The President's Call: Executive Leadership From FDR to George Bush (87 page)

Read The President's Call: Executive Leadership From FDR to George Bush Online

Authors: Judith E. Michaels

Tags: #test

BOOK: The President's Call: Executive Leadership From FDR to George Bush

9.64Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

Page 292

that the executive levels of the respondents were roughly representative of their frequency in government, as was the gender and ethnic mix among the respondents. While the White House refused to give detailed demographic information about the PASs, it eventually allowed OPM to release some statistical data. Again, the problem of the difference in OPM and White House personnel counts presents itself. Nonetheless, percentages may present a useable point of comparison (see table A.1).

Table A.1. Demographics of PAS Survey Response Rate and OPM PAS Statistics (in percent)

OPM
^a(N=480)

PAS Sur
v
ey (N= 182)

Female

Caucasian

EL 1

EL 2

EL 3

EL 4

EL 5

Source:
The Bush PAS Survey.
^aAs of June 30, 1992
.

PAS INTERVIEWS

The second methodological approach used the postsurvey interviews. These interviews, from an hour to an hour and a half in length, were conducted in the late summer and early fall of 1992 with twenty-eight PAS executives who completed and signed their surveys, volunteering for an interview.

Scheduling conflicts created insurmountable difficulties with some PASs. Nevertheless, those interviewed represented Executive Levels (ELs) 2 through 5 in a wide variety of executive agencies and independent regulatory commissions (IRCs), as well as in the Executive Office of the President (EOP). For example, the agencies included Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, Commerce, Education, NASA, the CIA, and OPM. The IRCs included the Federal Labor Relations Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, among others. EOP offices included the Office of Science and Technology and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). One cabinet secretary (EL 1) had volunteered to be interviewed but canceled due to campaign demands on his time as the presidential election approached.

The twenty-eight interviewees included six women, two minorities, eight independent regulatory commission members, and four inspectors general. The majority, as might be expected, were Republicans, five were Democrats (in the

Page 293

IRCs); one (not IRC) did not care to specify party identification. They were grouped in ELs 2 (three individuals), 3 (seven), 4 (sixteen), and 5 (two).

Additionally, eight long-term SES careerists and former PASs were interviewed, postsurvey, to gain further perspective, particularly on the differences between the Reagan and Bush appointees.

The author interviewed the PASs and others alone in their offices confidentially, informing them that the interviews were primarily for the purpose of the study and not for GAO. She took handwritten notes with interviewees' permission and did not use a tape recorder. In some cases individuals did not want it known that they had even spoken with her, fearing identification by association; their names are omitted from the listings of interviewees in the appendices. In other cases, only some parts of the conversation were off the record, while the rest was not. All persons quoted by name gave permission to be quoted. Those who did not want to be identified are quoted anonymously.

The author asked questions similar to some of the survey questions, probing in more depth in areas such as the experience of the nomination and confirmation process, PAS's professional background and work prior to and in government, and their views of public service. She also asked about their working relationships with the White House, other political appointees, career employees, and with the Congress, and their sense of job satisfaction and stress.

Designed to gather supplemental data through anecdotal material, the interviews added color and flesh to the composite picture of the PAS executives and presented a broader picture of PASs' attitudes and relations with their career colleagues. The interviews also served to confirm many of the NAPA observations about PASs, as well as those noted in the literature and discussed throughout this book.

In conclusion, the two dissertation methodologies met with overall success in terms of eliciting information from a reluctant executive branch. While we would have preferred the three mailings of the original plan, the response rate of more than 38 percent from the first and second mailings was representative of the PAS population and thus enabled us to draw useable, if limited, conclusions about the PAS population as a whole. The interview approach was very successful: appointees were open and willing to talk about their experiences in and perceptions of government.

While having the imprimatur of the GAO was an initial deterrent to gaining White House cooperation, it was generally more useful in securing entree to the PASs themselves, many of whom voiced respect for the GAO's work. The interviews gave the author an unparalleled opportunity for an ''outsider" to acquire an understanding of Washington's politics, with its complex customs, convoluted dynamics, and many players who live and move and have their being within the nation's pressure cooker.

Page 294

Appendix 2
The Survey of Senate-Confirmed Presidential Appointees with Composite Response Set