The Role of the SES: A Necessary Bridge That Must Be Rebuilt
LIMITED TIME OFFER: Civilian Feds are eligible for $100K in Group Term Life Insurance from WAEPA, guaranteed. No medical underwriting required. Feds must be under age 50 and not currently insured with WAEPA. Get started.
The prompt for this round of the FEDforum is back to square one. This week, hear from the Senior Executives Association (SEA).
There has been a recent push to convert career federal leaders into politically appointed positions. But in order to really understand the future of career federal leadership, we must go back to square one with two necessary questions: what is the role of the career Senior Executive Service (SES) and is that role still needed today? The answer to the first question is that the SES is the bridge between career knowledge and administrative agendas; it is the protector of the rule of law. Once that is clear, the second answer is easy: a strong career SES is needed today more than ever.
In the late 1970s, our nation was reeling from the Watergate scandal and Congress was committed to restoring public trust in government by ensuring impartial delivery of essential services and enforcement of the law. Thus, as part of the major restructuring of the federal service, Congress created the SES in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
The Act established the SES to… ““...ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality.”
Congress viewed the SES has critical to improving the efficiency and management of government programs and the workforce. Indeed, Alan “Scotty” Campbell, then chairman of the Civil Service Commission who had an integral role in establishing the SES, said, “we could see the dysfunctional effects of career/noncareer interface.”
Without the SES, political leaders in government were frustrated with the career workforce and the career workforce was frustrated with political leaders. Ultimately, Congress acknowledged by creating the SES that both have a crucial role in our government. A President accountable to the people selects political officials to lead the administrative priorities for the nation. The career workforce ensures these priorities are implemented in a manner consistent with the law as written by Congress and without regard for a citizen’s political affiliation or other discriminatory characteristics.
While most SES positions are career, some are appointed. Appointments to the SES must be approved by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), but ultimately, allowing SES appointments acknowledges the need for some flexibility in brining qualified candidates into the SES cadre. Still, Congress was cautious not to allow appointed SES positions to overrun the career cadre: appointments cannot exceed 25% of the agency's SES position allocation and governmentwide, only 10% of SES positions may be filled by noncareer appointees. Once a noncareer appointee exits their position, it reverts to a career position.
Congress created OPM to support the SES as a governmentwide leadership asset. OPM was intended to serve as a central management office for federal executive personnel and to provide these personnel day-to-day oversight and assistance as they develop, select, and manage their workforces.
Unfortunately, much has changed since the SES was formed. Today, decades of underinvestment has diminished the capacity of the SES and reignited frustration for both career employees and political leaders.
OPM has consistently failed to provide the SES with centralized guidance to ensure good work is replicated across government and issues are addressed in a timely manner.
For example, when the Biden Administration called upon federal agencies to establish COVID-19 testing procedures during the pandemic, a lack of centralized guidance caused widespread confusion. This left the administration frustrated that its policies were not being implemented and career employees frustrated that they lacked clear guidance from their agency. SEA joined the Government Managers Coalition in calling upon OPM, the White House, and the General Services Administration to provide better guidance to federal supervisors, managers, and executives.
“Our government’s central management offices have long lacked an effective solution for ensuring leadership has the clear guidance, tools, and resources to carry out central policy proposals. It is time for a paradigm shift,” then-Senior Executives Association’s President, Bob Corsi, explained. “These are unprecedented times which require innovative problem-solving techniques that unite all levels of government. We cannot continue the same failed approach of tossing vague, general guidance at agencies in the hopes they can work out the kinks. This only causes disparate impacts and duplicative work. The federal government must prioritize leadership so federal managers have the tools to truly succeed and respond to the needs of employees and the public.”
At times OPM has chosen to let problems play out rather than address critical issues. When former-President Trump’s attempted to convert career leaders into political appointees through the creation of a Schedule F in the federal service, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that OPM chose to “observe how agencies implemented Schedule F” to “understand common issues agencies faced in implementation before issuing regulations.”
In taking a reactive approach, OPM allowed agencies to toy with the livelihoods of senior career leaders rather than providing much needed clarity. This is particularly problematic given that GAO highlighted concerns from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) regarding the constitutionality of transferring employees into Schedule F. Thus, not only did OPM leave agencies playing a guessing game with an employee’s livelihood, but with their constitutional rights as well.
These are just two examples of how a lack of centralized human capital management has diminished the strength of the SES and bred frustration across government. A proactive OPM dedicated to strengthening the SES could lead many reforms, such as enhanced selection and training. The need for these reforms is well-documented and a coalition of management organizations have long supported them as an alternative to proposals that would highly politicize the SES.
The SES has a central role in our government and was formed to bridge a critical gap in communication that undermined the efficiency and impartiality of government work. Today, that gap has grown, not because of a flaw in the design of the SES, but a lack of investment in its success. Only by going back to square one and recognizing the importance of the SES can our government truly provide the American people with the services they deserve.
The column from the Senior Executives Association is part of the FEDforum, an initiative to unite voices across the federal community. The FEDforum is a space for federal employee groups to share their organizations’ initiatives and activities with the FEDmanager audience.
Be sure to subscribe to FEDmanager so you never miss an update!