saw political executives as working hard to carry out the Bush administration's policies, only 56 percent agreed that appointees make grants, contracts, loans, and loan insurance guarantees solely on the basis of merit, and 51 percent thought there were too many politicals for the job.
Career SES members gave political supervisors in the Bush administration mixed marks on leadership behavior and abilities: only 43 percent agreed or strongly agreed that their supervisor ensured that employees fully realize their potential, and only 55 percent said that their supervisor kept employees informed about events in their subunit. Others (43 percent) agreed that their supervisor often shared her or his experience and training, 41 percent said that their supervisor often provided them with sound job-related advice, and 30 percent felt that their supervisor provided needed technical knowledge. The barest majority (50.1 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that their supervisor was capable of getting the resources needed to get things done, and 59 percent agreed that she or he had the clout necessary or (63 percent) knew how to use contacts to get things done.
On the other hand, while 80 percent agreed or strongly agreed that their supervisor demanded compliance with her or his decisions, 69 percent said that their supervisor discussed the "big picture" of the subunit with them. Two-thirds (67 percent) felt that she or he gave appropriate praise and credit for employees' work; 75 percent that she or he showed trust and respect for the respondents; 73 percent that she or he consulted with subordinates and took their opinions and suggestions into account when making decisions; and 70 percent that supervisors delegated authority and responsibility to subordinates and allowed them to determine how to do their work.
Only 18 percent felt "subjugated" by their supervisor, while 24 percent felt that their supervisor made decisions in their area of work without consulting them. Close to three-fifths (58 percent) felt that their supervisor satisfied employees' needs and expectations for growth and development and that she or he met the subunit's goals.
Perhaps most telling as a sign of political-career trust, 78 percent felt

Other books

The Stars of San Cecilio by Susan Barrie
Rigged by Ben Mezrich
Scandal With a Prince by Nicole Burnham
Here Be Dragons by Stefan Ekman
Sea of Death by Gary Gygax
Playing All the Angles by Nicole Lane