Can We Expect Productivity Improvement in the Federal Government?

This article appeared in the GAO Review, Vol. 15, Issue 4, Fall 1980. Productivity improvement is vital to the Nation's economic strength. However, many disincentives exist which inhibit federal managers from targeting goals and resources on productivity-enhancing programs. Conflicts of interest exist. Power and authority are organizationally fragmented within the three branches of the Federal Government. Federal productivity improvement may result in an across-the-board budget reduction in a program's next year budget and staff. Where managers know that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or Congress may cut a percentage of their budget requests, they simply build in budget fat. The line item approach to budgeting fails to consider the interrelationship of agency programs and restricts a manager's ability to redeploy agency resources according to need. Single year funding, which returns unexpended funds to the Treasury, encourages managers to spend all of their available funds regardless of workload. The Federal budget is essentially a program and staff budget. Any capital investment costs must be carried out of lean program and staff funds. The Federal Government's personnel system is another barrier to improved productivity. Managers hands are tied in decisions on job changes, promotions, and related personnel actions. Employee rewards result more from longevity rather than productivity. The Civil Service Reform Act may correct many of the problems associated with personnel management. Arbitrary resource controls prevent effective management. These controls limit the flexibility of managers by precluding their ability to decide how best to meet program objectives under a given budget. The dramatic growth of the number of Federal agencies, their size, and the use of field offices, which leads to duplication and fragmentation of authority, has also hindered productivity. Agencies are beset with unclear goals, inadequate productivity measures, poor reporting systems, and top management inaction. The dichotomy of political appointee versus career professional management creates low morale and inherent conflict. Another factor contributing to low morale is that the Federal pay structure for executives is less than that for their private sector counterparts. The level of managerial experience is low in the Federal Government, and the turnover of managers high. Federal managers and Congress show little interest in productivity improvement.