WOLBARSHT: Making ‘the change we need’ really happen

OPINION:

COMMENTARY:

We’ve just elected a president who has promised “the change we need.” Whatever that change might be, there is a critical point that will likely be overlooked. Good intentions are very different from meaningful outcomes.

Current talk of a “car czar” recognizes the fact that what the nation wants to do (help the auto industry) might be hard to do. All of us, including President-elect Barack Obama, want a government that works, is effective and efficient, and delivers great results. But there’s a long distance between the starting gate and the finish line, and many well-known hurdles on the track.

Washington is a policy-centric town of good intention, where leaders like to talk about what they are going to do but don’t like to look too hard at what actually happens. Or doesn’t.

Congress likes to fund and start programs, but seldom stops them for poor performance. Most legislators are more focused on spending money in their districts than on delivering quality to the taxpayers, reasoning that we can’t measure effectiveness. But we can. Just about any program can be measured against its stated goals. We need to encourage our elected representatives to care about outputs as well as inputs (dollars).

The Office of Management and Budget is the main vehicle through which presidents exert control via the “purse strings.” The “B” or budget side of OMB overshadows the “M” or management side. But good management is vital to avoiding waste and, more important, to actually making a difference for Americans. OMB’s program assessment tool has been administered in a casual and politicized manner. Although President-elect Obama has made promises to improve this, his team will need to demonstrate support only for high impact programs regardless of political pressure.

Departments and agencies depend on their “back offices” for effective program execution. Without good financial systems, modern information technology, strong acquisition practices and integrated human capital management, it’s nearly impossible to deliver good government. In most areas, these skill sets are unconscionably weak and must be strengthened.

Every day, we read about problems widely distributed in origin, and it’s only later that the Government Accountability Office reports what might have been done differently. But waiting a year or two for an audit isn’t as helpful as doing something well the first time. This month both the GAO and the Congressional Oversight Panel have said that, without better management and oversight, Treasury’s TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) may cost hundreds of billions of dollars and not meet its objectives.

No president and his small White House team can directly run everything. It’s impossible to lead a multimillion-person government (with millions more under contract) on a 24-hour, 365-day basis without decentralization. Managing smartly requires a management information system to let leadership know what’s happening so appropriate decisions can be made at each level of the organization.

It doesn’t exist today and needs to be built. We can keep “throwing money at problems,” or get serious about the president-elect’s campaign promise to make government work better, which would mean first accepting the idea that policy not effectively implemented is no better than policy never made. Good intentions are important, but results are what count.

Commissions and studies followed by inaction have been the norm for decades. Ten years ago, I co-authored a review of a major federal agency. Our team wrote, “There have been a number of significant studies [here] … over the past decade. Almost all have been extremely well-done and offered good recommendations. Almost none of those recommendations have been implemented in a meaningful manner.” The president-elect must change this equation and use all types of expertise to help produce the results he promises. He needs to act forcibly, now, to reform business processes before inertia continues to reign.

Transformation and change management need to be incorporated as formal disciplines and there must be a high-level focus within the executive branch on effectiveness. This cannot be outsourced. There are plenty of firms and non-profits that offer services, but they tend to sell whatever the government wants to buy and rarely “speak truth to power.” The way to “win” contracts in Washington has always been to behave as a consultant in a hypothetical competition to tell the exact time who simply asks the customer, “What time do you want it to be?” Such behaviors don’t benefit the taxpayers.

The first way to break this dysfunctional cycle is to put the right types of leadership inside government. The president-elect needs to install strong teams of people, mixing those who know what to do with those who know how to make it happen. Agencies need leaders who are good at both external (policy) and internal (operational) types of activities. Execution of complex governmental programs is not a job for beginners, nor is it something that can simply be delegated to the civil service, although the president-elect’s commitment to strengthen the civil service is an important step.

Without attending to some dull-sounding, managerial matters amidst the excitement of a new era in American politics, President-elect Obama will have an impossible time delivering on his commitment to “the change we need.” He has shared much of what he wants to accomplish. To ensure we get there, he needs to act quickly, starting with setting clear goals for his Cabinet officers and holding them accountable for results.

James L. Wolbarsht, the chief executive officer of DEFCON, Inc., has held appointed positions in five administrations and is a member of several federal advisory boards.