pointees it is personally rational to be institutionally foolish-not to worry about long-term resentments, not to worry about the executive development of officials who will be of use only to a successor administration, not to look past short-term responsiveness in judging performance" (Heclo 1984b, 14). Such a situation fairly cries out for trouble, which soon followed the creation of the SES.
|
Crashing Morale: The Wages of Bureaucrat Bashing
|
Despite grand hopes for it, the SES in its first decade was acknowledged by many (CRS 1992; GAO 1992, 1990, 1988, 1987a, 1985; Heclo 1986, 1984a; Huddleston, 1987; Levine, 1986; etc.) to be a system in trouble, a victim of low pay and pay compression, retrenchment on promised bonuses and career advancement, agency interference, general hostility to the concept of a managerial elite, less-than-competent coordination by the OPM, and the "widespread sense that the system has been politicized and that neutral competence is no longer valued" (Huddleston 1987, 30). As discussed above, declining morale in the SES was the inevitable outgrowth of these problems. Some career SES members even went so far as to sue the federal government, charging breach of faith over changes in bonuses and other aspects mentioned earlier. Between 8 percent and 16 percent left the service annually since 1980, further indicating dissatisfaction with the SES (CRS 1987).
|
A Merit Systems Protections Board survey of former members of the SES found in 1989 that while low pay and operation of the bonus system were the most frequently cited reasons given for their departure, large percentages left because of job dissatisfaction. It was revealed that "46% left the Federal service, in part, because they did not enjoy the work anymore and 42% . . . , in part, because their skills had not been used appropriately" (USMSPB 1989, 1).
|
The MSPB study also showed that SES careerists generally were not happy with their political bosses. They held
|
| | the nonpolitical skills and abilities of politically appointed senior executives in low regard. Fewer than a quarter of the former career executives believe[d] that non-career executives [brought] valuable experience, good managerial skills, or leadership qualities to their positions. Moreover, career executives who worked for noncareer senior executives and political appointees more frequently listed the following concerns as reasons for leaving the Service than did executives not supervised by noncareer and political executives: 1. the lack of competence of their immediate super-
|
|