The President's Call: Executive Leadership From FDR to George Bush (75 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
4.67Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
Page 239
Many things brought job satisfaction to the PASs. Making a difference seemed to be high on the list for mostthe sense of producing a needed product or "the ability to change things in the public interest from time to time." Said another, whose job is listed in
The Prune Book's
"100 Toughest Jobs" and who admitted to great levels of stress, "It's the most exciting job I've ever had in my lifethere's never been a boring moment. I get great satisfaction in seeing success, improved education, or a program succeed."
Others spoke of the satisfaction of being an agent for change, being able to work in public service, and feeling that theirs was a "higher calling." Some found satisfaction in being able to craft a compromise to reach a solution to government's problems. Some even admitted to enjoying working with Congress. Others spoke of the quality of the people they worked with, calling them "incredibly smart and dedicated." Many liked the independence and decision-making powers that came with their office. Others spoke of their fulfillment in "getting things done." Many discussed how much they enjoyed the challenge that their work and resolving complex issues brought them. As one said, "It's a lot less money but a lot more fun than if I'd stayed in the law firm."
Some spoke of their enjoyment of management, "making this a better place to work, having people be accountable." Anthony McCann, assistant secretary for administration at Veterans Affairs, spoke of "relations with the staff and redemption of lost souls" as his greatest sources of fulfillment. He found great satisfaction in being able to relocate careerists who had been sidelined or shunted aside, giving them something meaningful to do where their skills were best used. Once placed in different positions where their skills matched the job, they had flourished, to his obvious pleasure.
Others were attracted to public service by "the ability to be involved in public issues. You're far more involved in critical issues than if you work in the private sector," said one. Many spoke of the issues they dealt with, how extremely interesting and challenging they were. For example, the Fed's Susan Phillips said, "The Fed is Mecca for an economist. It is unmatched for the depth and scope of economic research, with tools, resources, visiting scholars, and conferences."
Many spoke of their pleasure at being able to make a contribution, of being able to give something back to their country. One PAS spoke of his desire to "achieve something, leave a legacy behind. There's a new landscape every day." He found "the intelligence business totally fascinating, entrancing."
Some spoke of the satisfaction of producing a product "that improves
 
Page 240
the quality of life and delivering it more effectively and cheaply with better management and more awareness of the taxpayer.'' Others spoke of their love of the policy-making process and their ability to get things done, to make the private and public sectors work together. For many, the chief joy seemed to be the ability to put their work where their ideals were, to test out their political beliefs and see if they were workable. It was clear that the PASs believed in what they were doing and that they were very committed to their work.
Job satisfaction was viewed through various lenses in the survey to isolate particular factors or conditions that might contribute to or detract from it. Those lenses or factors are executive level of the PAS, term or nonterm status (PASs appointed to an independent regulatory commission [IRC] and PASs appointed to an executive agency), and appointee numbers. The results follow.
Distinctions Among Executive Levels
Executive level (EL) offers an obvious approach to analyzing potential differences among PASs because it is clearly an objective condition-one's EL is not a matter of opinion. And, indeed, some distinctions in sense of job satisfaction were found among the PASs based on their executive level.
3
Executive Level Ones (EL 1) occupy the apex of the federal panoply. They are the cabinet-level agency chiefs (e.g., the secretaries of the Departments of Labor, State, Treasury, Agriculture, Health and Human Services [HHS], Education, etc.), and a few others in the Executive Office of the President (EOP), such as the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the director of the National Drug Control Policy, and the U.S. trade representative.
4
Clearly, the EL 1s were the most satisfied with their PAS job. They registered the greatest levels of satisfaction in the quality of life in their agency and in managing and improving their organization, implementing President Bush's policy objectives, promoting their own policy goals, and dealing with OMB and with OPM.
These results indicated a pleasant and politically useful synchronicity of agenda between President Bush and his top appointees, as well as between the appointees and OMB, often fertile ground for conflict.
While 62 percent overall were satisfied with their dealings with Congress (with 23 percent dissatisfied), 43 percent of the EL 1s were
dissatisfied
with those relationships. These particular results were not surprising, given the very public role assigned the cabinet officers. If a congressional
 
Page 241
committee is in a restive mood or angry at an executive branch agency, the cabinet officer is usually its first and very public target.
EL 1s were also the least satisfied with working with other political appointees. Out of the overall majority that was dissatisfied with the pace of government decision making, they were the most dissatisfied.
EL 1s (the highest paid and closest to the president) were the happiest of all the PASs with their salary, the amount of time their job required of them, and the impact of their job on their personal or family life. It seemed clear that the many demands placed on them and the sacrifices required of them were more than offset by the perks and the personal, professional, and political benefits they derived from their offices.
EL 2s are the deputy directors of the cabinet-level agencies, the heads of major noncabinet agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, OPM, the FBI, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the military service branch chiefs, and the chair of the Federal Reserve System. They also include heads of EOP offices such as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors. The primarily public role and responsibility of the EL 1s of necessity takes them outside the internal workings of the agency they defend publicly. That responsibility falls to the EL 2s, who get the least public glory and the most internal agency criticism. In addition to doing all the "scut work" of running someone else's shop, they also have less direct contact with the president and the power that "access" or "face time" imparts.
Overall, it made sense, then, that the EL 2s appeared the least content with their lot, scoring themselves lowest in seven of the nineteen categories and highest in none. While the EL 1s rated most satisfied with aspects of internal agency life, the EL 2s sent a different message. They were least satisfied or most dissatisfied with managing their organization, the quality of life in their agency, dealing with the White House, public perceptions of their role as a federal manager, and dealing with organized groups that opposed their agency's policy. They were equally unhappy with the amount of time their job required and the impact of their job on their personal or family life.
EL 3s are agency undersecretaries, members of commissions whose head is an EL 2, such as the Fed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or heads of other agencies and commissions, such as the General Services Administration, the Peace Corps, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.
The EL 3s did not appear to have many sentiments particularly out of sync with the other PASs, though they did report the least satisfaction
 
Page 242
with their salary and the most dissatisfaction with their ability to dismiss or reassign civil servants.
EL 4s are assistant secretaries or administrators of major units in the major agencies, such as the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families or the National Institutes of Health of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); they are inspectors general and general counsels at the major agencies. They are also deputy directors whose boss is an EL 3, members of commissions chaired by an EL 3, and heads of smaller or specialized agencies such as the Federal Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Panama Canal Commission, and the Selective Service Administration. EL 4s appeared to be generally similar to their colleagues and did not stand out in any way as being particularly satisfied or dissatisfied.
EL 5s are deputies to EL 4s and directors of smaller agencies or large departments, such as the Asian Development Bank and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, the Administration on Aging (HHS), and the Farmers Home Administration (Agriculture). They are also assistant secretaries and general counsels in the smaller agencies.
EL 5s, the lowest in the PAS hierarchy (they and the EL 4s are parallel to the SES's highest levels [SES 4, 5, and 6] in salary), clearly have the least power and the greatest frustration with seeking to wield it. The key means of exercising power in governmentstaff, budget, access, and policy-making authorityare farthest from their grasp.
The EL 5s were least satisfied with the reaction of civil servants to political direction and their own ability to dismiss or reassign them, PASs' dealings with OMB and their frustrations in trying to control their own budget, dealing with organized groups that opposed agency policy, and success at promoting their own policy goals.
Interestingly, however, EL 5s were not without their point of light: despite their frustrations, they rated themselves 100 percent satisfied with their dealings with other political appointees, mirror images of the EL 1s at the top of the hierarchy who were, as noted, the least satisfied on that score.
IRC and Non-IRC PASs
As observed in the previous chapter, the PASs in the independent regulatory commissions (IRCs) as a group generally were not markedly different from the other PASs. Some clear differences along the indicators of job satisfaction did appear between the two groups of PASs, however (see table 8.3).
 
Page 243
Table 8.3. Job Satisfaction Among IRC and Non-IRC PASs (in percent)
Job Satisfaction Factor
IRC
Non-IRC
Managing a large government organization
73 (N=52)
88 (N=100)
Dealing with OMB (N=177)
47 (N=47)
61 (N=95)
Implementing the president's policies
72 (N=54)
86 (N=98)
Dealing with Congress (N=177)
69 (N=64)
57 (N=100)
Time available to think creatively about issues
74 (N=70)
49 (N=103)
Time requirements of job
74 (N=72)
57 (N=102)
Dealing with groups opposed to agency policy
66 (N=64)
39 (N=82)
Impact of job on personal or family life
64 (N=72)
45 (N=102)
Source:
The Bush PAS Survey.
Though the IRCs wield tremendous power and are sometimes responsible for vast amounts of money (viz., the Federal Reserve Board, which controls the interest rates and supply of money in the U.S. economy), their administrative structure is nearly flat, their administrative staff relatively small. Generally, the chair of the IRC is the chief administrative officer; thus, the great majority of the IRC PASs do not carry the stress of dealing with the personnel and management issues that plague the PASs in the executive agencies. As discussed earlier, IRC PASs carefully guard their independence from White House interference. Although they noted less satisfaction in dealing with OMB than did the non-IRCs, IRCs have direct formal access to Congress to dull OMB's budget-cutting knife. This, along with the fact that IRCs are usually bipartisan bodies, may account for IRC PASs' greater satisfaction in dealing with (and greater need for) Congress.
IRC PASs were also more likely to work a "normal" work week (relative, in Washington terms) and not to be on the edge of mental and physical exhaustion, as many of the other PASs seemed to be in the interviews.
Freed from many internal pressures and direct political oversight, more of the IRCs enjoyed the luxury rare in political government circles of actually having time to think and reflect. According to Susan Phillips, "The Fed is like being on a university campus without the students. We have access to some of the best minds in the country and we can bring them together for symposia or as consultants any time we need them."

Other books

Addict Nation by Jane Velez-Mitchell,Sandra Mohr
Young Scrooge by R. L. Stine
The Remedy by Suzanne Young
Primal Heat 4 by A. C. Arthur
Make You Burn by Megan Crane
Virginia Henley by Dream Lover
Shift: A Novel by Tim Kring and Dale Peck