|
By The Honorable David Walker
 The federal government is the largest and most complex organization on the face of the earth. It represents over 20 percent of the U.S. economy and has wide ranging influence and impact on a range of economic, security,
political, cultural and other matters, both in the U.S. and around the world.
When I became Comptroller General of the United States ("the CG") in November 1998 and head of the then U.S. General Accounting Office (now the U.S. Government Accountability Office, or GAO), I was very aware of the need to transform both the GAO and the federal government. At that time, the greater urgency related to the need to transform the GAO, so that’s where I started.
Throughout my 35 plus years of experience in the public and private sectors, I have been a believer in the simple but powerful concept of "leading by example." As a result, at the outset of my tenure, I decided to put it to work at GAO in partnership with the over 100 capable and dedicated career senior executives that comprise the GAO leadership team. I also decided to rally the agency around a set of "core values" that would serve a higher calling and rallying cry for all agency actions. Ultimately, we decided on three such core values—accountability, integrity and reliability—and they were then used as a critical foundational element for GAO’s first ever formal strategic plan.
This "leading by example" approach seemed to be particularly appropriate for GAO since it is the agency that audits, investigates and evaluates other government agencies. Therefore, in my view, GAO has a responsibility to "lead by example" and practice what it preaches. This concept, coupled with a commitment to our new core values and applicable professional standards, became the foundation of a broad-based agency transformation effort that spanned several years.
GAO's transformation effort involved a range of strategic planning, organizational alignment, performance management, human capital, information technology, knowledge management, external alliance, communications and change-management initiatives. After agreeing on a set of core values, the effort focused on developing and implementing GAO's agency-wide strategic plan, flattening and streamlining GAO's organizational structure, reducing the agency's footprint outside of Washington, D.C. and focusing on outcome-based results.
The transformation effort also included initiatives to develop and implement a range of client, agency and international protocols. These protocols were part of an overall effort to enhance GAO's transparency as a critical element to help improve the agency’s performance, enhance consistency and ensure its accountability to Congress and the American people.
Finally, the effort focused on the need for the agency to employ a constructive rather than confrontational approach in dealing with auditees, while at the same time maintaining its independence in connection with both agencies and congressional requesters. In this regard, I have always believed that it's more appropriate to be respected rather than feared in order for an accountability organization to be effective. Furthermore, while Congress as an institution is the GAO's client, all of the agency's work must be free from undue influence, including from members of Congress.
GAO's transformation effort also included a significant number of major human capital reform initiatives. This was fully appropriate since people represent the most valuable asset of any knowledge-based entity and the government is no exception. These reforms included seeking and achieving two rounds of additional legislative authority for the Comptroller General in 2001 and 2004. GAO's internal human capital reform efforts were comprehensive and, at times, controversial. They included recruiting, training/development, performance management, classification, compensation, succession planning and a range of other reform initiatives. All of GAO's human capital reform efforts were designed to be market-based and performance-oriented in nature. They were also made with due regard to the agency's current and likely future resources as well as with an awareness of and commitment to management's fiduciary obligation for today and stewardship responsibility for tomorrow.
While there were many positive results achieved from GAO's human capital reforms and GAO is now widely viewed as the leader in connection with federal human capital reform, as a result of my decision to address the over-classification of several hundred senior analysts in order to improve internal equity and budget flexibility, a portion of GAO's workforce decided to form a union during my last year in office. This is their right and it is understandable given the unparalleled authority provided to the Comptroller General and the prevalence of unions in government.
Importantly, all of GAO's major human capital reforms were implemented prior to my departure. Therefore, any prospective changes will require agreement by both labor and management in order for them to take place. Furthermore, before I left office, an agreement was reached between the GAO and key players in Congress on a way to handle future pay adjustments applicable to analysts who were receiving compensation beyond market levels at the time of the 2006 restructuring. Hopefully, this agreement will soon be enacted into law along with several other GAO reforms that I sought in my final months as CG.
Given the importance of human capital issues to the GAO's mission, budget and competitive posture, in my view, any major GAO-related human capital or other policy changes beyond those previously agreed to should be put on hold, pending confirmation and installation of a new CG. Doing otherwise would not be appropriate or fair to my Senate confirmed successor. Hopefully, Congress will also send a list of recommended CG candidates to the next president in an expeditious manner. After all, the CG position is arguably one of the most important ones in the federal government.
The result of GAO's transformation effort is both dramatic and demonstrable. As a result of the combined efforts of many GAO executives and employees, GAO went from an "at risk" agency in 1998 to one that is currently viewed as one of the best and most effective agencies in the federal government. The facts are clear and compelling, GAO's outcome-based performance results more than doubled in most performance categories during this period, while the size of the agency was reduced. At the same time, the agency’s client and employee feedback scores increased dramatically. For example, GAO was ranked number 2 in the federal government in the 2007 "Best Places to Work Survey" and its client feedback scores were well over 90 percent positive. That's pretty impressive given the nature of the agency's client base and the increased partisanship and ideological divide in Congress. In addition, the agency has won a number of awards for its strategic planning, performance and accountability, human capital, information technology, communications and other transformation reform efforts during the past several years.
GAO's transformation effort proves that while change is tough, especially in government and other entities that face little competition, it is possible with committed, inspired and persistent leadership. It's true that GAO has an advantage since its Chief Executive Officer, the CG, has a 15-year term. At the same time, during GAO's recent transformation, the CG was the only political appointee in the entire agency. Therefore, as CG, I led the overall effort. However, it was facilitated and overseen by GAO's Executive Committee comprised of the CG, the Chief Operating Officer (COO), the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the agency’s General Counsel and it was implemented with the active support and concerted efforts of GAO's career leaders.
Given the results of GAO's transformation efforts and a few others that have taken place in government, we need to explore how transformation can be implemented at other federal agencies. This is not only desirable, it is essential since, unlike at the beginning of my tenure as CG, the federal government now faces a financial position that is deteriorating over time. Current entitlement programs, tax policies and other spending practices are unsustainable in their present form. Our country faces large and growing structural deficits and mounting debt burdens that will threaten our future economy, standard of living, international standing and potentially our long-range national security if we do not change course.
In my view, the federal government must recognize the reality that many existing federal government spending programs, tax policies and operational practices are outdated, ineffective and/or unsustainable in their present form. Tough choices must be made, hopefully sooner rather than later, because the clock is ticking and time is not working in our favor.
In order to put our country on a more prudent and sustainable path, several key reform initiatives are likely to be needed. These include:
- Creating a capable, credible and bi-partisan commission to make policy-related recommendations on needed statutory budget controls, comprehensive Social Security reform and round one of comprehensive tax and health care reform, at a minimum.
- Creating a capable, credible and professional commission to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the base of major federal programs, policies and operational practices in order to make recommendations on how to separate the "wheat from the chaff" and modernize the federal government to reflect 21st century realities. This will help to improve government performance, ensure accountability and enhance overall sustainability. At the same time, this commission must be supported by a presidential implementation commitment probably led by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The current and prior Administration placed increased attention on management issues for which they deserve credit; however, much remains to be done. In addition, prior government reform commissions have not been as effective due to the lack of an adequate means to implement and assess the impact of their recommendations.
- Having Congress and the president work together to reduce the number of political appointees in general and the number of Senate-confirmed positions in particular. Greater attention needs to be placed on the difference between policy, operational and adjudicatory positions. In this regard, every agency needs a designated COO and some agencies that face serious transformation challenges need one that is highly qualified with a proven track record, who is appointed to a position with a term-appointment and a performance contract. This is particularly important in connection with security-related agencies, especially the Department of Defense.
- Creating and implementing a set of "key national indicators" that will help to inform strategic planning, enhance legislative and executive branch decision-making and re-invigorate our democracy, preferably through a public- private partnership approach.
Success in transforming the federal government will also require the commitment of the next president to support the above and other major policy and operational reform efforts. Hopefully, our next president will be committed to such an effort. If the next president is willing to lead the way and make tough choices, it will help to reduce the chances that we will experience a major economic crisis, while also ensuring that our collective future is better than our past.
All of us at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which I now have the privilege to lead, will do our part to help ensure that Washington quits living for today and starts to focus on how we can all work together to help create a better tomorrow. All that we ask is that all caring Americans do their part as well. We owe it to our nation’s founders and to our families to do so.
The Honorable David M. Walker is President and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. In 1998,
he was appointed United States Comptroller General by President Bill Clinton and served in that role until March of 2008. Mr. Walker is a certified public accountant and prior to his tenure as Comptroller General, had extensive executive experience in government and private industry.
Innovators in Action 2008
» Full Report
» Press Release
Annual Privatization Report 2008
» Full Report
» Press Release
CSI for Real: How to Improve Forensic Science
» Full Text (.pdf)
Measure 50: Are Tobacco Taxes The Answer To Funding Children's Health Programs?
» Full Text (.pdf)
Streamlining San Diego: Achieving Taxpayer Savings and Government Reforms Through Managed Competition
» Full Text (.pdf)
» Press Release
Occupational Licensing: Ranking the States and Exploring Alternatives
» Full Study (.pdf)
» Policy Summary (.pdf)
» State-by-State Occupational Licensing List (.xls)
» Press Release with Complete Rankings
More Studies
Privatization Can Transform the Delivery of State Psychiatric Services
» Full Text
Chicago Raises the Bar in Privatization, Again
» Full Text
The Gold-Standard and the Perfect Economic Storm
» Full Text
With Bailouts, Stimulus Politicians Look Only at the Short-term
» Full Text
Hair Braiders, Barbers and Interior Designers Need Licenses in Missouri
» Full Text
Economic Downturn Didn't Cause State Budget Deficits
» Full Text
Chicago Leads the Way on Local Government Privatization
» Full Text
Congress Shouldn't Bailout Big Three
» Full Text
"Perfect Storm" Could Accelerate Privatization Trends
» Full Text
Don't Count the Private Sector Out in Infrastructure
» Full Text
More Commentaries
|
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.