This first appeared as a PATImes column in October 2005.

Institutionalizing a Performance Culture:  Leadership vs. Legislation
by John M. Kamensky

What does it take to ingrain a performance management culture in your organization?  That’s the question that both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the IBM Center for The Business of Government address in recent reports.  The short answer:  leadership. 

A high performance culture isn’t necessarily permanent. The recent failures of government in the Katrina Hurricane disaster sharply point out the criticality of good leadership at all levels of government, and how an agency, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, can go from a model of strong performance five years ago to how it is perceived today.  Some say this is the fault of both weak leadership and poor legislation in the intervening period.

The GAO report, “Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for Management Decision Making,” examines five federal agencies where managers previously reported that they use performance information in their jobs.  The report identifies how they use performance information, for example, to identify problems and take corrective action.  It also identifies five practices they commonly apply that “facilitate the use of performance information,” such as aligning agency goals, objectives, and measures to create a line of sight between the work of employees and agency goals.  The report is full of examples from the five agencies on how they do this.  But each of the uses and practices identified by GAO, however, cannot be legislated.  They require leaders and managers who care about performance. 

Similarly, a forthcoming IBM Center report by Burt Perrin, examines governmentwide reform efforts undertaken in the past decade by 12 different countries.  The report provides practical ideas about how to move towards an outcome orientation in a wide range of developing and developed countries such as Canada, Chile, Tanzania, and Uganda.  The report observes that, while a “clear push from senior political levels” is key, their interest and involvement does not occur in a vacuum.  Astute managers can trigger a commitment by senior political leaders by showing how an outcome-focused government can be to their political advantage “as a means of demonstrating how they are addressing the needs and concerns of their citizens.” Examples in that report include poverty reduction in Uganda and presidential reform in Mexico.

But what about the importance of legislation?  Congress is currently considering several pieces of legislation intended to mandate a stronger performance and results orientation in agencies.  Several of these proposed bills are advocated by the Bush Administration, as well.  Would this help or hinder the desired culture change to being more performance oriented?  The answer is not clear.

At this point, it seems three bills are at the forefront.

• The Federal Agency Performance Review and Sunset Act, by Congressman Kevin Brady (R-TX).  This bill was developed by the Administration. It would create a 7-member commission to review agencies and programs at least once every 10 years, based on a schedule developed by the President.  The inventory of agencies and programs would be compiled by GAO and the Congressional Research Service. The commission would assess agencies and programs against a set of criteria listed in the bill, such as “cost-effective and achieves its stated purpose or goals,” and whether it “duplicates or conflicts with other Federal agencies,” state, localities, or the private sector.  Once the Commission’s report on an agency or program is sent to Congress, if there is no action within two years, the agency or program would be terminated.

• The Government Reorganization and Performance Improvement Act, by Congress Tom Davis (R-VA).  This bill was developed by the Administration as a substitute for the old Presidential Reorganization Act which allowed the Congress a “one house veto” of Presidential actions. This “veto” was invalidated 20 years ago by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.  Since then, there has not been an easy way for the President to reorganize agencies or programs and this bill is intended to remedy that problem. Under this bill, the President can create one or more “Results Commissions” to examine specific “areas where multiple Federal programs have similar, related or overlapping responsibilities that are under the jurisdiction of multiple executive branch agencies and committees of Congress.”  The Commission would conduct a study, recommend changes, and the President can submit these changes to Congress for expedited consideration.

• The Program Assessment and Results Act, by Congressman Todd Platts (R-PA).  This bill was not developed by the Administration, but has been endorsed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  It would amend the Government Performance and Results Act by requiring OMB to “conduct a review of each program activity at least once every 5 fiscal years.”  This would be similar to, but not necessarily the same as, the existing Program Assessment Review Tool (PART) already underway by OMB.  The review reports, like the current PART reports, would be submitted to Congress at the same time as the President submits his budget.  The intent is to provide information on program performance to decision makers as they make budgeting decisions, not necessarily force action like the Sunset Commission bill would envision.

  While none of these bills have reached the House floor for action, there have been hearings and in the case of the Platts bill, legislation has been voted on by the Government Reform Committee and sent to the full House for consideration.

Can legislation make a difference in an organization’s culture?  From the experience of the past twelve years after the passage of the Results Act, it seems the answer is “sort of.”  Some agencies treat the Results Act as a paperwork compliance exercise while others have used it to make a difference.  The potential value of a legislative framework, however, is that it creates a forum for high level discussions within an agency, it engages the Congress, and it provides career civil servants a platform upon which they can engage new political appointees about the potential importance of focusing on performance and results.  In a way, it serves as a tool for leadership from the middle of an organization, not just the top.