Organizational Transformation
Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies Gao ID: GAO-08-34 November 1, 2007Agencies across the federal government are embarking on large-scale organizational transformations to address 21st century challenges. One proposed approach to address systemic federal governance and management challenges involves the creation of a senior-level position--a chief operating officer (COO)/chief management officer (CMO)--in selected federal agencies to help elevate, integrate, and institutionalize responsibility for key management functions and business transformation efforts. GAO was asked to develop criteria and strategies for establishing and implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies. To do so, GAO (1) gathered information on the experiences and views of officials at four organizations with COO/CMO-type positions and (2) convened a forum to gather insights from individuals with experience in business transformation.
A number of criteria can be used to determine the appropriate type of COO/CMO position in a federal agency. These criteria include the history of organizational performance, degree of organizational change needed, nature and complexity of mission, organizational size and structure, and current leadership talent and focus. Depending on these five criteria, there could be several types of COO/CMO positions, including: (1) the existing deputy position could carry out the integration and business transformation role--this type of COO/CMO might be appropriate in a relatively stable or small organization; (2) a senior-level executive who reports to the deputy, such as a principal under secretary for management, could be designated to integrate key management functions and lead business transformation efforts in the agency--this type of COO/CMO might be appropriate for a larger organization; and (3) a second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to the integration and business transformation of the agency--this might be the most appropriate type of COO/CMO for a large and complex organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform long-standing management problems. Because each agency has its own set of characteristics, challenges and opportunities, the implementation of any approach should be determined within the context of the agency's specific facts and circumstances. Once the type of COO/CMO is selected, six key strategies can be useful in implementing such positions in federal agencies.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-34, Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-34
entitled 'Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies' which
was released on DEcember 13, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
November 2007:
Organizational Transformation:
Implementing Chief Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions
in Federal Agencies:
GAO-08-34:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-34, a report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Agencies across the federal government are embarking on large-scale
organizational transformations to address twenty-first century
challenges. One proposed approach to address systemic federal
governance and management challenges involves the creation of a senior-
level position”a chief operating officer (COO)/chief management officer
(CMO)”in selected federal agencies to help elevate, integrate, and
institutionalize responsibility for key management functions and
business transformation efforts. GAO was asked to develop criteria and
strategies for establishing and implementing COO/CMO positions in
federal agencies. To do so, GAO (1) gathered information on the
experiences and views of officials at four organizations with COO/CMO-
type positions and (2) convened a forum to gather insights from
individuals with experience in business transformation.
What GAO Found:
A number of criteria can be used to determine the appropriate type of
COO/CMO position in a federal agency. These criteria include the
history of organizational performance, degree of organizational change
needed, nature and complexity of mission, organizational size and
structure, and current leadership talent and focus.
Depending on these five criteria, there could be several types of
COO/CMO positions, including: (1) the existing deputy position could
carry out the integration and business transformation role”this type of
COO/CMO might be appropriate in a relatively stable or small
organization; (2) a senior-level executive who reports to the deputy,
such as a principal under secretary for management, could be designated
to integrate key management functions and lead business transformation
efforts in the agency”this type of COO/CMO might be appropriate for a
larger organization; and (3) a second deputy position could be created
to bring strong focus to the integration and business transformation of
the agency”this might be the most appropriate type of COO/CMO for a
large and complex organization undergoing a significant transformation
to reform long-standing management problems.
Because each agency has its own set of characteristics, challenges and
opportunities, the implementation of any approach should be determined
within the context of the agency‘s specific facts and circumstances.
Once the type of COO/CMO is selected, six key strategies can be useful
in implementing such positions in federal agencies.
Key Strategies for Implementing COO/CMO Positions:
Define the specific roles and responsibilities of the COO/CMO position:
Once clearly defined, these specific roles and responsibilities should
be communicated throughout the organization.
Ensure that the COO/CMO has a high level of authority and clearly
delineated reporting relationships: The organizational level and span
of control of the COO/CMO position is crucial in affecting the
incumbent‘s authority and status within the organization.
Foster good executive-level working relationships for maximum
effectiveness: Effective working relationships can help greatly to
ensure that the people, processes, and technology are well-aligned in
support of the agency‘s mission.
Establish integration and transformation structures and processes in
addition to the COO/CMO position: These structures and processes could
include business transformation offices, senior executive committees,
functional councils, and crosscutting teams that are actively involved
in strategic planning, budgeting, performance monitoring, information
sharing, and decision making.
Promote individual accountability and performance through specific job
qualifications and effective performance management: A specific set of
job qualification standards could aid in ensuring that the incumbent
has the necessary knowledge and experience. A clearly defined,
realistic performance agreement would also assist in clarifying
expectations and reinforcing accountability.
Provide for continuity of leadership in the COO/CMO position: The
administration and Congress could also consider options of other
possible mechanisms to help agencies in maintaining leadership
continuity for the COO/CMO position, such as term and career
appointments, in selected agencies.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of table]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), working
with the President‘s Management Council composed of senior agency
officials, use the identified criteria when assessing the type of
COO/CMO positions appropriate for federal agencies and the strategies
for implementing these positions. Also, Congress should consider these
criteria and strategies as it develops and reviews legislative
proposals to create these positions. A senior OMB official said that
OMB had no comments on a draft of this report.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-34]. For more information, contact
Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 512-6806 or steinhardtb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Specific Criteria Can Help in Assessing the Type of COO/CMO Position
Needed in a Federal Agency:
Key Strategies Can Assist Agencies in Implementing COO/CMO Positions:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Forum Participants for "Implementing Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions," April 2007:
Appendix III: Key Responsibilities of Statutory Chief Officer Positions
in the Federal Government:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Term Appointments at Selected U.S. Agencies:
Figure:
Figure 1: Reporting Relationships for the COO/CMO Positions in Four
Case-Study Organizations:
Abbreviations:
CAO: chief acquisition officer:
CFO: chief financial officer:
CHCO: chief human capital officer:
CIO: chief information officer:
CMO: chief management officer:
COO: chief operating officer:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PBO: performance-based organization:
PMA: President's Management Agenda:
SES: Senior Executive Service:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 1, 2007:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
As agencies across the federal government embark on large-scale
organizational change needed to address twenty-first century
challenges, there is a compelling need for leadership to provide the
continuing, focused attention essential to completing these multiyear
transformations. At the same time, many agencies are suffering from a
range of long- standing management problems that are undermining their
abilities to efficiently, economically, and effectively accomplish
their missions and achieve results. One proposed approach to address
these systemic federal governance and management challenges involves
the creation of a senior-level position--a chief operating officer
(COO)/chief management officer (CMO)--in selected federal departments
and agencies to help elevate, integrate, and institutionalize
responsibility for key management functions and focus concerted
attention on long-term business transformation efforts. We have long
advocated the need for a COO/CMO at the Department of Defense (DOD) and
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).[Footnote 1] As you know,
legislation has been introduced to create a CMO position at
DOD,[Footnote 2] and recently the Undersecretary for Management
position at DHS became the CMO in an effort to advance management
integration and business transformation in those departments.[Footnote
3]
Although these senior-level positions can operate under a variety of
job titles, the principal goal of establishing and implementing a COO/
CMO position is to provide the sustained management attention essential
for addressing key stewardship responsibilities in an integrated manner
while helping to facilitate the business transformation process within
an agency. These long-term responsibilities are professional and
nonpartisan in nature, and cover a range of "good government"
responsibilities that are fundamental to effectively executing any
administration's program and policy agenda. Responsibilities under the
purview of a COO/CMO could include strategic planning, financial
management, communications and information resources management, human
capital strategy, acquisition management, and change management. The
top leadership attention of a COO/CMO could help to bolster an agency's
efforts to overcome the natural resistance to change, marshal the
resources needed to implement change, and build and maintain an
organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business.
As agreed with your offices, this report identifies (1) criteria that
can be used to determine the type of COO/CMO or similar position that
ought to be established in federal agencies and (2) strategies for
implementing COO/CMO positions to elevate, integrate, and
institutionalize key management functions and business transformation
efforts in federal agencies. To develop these criteria and strategies,
we (1) gathered information on the experiences and views of officials
at four organizations with COO/CMO-type positions and (2) convened a
forum to gather insights from individuals with experience and expertise
in business transformation, federal and private sector management, and
change management. The four organizations included in our review are
three federal agencies and one nonprofit organization: the Department
of the Treasury (Treasury), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the
Department of Justice (Justice), and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT).[Footnote 4] We selected the four organizations
because each has a senior-level official who is responsible for
integrating key management functions, including, at a minimum, human
capital, financial management, information technology, and acquisition
management. At the headquarters of these four organizations, we
interviewed senior officials and we collected and reviewed documents
related to the COO/CMO position. These COO/CMO positions--Assistant
Secretary for Management at Treasury, Deputy Commissioner for
Operations Support at IRS, Assistant Attorney General for
Administration at Justice, and Executive Vice President at MIT
[Footnote 5]--have primary responsibility for many of the mission-
support functions of their respective organizations but generally do
not have direct responsibility for the mission programs and policies of
their organizations. Our organization selection process was not
designed to identify examples that could be considered representative
of all COO/CMO-type positions. Furthermore, we did not assess the
effectiveness of each COO/CMO serving in these respective
organizations, nor did we determine whether any specific COO/CMO
position directly resulted in a higher level of organizational
performance. Rather, our focus was to identify the experiences and
views of officials in carrying out the COO/CMO position.
The Comptroller General also hosted a forum on April 24, 2007, to bring
together former and current government executives and officials from
private business and nonprofit organizations to discuss when and how a
COO/CMO or similar position might effectively provide the continuing,
focused attention essential for integrating key management functions
and undertaking multiyear organizational transformations. This forum
was designed for the participants to discuss these issues openly and
without individual attribution. Forum participants were selected for
their expertise but also to represent a variety of perspectives. The
conclusions drawn in this report do not necessarily represent the views
of any individual participant or the organizations that these
participants represent. In addition, we reviewed our prior work related
to the COO/CMO concept and business transformation and management
integration issues at DOD and DHS. We also interviewed officials from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discuss the establishment
and implementation of COO/CMO positions in federal departments and
agencies.
We conducted our review from August 2006 through July 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See
appendix I for a detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and
methodology, including additional information on our selection process
for organizations to include in the case-study review. Appendix II
provides a list of the participants at the April 2007 Comptroller
General's forum. In addition, a list of related GAO products is
included at the end of this report.
Results in Brief:
Because each agency has its own set of characteristics, challenges, and
opportunities, the type of COO/CMO to be established in a federal
agency should be determined within the context of the specific facts
and circumstances surrounding that agency. Nevertheless, a number of
criteria can be used to determine the type of COO/CMO position for an
agency. These criteria are the agency's:
* history of organizational performance, such as the existence of long-
standing management weaknesses and the failure rates of major projects
or initiatives;
* degree of organizational change needed, such as the status of ongoing
major transformational efforts and the challenge of reorganizing and
integrating disparate organizational units or cultures;
* nature and complexity of mission, such as the range, risk, and scope
of the agency's mission;
* organizational size and structure, such as the number of employees,
geographic dispersion of field offices, number of management layers,
types of reporting relationships, and degree of centralization of
decision making; and;
* current leadership talent and focus, such as the extent of knowledge
and the level of focus of the agency's managers on management functions
and change initiatives, and the number of political appointees in key
positions.
These five criteria are important for determining the appropriate type
of COO/CMO position, which in turn can inform many other elements of
the position, including roles and responsibilities, job qualifications,
reporting relationships, and decision-making structures and processes.
Based on these criteria, there could be several types of COO/CMO
positions, including the following:
* The existing deputy position could carry out the integration and
business transformation role. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate
in a relatively stable or small organization.
* A senior-level executive who reports to the deputy, such as a
principal under secretary for management, could be designated to
integrate key management functions and lead business transformation
efforts in the agency. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate for a
larger organization.
* A second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to
the integration and business transformation of the agency, while the
other deputy position would be responsible for leading the operational
policy and mission-related functions of the agency. For a large and
complex organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform
long-standing management problems, this might be the most appropriate
type of COO/CMO.
Once the type of COO/CMO is determined, six key strategies can be
useful in implementing COO/CMO positions in federal agencies:
Define the specific roles and responsibilities of the COO/CMO position.
For carrying out the role of management integration, it should be clear
which of the agency's key management functions are under the direct
purview of the COO/CMO. Depending on the agency, the COO/CMO might have
responsibility for human capital, financial management, information
resources management, and acquisition management as well as other
management functions in the agency, such as strategic planning, program
evaluation, facilities and installations, or safety and security, as
was the case with the four organizations we reviewed. As the COO/CMO is
a leader of business transformation in the organization, it should
likewise be clear which major change efforts are the direct
responsibility of the COO/CMO. At IRS, for example, both the COO/CMO
and the senior executive of the mission side of the agency were heavily
involved in managing change efforts, but the COO/CMO had primary
responsibility for spearheading business transformation initiatives
that cut across mission-support programs and policies. The importance
of clearly defining the role of the COO/CMO was also a key thread that
emerged throughout the forum discussion.
Ensure that the COO/CMO has a high level of authority and clearly
delineated reporting relationships. The COO/CMO concept is consistent
with the governance principle that there needs to be a single point
within agencies with the perspective and responsibility to ensure the
successful implementation of functional management and business
transformation. The organizational level and span of control of the
COO/CMO position is crucial in ensuring the incumbent's authority and
status within the organization. At both IRS and MIT, the COO/CMO
reports to the head of the organization (i.e., second-level reporting
position), and at Justice and Treasury, the COO/CMO reports through the
deputy secretary (i.e., third-level reporting position).[Footnote 6]
While our interviews and the forum discussion uncovered differing views
about the appropriate level and reporting relationships for a COO/CMO
position, it was broadly recognized that any COO/CMO should have a high
level of authority needed to ensure the successful implementation of
functional management and business transformation efforts in the
agency. In this regard, depending on the agency, implementing a COO/CMO
position might change existing reporting relationships in that the
heads of the agency's key management functions--for example, chief
financial officer (CFO), chief information officer (CIO), chief human
capital officer (CHCO), and chief acquisition officer (CAO)--could
report directly to the COO/CMO.
Foster good executive-level working relationships for maximum
effectiveness. Effective working relationships of the COO/CMO with the
agency head and his or her peers are essential to the success of the
COO/CMO position. For example, officials at IRS stressed the importance
of the working relationship between the agency's two deputy
commissioners--one serving as the COO/CMO--in carrying out their
respective roles and responsibilities in leading the mission and
mission-support offices of the agency. According to IRS officials we
interviewed, open communication and carefully planned coordination
between the mission and mission-support sides of the agency help
significantly in ensuring that the people, processes, and technology
are well-aligned in support of the agency's mission. Officials at MIT
echoed the crucial importance of the working relationship between the
Executive Vice President, who serves in a COO/CMO-type position and
leads the mission-support offices of the university, and the Provost,
who oversees the academic offices. MIT officials pointed out, for
instance, that both university executives work closely together on
formulating an organizational budget to help ensure the most effective
use of resources.
Establish integration and transformation structures and processes in
addition to the COO/CMO position. While the position of COO/CMO can be
a critical means to transform and integrate business and management
functions, other structures and processes need to be in place to
support the COO/CMO in business transformation and management
integration efforts across the organization. These governance
structures and processes could include business transformation offices,
senior executive committees, functional councils for areas such as
human capital and information technology, and short-term or temporary
cross-functional teams, all of which would be actively involved in
planning, budgeting, monitoring, information sharing, and decision
making. The COO/CMO should be a key player in actively leading or
supporting these integration structures and processes to bring focus
and direction and help enforce decisions. For example, with its
organizational realignment in 2003, IRS established a strategy and
resources committee, chaired by the COO/CMO and composed of agency
executives, to govern IRS strategy and ensure that resource allocations
are appropriate for meeting mission needs. Treasury's CFO Council,
which is chaired by the department's COO/CMO and is composed of the
chief financial management officers of the department's bureaus and
major offices, carries out its role through various working groups
focused on recurring processes, such as the preparation of the
department's financial statements.
Promote individual accountability and performance through specific job
qualifications and effective performance management. A specific set of
job qualifications for the COO/CMO position would aid in ensuring that
the incumbent has the necessary knowledge and experience in the areas
within the job's portfolio. Our interviews at the four organizations
revealed that essential qualifications for a COO/CMO position include
having broad management experience and a proven track record of making
decisions in complex settings as well as having direct experience in,
or solid knowledge of, the respective department or agency, but there
were varying views as to whether qualifications should be statutory. To
further clarify expectations and reinforce accountability, a clearly
defined performance agreement with measurable organizational and
individual goals would be warranted as well. Two of the four COO/CMO
positions we reviewed had performance agreements. As underscored in our
interviews and the forum discussion, any performance agreement for the
COO/CMO should contain clear expectations as well as appropriate
incentives and rewards for outstanding performance and consequences for
those who do not perform.
Provide for continuity of leadership in the COO/CMO position. Because
organizational results and transformational efforts can take years to
achieve, agencies need to take steps to ensure leadership continuity in
the COO/CMO position. Foremost, an agency needs to have an executive
succession and transition planning strategy that ensures a sustained
commitment and continuity of leadership as individual leaders arrive or
depart or serve in acting capacities. The administration and Congress
could also consider other possible mechanisms to help agencies in
maintaining leadership continuity for the position. For example, the
benefits of a 5-to 7-year term appointment for the position, such as
instilling a long-term focus, need to be weighed along with the
potential challenges of a term appointment, such as a lack of rapport
between members of a new senior leadership team with any change in
administration. Moreover, as emphasized in our interviews and the forum
discussion, the appointment of career civil servants to the COO/CMO
position could be considered when assessing the position's roles,
responsibilities, and reporting relationships. High turnover among
politically appointed leaders in federal agencies can make it difficult
to follow through with organizational transformation because of the
length of time often needed to provide meaningful and sustainable
results.
Recent legislative proposals have called for certain features of the
COO/CMO position that we have endorsed, including a direct reporting
relationship to the departmental secretary, responsibility for
integrating key management functions and overseeing business
transformation, the requirement for a performance agreement, and the
designation of a term appointment. While no federal department has a
position with all these features, each cabinet-level department and
selected agencies have designated a senior official responsible for
overall organizational management--usually the deputy is considered to
be the COO--to participate in the President's Management Council,
chaired by OMB. Given the council's charter to ensure that management
reforms are implemented across the executive branch, we recommend that
the Director of OMB work with the council to assess the type of COO/CMO
positions that should be in each of their agencies, using the criteria
identified in this report, and to use the key strategies for
implementing these positions based on their assessments. In addition,
Congress should consider these criteria and strategies as it continues
to develop and review legislative proposals to create COO/CMO
positions, recognizing that the implementation of any approach should
be determined within the context of the specific facts and
circumstances that relate to each agency.
We provided a draft of this report to OMB for its review and comment.
The Associate Director for OMB Administration and Government
Performance told us that OMB had no comments on the draft report. We
also provided a draft of this report to Justice, Treasury, IRS, and MIT
and to the forum participants for their review and technical comments.
Treasury, IRS, and several forum participants provided us with
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
The concept of establishing a position to integrate management
functions within federal departments can be traced back to the first
Hoover Commission,[Footnote 7] which was charged by Congress with
reviewing and recommending ways to improve the organization and
operation of federal agencies. The commission, which lasted from 1947
to 1949, proposed numerous recommendations to strengthen departmental
management leadership, including the creation through statute of the
position of assistant secretary for administration in each executive
department. This senior-level official was to be selected from the
career civil service and would direct crosscutting administrative
activities, such as budget, finance, human resources, procurement,
management analysis, and support services. The commission's
recommendation was subsequently adopted and these assistant secretaries
for administration, positions filled by career appointees, were
established in many of the executive departments throughout the 1950s
and 1960s.
The more recent concept of the COO/CMO position largely came out of the
creation of performance-based organizations (PBO) in the federal
government in the late 1990s and early 2000. During that time, the
administration and Congress renewed their focus on the need to
restructure federal agencies and hold them accountable for achieving
program results. To this end, three PBOs were established,[Footnote 8]
which were modeled after the United Kingdom's executive
agencies.[Footnote 9] A PBO is a discrete departmental unit that is
intended to transform the delivery of public services by having the
organization commit to achieving specific measurable goals with targets
for improvement in exchange for being allowed to operate without the
constraints of certain rules and regulations to achieve these targets.
The clearly defined performance goals are to be coupled with direct
ties between the achievement of the goals and the pay and tenure of the
head of the PBO, often referred to as the COO. The COO is appointed for
a set term of typically 3 to 5 years, subject to an annual performance
agreement, and is eligible for bonuses for improved organizational
performance.
With the backdrop of these PBOs and an ongoing focus on transforming
organizational cultures in the federal government, the Comptroller
General convened a roundtable of government leaders and management
experts on September 9, 2002, to discuss the COO concept and how it
might apply within selected federal departments and agencies.[Footnote
10] The intent of the roundtable was to generate ideas and to engage in
an open dialog on the possible application of the COO concept to
selected federal departments and agencies. The participants at the
roundtable offered a wide range of suggestions for consideration as the
executive branch and Congress were seeking to address the federal
government's long-standing management problems and the need to move to
a more responsive, results-oriented, and accountable federal
government. Nonetheless, there was general agreement on the importance
of the following actions for organizational transformation and
management reform:
* Elevate attention on management issues and transformational change.
Top leadership attention is essential to overcome organizations'
natural resistance to change, marshal the resources needed to implement
change, and build and maintain the organizationwide commitment to new
ways of doing business.
* Integrate various key management and transformation efforts. There
needs to be a single point within agencies with the perspective and
responsibility--as well as authority--to ensure the successful
implementation of functional management and, if appropriate,
transformational change efforts.
* Institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and
leading transformational change. The management weaknesses in some
agencies are deeply entrenched and long-standing, and it can take at
least 5 to 7 years of sustained attention and continuity to fully
implement transformations and change management initiatives.
Still, it was generally agreed at this roundtable discussion that the
implementation of any approach should be determined within the context
of the specific facts and circumstances that relate to each individual
agency.
In the time since the 2002 roundtable, the COO concept has evolved into
the COO/CMO concept with a focus on business transformation, and has
received even greater attention within the federal government.
Legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress to establish CMO
positions at DOD and DHS to help address transformation efforts at the
two departments, both of which are responsible for various areas
identified on our biennial update of high-risk programs.[Footnote 11]
These legislative proposals differ somewhat in content but would
essentially create a senior-level position to serve as a principal
adviser to the secretary on matters related to the management of the
department, including management integration and business
transformation. Some of these legislative proposals also include
specific provisions that spell out qualifications for the position,
require a performance contract, and provide for a term appointment of 5
or 7 years. In August 2007, the proposal to create a CMO in DHS at an
Executive Level II, but without a term appointment, was enacted into
law. In 2000, Congress created a Deputy Secretary for Management and
Resources position at the Department of State; however, the
administration opposed the creation of a second deputy position, and
the position has never been filled. Therefore, at the present time, no
federal department has a COO/CMO-type position with all these
characteristics. However, the heads of federal departments and selected
agencies designate a COO, who is usually the deputy or another official
with agencywide authority, to sit on the President's Management
Council. The council was created by President Clinton in 1993 in order
to advise and assist the President and Vice President in ensuring that
management reforms are implemented throughout the executive
branch.[Footnote 12] The Deputy Director for Management of OMB chairs
the council, and the council is responsible for:
* improving overall executive branch management, including
implementation of the President's Management Agenda (PMA);[Footnote 13]
* coordinating management-related efforts to improve government
throughout the executive branch and, as necessary, resolving specific
interagency management issues;
* ensuring the adoption of new management practices in agencies
throughout the executive branch; and;
* identifying examples of, and providing mechanisms for, interagency
exchange of information about best management practices.
Specific Criteria Can Help in Assessing the Type of COO/CMO Position
Needed in a Federal Agency:
Ascertaining which criteria might be relevant for a particular agency
would assist in determining the type of COO/CMO position that might
best be established in the agency. The following is a summary of five
criteria that can be used to determine the appropriate type of COO/CMO
position in a federal agency. This summary includes various statements
and examples provided by the officials we interviewed and the forum
participants, along with relevant references to our previous work.
History of Organizational Performance:
Agencies that have long-standing management weaknesses and high-risk
operations or functions could be good candidates for establishing a
COO/CMO-type position.[Footnote 14] Agencies with programs and
functions that we designate as high risk, like DOD, would be especially
appropriate candidates for such positions.[Footnote 15] Our interviews
with officials at the four case-study organizations reinforced that an
agency's overall performance should be considered when assessing the
type of COO/CMO that might be needed. For example, an official in one
of the agencies commented that a COO/CMO position might be needed if an
agency has a high degree of material and financial weaknesses. Another
agency official said that an additional factor to consider is whether
the organization has had many large projects fail, a likely indicator
that the agency has not placed sufficient attention on integration. In
a discussion of the importance of establishing measures to assess
organizational performance, a department official commented that the
integration of management functions is often not measured within
federal agencies and that in order for full integration to occur, it
must be stimulated and given a timeline.
Degree of Organizational Change Needed:
We have previously suggested that agencies engaged in major
transformation efforts and those agencies experiencing particularly
significant challenges in integrating disparate organizational
cultures, such as DHS, could be also good candidates for having COO/
CMO-type positions in place.[Footnote 16] Our interviews with officials
at the case-study organizations confirmed that the degree of
organizational change needed should be a criterion to consider when
assessing the need for a COO/CMO. For example, an agency official we
interviewed commented that an agency undergoing significant
transformation might benefit from a COO/CMO position in place in order
to focus principally on correcting weaknesses and exploring new
approaches for meeting mission needs. Another agency official pointed
out that the organizational culture of the agency should be considered,
and he noted that a strong esprit de corps in an agency could affect
the decision of whether a COO/CMO position is advisable. As we have
previously reported, overcoming inertia and cultural resistance to
change can be a significant challenge within agencies.[Footnote 17]
Nature and Complexity of Mission:
The nature and complexity of mission, including the range, risk, and
scope of an agency's mission, is another factor that should be
considered in the assessment for a COO/CMO position. For example, a
department official we interviewed said that the complexity of an
agency's mission should be considered when assessing the need for a
COO/CMO, regardless of the size of the agency. Another agency official
commented that an organization with a single mission focus might not
need a COO/CMO position. A forum participant noted that implementing
change at an organization such as DHS can be challenging because the
department does not have one single mission (i.e., emergency and
nonemergency operations). In suggesting that a wide range of
organizational missions should be a factor when considering the type of
COO/CMO, a departmental official we interviewed pointed out that
Treasury manufactures currency, collects taxes, manages the national
debt, and provides the Director of National Intelligence with
information on terrorist financing activities.
Organizational Size and Structure:
Officials frequently cited the size of an organization as an important
factor to consider when reviewing the type of COO/CMO position. For
example, a case-study official suggested that a COO/CMO position would
not be necessary in an organization with only 50 people whereas an
organization with 2,000 employees could need such a position to oversee
and integrate the management functions. He said that as organizations
become larger, they are more likely to need coordinating structures to
help with integration and coordination because communication can easily
break down. Another official added that a COO/CMO position might work
best for a large decentralized organization, where it is more difficult
to enforce policy and where there is no entity to oversee and integrate
the various functions. Some forum participants concluded that for
smaller agencies, the deputy could carry out the COO/CMO role. Another
case-study official remarked that a COO/CMO-type position might be
relevant for a smaller organization if there were a high degree of risk
and grave consequences for poor communication and coordination, such as
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. However,
another department official suggested that the size of the organization
might not be highly relevant when considering the establishment of a
COO/CMO position because every agency needs to have a consolidation
point in the flow of information to minimize disjointed communication
and a lack of coordination.
Organizational structure was also suggested by officials as a factor to
consider in determining the type of COO/CMO position. For example, a
department official suggested that a COO/CMO position should be
established in agencies with a wide geographic dispersion of personnel
and facilities. Another agency official commented that an additional
factor to consider is the degree to which the organization's activities
are duplicative or stovepiped. Still another official offered that the
number of management layers in the organization and the existing span
of control for managers should be a factor in assessing the type of
COO/CMO. The types of reporting relationships and the number of dotted
lines of authority on the organizational chart might also give
indications about the need for a COO/CMO position, as cited by another
agency official we interviewed.
Current Leadership Talent and Focus:
Another important factor to consider is the extent of knowledge and
experience and the level of focus and attention of existing senior
leadership. For example, an agency official we interviewed remarked
that if there has not been sufficient attention and focus on management
issues to accomplish the mission of the organization, then establishing
a COO/CMO position would add value. Some forum participants noted that
management execution and integration require a long-term focus, and
that under the existing system, agency senior leaders may not likely
stay in their positions for the long term. According to another
official we interviewed, an additional factor to consider is the extent
to which the agency has a large number of noncareer positions (e.g.,
political appointees) carrying out management roles.
Criteria Help to Determine Types of COO/CMOs Needed:
A key thread of discussion at the Comptroller General's April 2007
forum was the possible need for different types of COO/CMO positions
based on whether the position is predominately a transformational role
in instituting new processes and organizational culture change or an
operational role in a "steady state" organization. Depending on these
five criteria, there could be several types of COO/CMO positions,
including the types shown below.
* The existing deputy position could carry out the integration and
business transformation role. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate
in a relatively stable or small organization.
* A senior-level executive who reports to the deputy, such as a
principal under secretary for management, could be designated to
integrate key management functions and lead business transformation
efforts in the agency. This type of COO/CMO might be appropriate for a
larger organization.
* A second deputy position could be created to bring strong focus to
the integration and business transformation of the agency, while the
other deputy position would be responsible for leading the operational
policy and mission-related functions of the agency. For a large and
complex organization undergoing a significant transformation to reform
long-standing management problems, this might be the most appropriate
type of COO/CMO.
A number of forum participants and officials we interviewed, including
OMB's Deputy Director for Management, said that the deputy position
should generally carry out the role of integrating key management
functions and transformational efforts in agencies rather than
establishing a separate COO/CMO position. At the same time, given the
competing demands on deputy secretaries in executive branch departments
across the federal government to help execute the President's policy
and program agendas, a number of agency officials argued that it is not
practical to expect that the deputy secretaries will be able to
consistently undertake this vital integrating responsibility. Moreover,
while many deputy secretaries may be appointed based in part on their
managerial experience, it has not always been the case, and not
surprisingly, the management skills, expertise, and interests of the
deputy secretaries have always varied and will continue to vary. Then
again, some officials we interviewed maintained that a COO/CMO position
would be appropriate for any federal department or agency because there
is always a need to integrate management functions and ensure
collaboration in new initiatives.
Key Strategies Can Assist Agencies in Implementing COO/CMO Positions:
We identified six key strategies that agencies should consider when
implementing COO/CMO positions. In these six strategies, we recognize
and forum participants underscored that the best approach to use in any
given agency should be determined within the context of the specific
facts and circumstances surrounding that agency and its own challenges
and opportunities. The following is a more detailed discussion of these
strategies along with a range of related insights, views, and examples
that we identified.
Define the Specific Roles and Responsibilities of the COO/CMO Position:
In previous reports, we have proposed that the COO/CMO position would
serve as a single organizational focus for key management functions,
such as human capital, financial management, information resources
management, and acquisition management, as well as for selected
organizational transformation initiatives. By their very nature, the
problems and challenges facing agencies are crosscutting and hence
require coordinated and integrated solutions. Thus, the COO/CMO
essentially serves as a bridge between the agency head, functional
chiefs, and mission-focused executives. The COO/CMO provides leadership
and vision, bringing greater integration and increased attention to the
agency's management functions in order to enable agency employees to
accomplish their missions more efficiently and effectively. The COO/CMO
would offer the benefit of increased opportunities to coordinate and
identify crosscutting issues that are fundamental to effectively
executing any administration's program agenda yet do not generally
entail program policy-setting authority. The COO/CMO would also bolster
the agency's efforts to overcome the natural resistance to change,
challenging conventional approaches and developing new methods and
systems for implementing business transformation in a comprehensive,
ongoing, and integrated manner.
We have previously suggested that in crafting an approach for any
specific agency, Congress could make clear in statute the broad
responsibilities for the senior official tasked with management
integration and business transformation.[Footnote 18] Congress has
taken this approach with other similar senior-level positions that can
serve as illustrative models. For example, in 2003 Congress created the
position of Deputy Architect of the Capitol/COO, responsible for the
overall direction, operation, and management of that organization.
Under the statute, besides developing and implementing a long-term
strategic plan, the Deputy Architect/COO is to propose organizational
changes and staffing needed to carry out the organization's mission and
strategic and annual performance goals.[Footnote 19] In addition,
Congress has articulated positional responsibilities in important
governmentwide management legislation. For example, the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act), which requires 24 federal agencies to
have CFOs, clearly lays out the CFOs' responsibilities, including
developing and maintaining integrated accounting and financial
management systems; directing, managing, and providing policy guidance
and oversight of all financial management personnel, activities, and
operations; and approving and managing financial management systems
design and enhancement projects. By establishing such responsibilities
in statute, Congress created clear expectations for the positions and
underscored its desire for employing a professional and nonpartisan
approach in connection with these positions. (App. III provides a
summary of the key responsibilities for statutory chief officer
positions in the federal government.)
Each of the four organizations in our study--Treasury, IRS, Justice,
and MIT--has a senior-level official responsible for integrating the
key management functions of human capital, financial management,
information resources management, and acquisition management. Examples
of other functional responsibilities of the case-study COO/CMOs include
strategic planning, program evaluation, facilities and installations,
and safety and security. The COO/CMOs of the four case-study
organizations are also directly responsible for leading many of the
business transformation efforts in their respective organizations. At
IRS, for example, both the COO/CMO and the senior executive of the
mission side of the agency are heavily involved in managing change
efforts, but the COO/CMO has primary responsibility for spearheading
business transformation initiatives that cut across mission-support
programs and policies.
The case-study officials we interviewed and the participants of the
April 2007 forum generally agreed that a senior-level official should
be responsible for carrying out the COO/CMO role of integrating key
management functions in the organization. For example, an official from
one of the federal agencies noted that without someone in the agency
devoted to management functions, the focus of the agency's senior
leaders will remain on the policy side of the agency. One of the COO/
CMOs of the four organizations commented that there is a benefit in
having the mission-support activities in an organization grouped
together under one senior leader so as to support the common interests
of these mission-support activities. Another COO/CMO told us that his
role was to "make life easier" for the mission side of the
organization. Another official echoed these sentiments in that the COO/
CMO needs to be viewed by the mission side of the organization as
adding value as opposed to simply promulgating rules. Several case-
study officials and forum participants also stressed that the COO/CMO
must have an authoritative role in the overseeing the agency's budget
in order to be effective in the position.
The roles and responsibilities of the COO/CMO related to business
transformation were also widely discussed in our case-study interviews
and at the forum. For example, a forum participant said that the senior
official leading transformation within an agency needs to be in an
operational role rather than a policy role. Another forum participant
stressed that although the COO/CMO is a management and transformational
position, the roles and responsibilities of the position can differ
depending on the extent to which the agency is undergoing
transformation. Accordingly, when significant transformation is the
goal, the role of the COO/CMO should be focused on breakthrough
improvements to achieve this goal. The COO/CMO at one case-study agency
said that when organizations carry out these transformation efforts,
managers throughout the organization will often try to accelerate
decision making and the execution of change, which can be quite
detrimental. He noted that in order to prevent these types of problems,
a federal agency needs the COO/CMO with a role and associated
responsibilities that allow for directing the speed of change
implementation while also controlling the level of detail and personal
involvement in the change. The COO/CMO at another agency remarked that
in order for an agency to be successful in carrying out any
transformation process, experienced agency managers need to be involved
at the beginning of the process and thus the roles and responsibilities
of the COO/CMO should complement those of other managers in the agency.
Several agency officials and forum participants told us that it is also
important to avoid being overly restrictive in specifying the roles and
responsibilities for the COO/CMO position. For example, a forum
participant said that Congress should not legislate details of how to
carry out the responsibilities of a COO/CMO position because
legislation is geared to the present whereas the agency and the
environment in which it operates can change over time. Another forum
participant echoed that any legislation to establish a COO/CMO position
should not contain detailed roles and responsibilities because it could
hinder effectiveness in the position. Another forum participant added
that the roles and responsibilities should be broadly defined, allowing
flexibility from agency to agency. Another forum participant suggested
that the agency head could specify the responsibilities of a COO/CMO in
formal terms, such as in a "tasking memo." Nonetheless, a number of
agency officials we interviewed stressed the importance of
communicating to employees throughout the agency the specifics of the
COO/CMO's actual role in the organization. We have previously noted the
importance of ensuring that all agency employees are fully aware of the
duties and key areas of responsibilities for executives in charge of
major activities or functions in the agency.[Footnote 20]
Ensure That the COO/CMO Has a High Level of Authority and Clearly
Delineated Reporting Relationships:
The COO/CMO concept is consistent with the governance principle that
there needs to be a single point within agencies with the perspective
and responsibility to ensure the successful implementation of
functional management and business transformation efforts. The
organizational level and span of control of the COO/CMO position is
crucial in ensuring the incumbent's authority and status within the
organization. We have previously argued that the COO/CMO position
should be part of an agency's top leadership, for example, a deputy
secretary for management.[Footnote 21] At the same time, however, the
placement of the COO/CMO position needs to take into account existing
positions and responsibilities to avoid additional layers of management
that are unnecessary. Regardless of how the position is structured in
an agency, it is critical that the individuals appointed to these
positions be vested with sufficient authority to be able to integrate
management functions and achieve results.
For the four organizations included in our review, the COO/CMOs either
reported to the organization head (i.e., second-level reporting
position) or reported to an individual who reports to the organization
head (i.e., third-level reporting position). Specifically, the IRS COO/
CMO reports to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the MIT COO/CMO
reports to the President of the university, and the COO/CMOs at
Treasury and Justice report to the respective deputy positions in those
departments. (See fig. 1 for simplified organizational charts showing
the reporting relationships of the four COO/CMO positions.) The COO/
CMOs for the four organizations told us that they had the necessary and
appropriate level of authority at their respective levels within their
organizations.
Figure 1: Reporting Relationships for the COO/CMO Positions in Four
Case-Study Organizations:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a series of flow charts of reporting relationships, with
the following data depicted:
Second-level reporting positions:
Internal Revenue Service:
Commissioner: receives reports from Deputy Commissioner for Services
and Enforcement;
Commissioner: receives reports from Deputy Commissioner for Operations
Support.
Second-level reporting positions:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
President: receives reports from Provost;
President: receives reports from Chancellor;
President: receives reports from Executive Vice-President.
Third-level reporting positions:
Department of the Treasury:
Secretary: receives reports from Deputy Secretary;
Deputy Secretary: receives reports from:
* Under Secretary (three positions);
* Heads of mission bureaus;
* Assistant Secretary for Management.
Third-level reporting positions:
Department of Justice:
Attorney General: receives reports from Deputy Attorney General;
Deputy Attorney: General receives reports from:
* Solicitor General;
* Associate Attorney General;
* Heads of mission bureaus;
* Assistant Attorney General for Administration.
Source: GAO presentation of IRS, MIT, Treasury, and Justice
information.
[End of figure]
The case-study officials and the forum participants broadly recognized
that a COO/CMO should have a high enough level of authority to ensure
the successful implementation of functional management and
transformational change efforts in the agency. However, the officials
and participants had mixed views as to the most appropriate
organizational level for a COO/CMO position. Some interviewees and
forum participants told us that the COO/CMO position should report to
the head of the agency (i.e., second-level reporting relationship). A
department official said, for example, that having a COO/CMO position
on par with the deputy secretary would demonstrate that management
issues are viewed as important in the agency. Another agency official
commented that a COO/CMO reporting to the agency head would more likely
be involved in key decision making within the organization. Still other
interviewees and forum participants said that the COO/CMO should report
to an individual who reports to the organization head (i.e., third-
level reporting relationship). For example, a department official told
us that the COO/CMO should be at the under secretary level in any
department, yet stressed that the organizational level itself would not
guarantee success in the COO/CMO position. A forum participant said
that a COO/CMO position should be placed at a high level within the
organization, but cautioned that a COO/CMO position with a deputy
secretary as peer would create confusion within the organization if
responsibility and accountability are not clearly defined.
Some of the agency officials and forum participants said that the COO/
CMO's level on an organizational chart is not as critical as the level
of authority and executive-level attention that is given to the COO/CMO
position. For example, a department official told us that regardless of
where the COO/CMO position is placed on the organizational chart, the
COO/CMO must have a close relationship with and be a trusted advisor to
the agency leadership. Another official added that the effectiveness of
a COO/CMO does not always depend on where he or she is on the
organizational chart, but mostly on the personality and abilities of
the individual. A forum participant commented that the reporting
relationship of the COO/CMO should depend primarily on the agency's
agenda and mission. He said, for instance, that if the agency is
focused on multiple issues and there are transformational initiatives
under way, dual deputies are needed (i.e., similar to the IRS and MIT
models of governance).
Additionally, some officials we interviewed commented on COO/CMO
positions in connection with the relationship between departments and
their component agencies. For example, an official at one of the case-
study agencies suggested that the reporting level of the COO/CMO
position could differ depending on whether the position is in a
department or a bureau. Namely, the COO/CMO in a department might
report to the deputy while the COO/CMO at the bureau level could report
directly to the bureau head. This official noted that at the bureau
level, senior management is typically more geared toward operations
rather than policy. Another official suggested the possibility of
having a COO/CMO position at each of the various bureaus of a
department, which would then form a team of individuals led by the
department's COO/CMO to integrate management functions and business
transformation throughout the department.
Implementing a COO/CMO Position Could Affect Reporting Relationships of
Functional Chiefs:
An important issue to consider when implementing the COO/CMO position
is the reporting relationships of the statutory management functional
chiefs, namely the CFO, CIO, CHCO, and CAO. Some of these positions are
required by statute to report directly to their agency heads; in other
cases, no direction is provided in statute. However, these functional
management chiefs could report to a COO/CMO who was given the
responsibility for integrating the organization's management functions.
For many large federal departments and agencies, such an arrangement
would likely require amending existing legislation, for example, the
CFO Act. This arrangement would need careful analysis to ensure that
any legislative changes result in augmented attention to management
issues yet do not inadvertently lead to a reduction in the authority of
key management officials or the prominence afforded a particular
management function.
Although federal law generally requires that CFOs and CIOs report
directly to their agency heads, this reporting relationship does not
always happen in practice. For example, in July 2004, we reported on
the status of CIO roles, responsibilities, and challenges (among other
things) at 27 major agencies.[Footnote 22] Nineteen of the CIOs in our
review stated that they reported directly to the agency head in
carrying out their responsibilities. In the other 8 agencies, the CIOs
stated that they reported instead to another senior official, such as a
deputy secretary, under secretary, or assistant secretary. In addition,
8 of the 19 CIOs who said they had a direct reporting relationship with
the agency head noted that they also reported to another senior
executive, usually the deputy secretary or under secretary for
management, on an operational basis. Only about a third of those who
did not report to their agency heads expressed a concern with their
reporting relationships. For the July 2004 report, we also held two
panels of former agency senior executives responsible for information
technology who had various views on whether it was important that the
CIO report to the agency head. For example, one former executive stated
that such a reporting relationship was extremely important, another
emphasized that organizational placement was not important if the CIO
had credibility, and others suggested that the CIO could be effective
while reporting to a COO.
Unlike for CFOs and CIOs, the reporting relationships of CHCOs and CAOs
are not prescribed in federal statute and are at the discretion of the
agency head. In May 2004, we provided information on the existing
reporting relationships of the CHCOs as part of our review of federal
agencies' implementation of the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of
2002.[Footnote 23] At that time, we noted that more than half (15 of
24) of the CHCOs reported directly to the agency head, with the
remainder reporting to another agency official. Some CHCOs who reported
directly to the agency head told us that this reporting relationship
gives them an important "seat at the table" where key decisions are
made. However, some CHCOs who did not report to their agency head said
having all or most of the agency chief management positions as direct
reports to the agency heads may impede efficient management
coordination within the agency. Most of the political appointees (9 of
12) reported directly to the agency head, while half of the career
executives (6 of 12) reported to another agency official.
Many of the officials we interviewed from the case-study organizations
told us that the management functional chiefs should report directly to
a COO/CMO, otherwise the COO/CMO would not have the level of authority
needed to ensure the successful implementation of functional management
and transformational change efforts in the agency. An agency official
pointed out, for example, that one of the purposes of integrating
functions within an agency is to avoid having everyone report directly
to the agency head. Some interviewees raised concerns about where a
COO/CMO position might be created in the agency and the resulting
changes in the level of authority and reporting relationships related
to the functional management chiefs. For example, an official at one of
the case-study agencies said that if a COO/CMO position were
established in an agency and this change in effect resulted in moving
the functional management chiefs down a level on the organizational
chart, some functional chiefs might view this change as a demotion
because they would no longer have a direct line to the deputy. Another
official maintained that the COO/CMO position should report to the
agency head in part because the agency could have morale or recruitment
problems within the functional chief positions if the COO/CMO were at a
third level on the organization chart and the functional chiefs
reported to him or her.
Foster Good Executive-Level Working Relationships for Maximum
Effectiveness:
Effective working relationships of the COO/CMO with the agency head and
his or her peers are essential to the success of the COO/CMO position.
In various reports over the years, we have stressed the importance of
good working relationships to achieving program goals and agency
missions.[Footnote 24] As with other senior-level officials in
agencies, individuals serving in COO/CMO positions can establish
effective working relationships through various methods, such as
forming alliances with other senior managers to help build commitment
and getting managers from the mission side of the enterprise involved
and accountable for key management projects. We have also previously
noted that active participation in executive processes and committees
facilitates the ability to build effective executive-level working
relationships.[Footnote 25] Because of high turnover among politically
appointed leaders, it is particularly important for appointees and
senior career executives to develop good working relationships from the
beginning.
At the four case-study organizations, working relationships among the
COO/CMOs and other senior leaders were crucial to effectively carrying
out the respective integration and transformation roles. For example,
in May 2003, the then-Commissioner of Internal Revenue realigned IRS's
management structure with the primary change being the creation of an
operations support organization to be led by a deputy commissioner
serving in a COO/CMO-type role. This new position, the Deputy
Commissioner for Operations Support, would be responsible for the
modernization program and drive productivity across the organization.
The other deputy--the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement-
-would be able to focus on the mission side of the agency, including
prioritization of multiple enforcement initiatives and reducing cycle
time for enforcement actions. Officials at IRS stressed the importance
of the working relationship between the agency's two deputy
commissioners--one serving as the COO/CMO--in carrying out their
respective roles and responsibilities in leading the mission and
mission-support offices of the agency. According to IRS officials we
interviewed, open communication and carefully planned coordination
between the mission and mission-support sides of the agency help
significantly in ensuring that the people, processes, and technology
are well-aligned in support of the agency's mission.
Officials at MIT echoed the crucial importance of the working
relationship between the Executive Vice President, who serves in a COO/
CMO-type position and leads the mission-support offices of the
university, and the Provost, who oversees the academic offices. MIT
officials pointed out, for instance, that both university executives
work closely together on formulating an organizational budget to help
ensure the most effective use of resources. An MIT official reiterated
the comments of colleagues in stating that the relationship between the
COO/CMO and Provost of the university is paramount to ensuring the
effective integration of the academic and administrative sides of the
university. The official added that over the years there have been
differences in the working styles of the individuals in the Executive
Vice President and Provost positions, but these relationships were
still effective. Many forum participants confirmed the view that good
executive-level working relationships are crucial for carrying out the
COO/CMO position.
Establish Integration and Transformation Structures and Processes in
Addition to the COO/CMO Position:
While the position of COO/CMO can be a critical means for integrating
and transforming business and management functions, other structures
and processes need to be in place to support the COO/CMO in management
integration and business transformation efforts across the
organization. These structures and processes can include governance
boards, business transformation offices, senior executive committees,
functional councils for areas such as human capital and information
technology, and short-term or temporary cross-functional teams, such as
a project task force--all of which would be actively involved in
planning, budgeting, monitoring, information sharing, or decision
making. To bring focus and direction and help enforce decisions in the
agency, the COO/CMO should be a key player in actively leading or
supporting these integration structures and processes.
We have previously reported that dedicating an implementation team to
manage a transformation process is a key practice of successful mergers
and organizational transformations.[Footnote 26] Because the
transformation process is a massive undertaking, the implementation
team must have a "cadre of champions" to ensure that changes are
thoroughly implemented and sustained over time. Establishing networks,
including a senior executive council, functional teams, or crosscutting
teams, can help the implementation team conduct the day-to-day
activities of the merger or transformation and help ensure that efforts
are coordinated and integrated. To be most effective, establishing
clearly defined roles and responsibilities within this network assigns
accountability for parts of the implementation process, helps in
reaching agreement on work priorities, and builds a code of conduct
that will help all teams to work effectively. Our work on business
transformation initiatives at DOD and DHS and at DHS's U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services shows that these agencies have used various
governance and leadership processes and structures to help modernize,
transform, and integrate the business side of their
organizations.[Footnote 27] For example, each organization established
a business transformation office or agency to provide a dedicated team
to implement its transformation, although DHS subsequently eliminated
its office.
At the four organizations included in our case-study reviews, the COO/
CMO position is a key player in integrating and coordinating mission-
related programs and mission-support functions at the senior levels of
the organization. Still, in addition to the important integration and
transformation role of the COO/CMO, other structures and processes need
to be in place. These approaches include structures and processes for
coordinating mission and mission-support functions at the senior levels
of the organization, as shown below.
* With its organizational realignment in 2003, IRS established a
Strategy and Resources Committee to govern IRS strategy and ensure that
resource allocations are appropriate for meeting mission needs. As the
COO/CMO of IRS, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support chaired
this committee, which included seven other senior IRS officials,
including the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, the
CFO, and the CIO. Responsibilities of the committee, which met every
other month, included overseeing the agency's strategic planning
process and improvement initiatives, reviewing budget initiatives for
alignment with the agency's strategic plan, and reviewing the agency's
progress against critical performance measures. More recently,
according to IRS officials, as the organization structure and the COO/
CMO position matured and the need for more frequent exchanges of
information grew, the strategy and resources committee has evolved into
a monthly senior executive team meeting that deals with strategy and
resource issues as well as other topics related to resource allocation
and business planning.
* At Treasury, the bureau head meetings and the Executive Planning
Board are two mechanisms that the COO/CMO uses to integrate and
coordinate management functions across the department. The heads of the
Treasury bureaus meet regularly as a group to serve as an authorizing
body for carrying out the department's mission responsibilities.
According to Treasury officials, the COO/CMO has used these monthly
meetings as a mechanism for discussing management issues with the
various bureaus and trying to create a shared approach to improving
integration of the department's management functions. Furthermore,
Treasury's Executive Planning Board leads the department's annual
budget and strategic planning process. As chair of the Executive
Planning Board, the COO/CMO at Treasury provides executive oversight of
the planning process, helping to identify trends and leverage
opportunities for coordination and integration across the department.
* As the COO/CMO at Justice, the Assistant Attorney General for
Administration has a standing role at a monthly meeting of Justice
component heads to advise them on matters related to management issues
in the department, such as the status of the department's budget and
new management requirements, as well as to hear component heads'
concerns and ideas for addressing management issues. The Justice COO/
CMO also chairs a monthly meeting of the departmental components'
executive officers (or their equivalents), who are generally career
staff responsible for each component's management functions (budget,
finance, procurement, facilities, information management, and human
resources). According to Justice officials, this monthly meeting serves
as a forum for addressing governmentwide and departmentwide management
policy and operational matters, and these meetings help to ensure that
management issues are appropriately addressed at the component level
within the department.
* MIT has also relied heavily on committees to integrate management
functions across the university. As the COO/CMO of MIT, the Executive
Vice President participates in a weekly "foursome meeting" with the
university President, Provost, and Vice President for Institute Affairs
to discuss strategic issues for the organization. The COO/CMO is also a
member of the university's Academic Council, a group of about 20 senior-
level university officials involved in the overall administration of
the university who meet weekly to confer on matters of organizational
policy and to advise the university President. According to an MIT
official, if decisions on issues cannot be reached at lower committee
levels within the university, such issues can be brought before the
Academic Council for resolution.
Another common mechanism for integrating and coordinating management
functions across the organization is the use of standing committees and
subcommittees that deal with specific issues and topics related to
various functions, such as a "human capital council" and its
subcommittees. The COO/CMO is usually directly involved or provides
important institutional support for these governance structures and
their related processes, as shown below.
* With its organizational realignment in 2003, IRS established a Human
Capital Board composed of representatives from across the agency's
major units to obtain input and plan and monitor human capital
initiatives and programs. The Human Capital Board, one of IRS's
governance boards, is headed by IRS's Human Capital Officer and
includes the Chief of Staff and the head of equal employment
opportunity. The board governs IRS-wide human capital policy and plans
workforce strategy and initiatives.
* MIT established a human resources council, called HR Partners,
composed of various staff from across the university with human
resources responsibilities. MIT's council organizes formal training
events for the human resources staff using the expertise and resources
of the university's business school as well as informal events, such as
"lunch and learn" sessions to share information related to human
capital management.
* Treasury's CFO Council, which meets monthly, comprises the chief
financial management officers of the department's bureaus and major
offices. The COO/CMO at Treasury serves as the department's CFO and
chairs the department's CFO Council with the deputy CFO. Treasury's CFO
Council carries out its role through various working groups, which
convene for recurring events, such as the preparation of the
department's financial statements and annual reporting on internal
control issues.
* Justice's CIO Council, composed of department and component CIOs,
deals with all matters of departmentwide significance related to
information technology policy and implementation. The Justice COO/CMO
is responsible for supervising the overall direction of the CIO Council
in formulating department policies, standards, and procedures for
information systems and reviewing and approving contracts for
information processing led by the department.
Promote Individual Accountability and Performance through Specific Job
Qualifications and Effective Performance Management:
A specific set of job qualifications for the COO/CMO position would aid
in ensuring that the incumbent has the necessary knowledge and
experience in the areas within the job's portfolio. Our interviews at
the four organizations and our prior work revealed that essential
qualifications for a COO/CMO position include having broad management
experience and a proven track record of making decisions in complex
settings as well as having direct experience in, or solid knowledge of,
the respective organization. To further clarify expectations and
reinforce accountability, a clearly defined performance agreement with
measurable organizational and individual goals would be warranted as
well. As underscored in our interviews and the forum discussion, any
performance agreement for the COO/CMO should contain realistic
expectations as well as appropriate incentives and rewards for
outstanding performance and consequences for those who do not perform.
Job Qualifications Can Better Ensure Requisite Management Skills and
Abilities:
We have previously proposed that a specific set of job qualifications
for the COO/CMO position could aid in ensuring that the officeholder
has the necessary knowledge and experience in the areas within the
job's portfolio.[Footnote 28] We have suggested that the individual
serving in a COO/CMO position be selected based on (1) demonstrated
leadership skills in managing large and complex organizations and (2)
experience achieving results in strategic planning, financial
management, communications and information resources management, human
capital strategy, acquisition management, and change management. We
have also previously suggested that Congress consider formalizing the
broad qualifications for any COO/CMO positions established in federal
departments and agencies. By articulating qualification requirements
directly in statute, Congress would be taking an important step toward
further ensuring that high-quality individuals would be selected.
As a point of comparison, Congress has set out qualifications for other
management positions established in various federal agencies. For
example, under statute, the Deputy Architect of the Capitol/COO is to
have strong leadership skills and demonstrated ability in management in
such areas as strategic planning, performance management, worker
safety, customer satisfaction, and service quality. The COO of Federal
Student Aid is to have demonstrated management ability and expertise in
information technology, including experience with financial
systems.[Footnote 29] The COO of the Air Traffic Organization is to
have a demonstrated ability in management and knowledge of or
experience in aviation. Additionally, the Commissioner for Patents and
the Commissioner for Trademarks are to have demonstrated management
ability and professional background and experience in patent law and
trademark law, respectively.[Footnote 30] Congress has also established
overall job qualifications for two of the management functional chief
positions in the federal government--the CFOs and the CIOs. The CFOs
are to "possess demonstrated ability in general management of, and
knowledge of and extensive practical experience in, financial
management practices in large governmental or business entities." The
CIOs are to be selected with special attention to relevant experience
and professional qualifications related to records management,
information dissemination, security, and technology management, among
other areas.
As with other Senior Executive Service (SES) appointments, the
qualifications for the two federal career COO/CMO positions (Justice
and IRS) required general management skills and characteristics
reflected in the five executive core qualifications adopted by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), namely leading change, leading
people, results driven, business acumen, and building
coalitions.[Footnote 31] In addition, SES positions can have technical
and professional qualifications that are specific to each position. For
example, according to the most recent job vacancy announcement for the
Assistant Attorney General for Administration position at Justice, the
COO/CMO is to have, among other things, experience in the management of
a large and complex organization with diverse personnel as well as the
demonstrated ability to direct the planning, implementation,
integration, and evaluation of budget and management of major
administration programs in a cabinet-level department. According to the
position specification for the Executive Vice President at MIT, the
qualifications of the COO/CMO position included senior financial and
operational leadership experience in a large, complex organization with
a reputation for world-class financial and administrative management;
successful experience in leading change in a large, complex
organization; and an understanding of the culture of an academic
institution.
The case-study officials and forum participants identified a range of
recommended qualifications for a COO/CMO-type position in federal
departments and agencies. For example, officials at each of the four
organizations told us that communication and collaboration skills are
critical for the COO/CMO role and that an essential qualification for a
COO/CMO position is having broad management experience in making
decisions in complex settings. Some of the officials we interviewed
said that having both private and public sector experience would be
valuable. An agency official said that public and private sector
experience are both useful in serving in a COO/CMO position in that
career federal employees tend to strive for long-lasting improvements,
while individuals from the private sector often have a fresh
perspective on addressing challenges within the agency. Another
department official cautioned that if both private and public sector
experience were required qualifications for a COO/CMO position, the
agency would likely be disqualifying some individuals who could
effectively carry out the position. In addition, some officials noted
that having prior federal experience is beneficial because of the
myriad of federal regulations governing human capital, financial
management, information resources management, acquisition management,
and other management functions. In addition, some interviewees told us
that it was not necessary to have extensive experience with each key
management function but having broad knowledge of at least one of them
would be helpful for a COO/CMO. Several forum participants stated that
the COO/CMO should have experience in managing large organizations and
in successfully leading large-scale change efforts.
The case-study officials and forum participants also identified a
number of pros and cons for formalizing the qualifications of a COO/CMO
position in federal statute. Some advantages to placing qualifications
in statute included better ensuring that the agency brought on someone
who had the knowledge, skills, and experience to effectively carry out
the position and helping to ensure transparency in the hiring process.
For example, a forum participant, referring to the job qualifications
for the CFO positions as spelled out in the CFO Act, said that over
time the individuals selected for CFO positions increasingly matched
the statutory job qualifications. Disadvantages of formalized
qualifications included unnecessarily screening out talented persons
who could effectively carry out the position and overlooking that the
job could change over time depending on the needs of the agency and the
focus and talent of other senior agency managers. For example, a
department official said that formalizing specific qualifications in
statute does not provide enough flexibility in hiring the right person
for the job, and another official added that the head of the agency
should determine the qualifications needed for the COO/CMO position
based on the strengths and weaknesses of current senior leaders and the
overall needs of the agency. Nonetheless, many interviewees told us
that if placed in statute, any qualifications for the COO/CMO position
should be general enough to provide flexibility in selecting an
individual who best matches the current needs of the organization.
Performance Agreements Can Help to Hold COO/CMOs Accountable:
Another potentially important accountability mechanism to support the
COO/CMO role is to use clearly defined, results-oriented performance
agreements accompanied by appropriate incentives, rewards, and other
consequences.[Footnote 32] We have reported on a number of benefits of
performance agreements.[Footnote 33] Specifically, performance
agreements can:
* strengthen alignment of results-oriented goals with daily operations,
* foster collaboration across organizational boundaries,
* enhance opportunities to discuss and routinely use performance
information to make program improvements,
* provide a results-oriented basis for individual accountability, and:
* maintain continuity of program goals during leadership transitions.
While performance agreements can be implemented administratively,
Congress has also required performance agreements in statute as well as
provided for performance assessments with consequences. For example,
Congress has required the COO at the Department of Education's Office
of Federal Student Aid and the Secretary of Education to enter into an
annual performance agreement with measurable organizational and
individual goals that the COO is accountable for achieving. Further,
the COO's progress in meeting these goals is to form the basis of a
possible performance bonus of up to 50 percent of base pay, as well as
any decisions by the Secretary to remove or reappoint him or her.
Similarly, Congress made it clear in statute that the Deputy Architect
of the Capitol/COO may be removed from office by the Architect of the
Capitol for failure to meet performance goals. Top civil servants in
other countries--such as New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom--
also have performance agreements.
Of the four organizations included in our study, two of the COO/CMOs--
both career civil servants--had performance agreements, and two did
not. The two performance agreements included a listing of overall
objectives and commitments for each position along with general
benchmarks and standards to be used in assessing the COO/CMO's
performance. For example, one of the commitments listed in the IRS COO/
CMO's performance agreement for fiscal year 2006 was to "drive
processes to increase IRS security preparedness," which would be
measured, in part, by an improved score for security under the PMA. The
IRS COO/CMO's performance agreement also called for building strong
alliances and gaining cooperation to achieve mutually satisfying
solutions as well as acting to continuously improve products and
services in the effort to meet overall performance commitments. At
Justice, the COO/CMO's performance work plan, with the elements and
objectives that compose it, serves as a performance agreement for the
Assistant Attorney General for Administration. The objectives listed in
the Justice COO/CMO's performance work plan for fiscal year 2007 also
included direct references to managing and implementing the
department's approved plan to improve organizational performance, as
outlined in the PMA.
Many of the case-study officials and forum participants told us that
performance agreements can help to ensure accountability for the COO/
CMO position in setting out clear requirements and specific objectives.
For example, an agency official commented that performance agreements
have been effective in setting the stage for improved performance in
his agency. A department official added that the performance agreement
should have broad objectives and specific accomplishments that are well-
documented in order to hold the COO/CMO accountable. Still other
officials stressed that the COO/CMO's performance objectives should be
directly linked to an agency's strategic plan. The officials we
interviewed generally agreed that any performance agreement should have
a removal clause in the event that the COO/CMO does not perform
well.[Footnote 34] Officials also generally agreed that any performance
agreement should have incentives, such as a bonus, for meeting or
exceeding expectations as spelled out in the agreement.
Provide for Continuity of Leadership in the COO/CMO Position:
Given that organizational results and transformational efforts can take
years to achieve, agencies need to take steps to ensure leadership
continuity in the COO/CMO position. Foremost, an agency needs to have
an executive succession and transition planning strategy that ensures a
sustained commitment and continuity of leadership as individual leaders
arrive or depart or serve in acting capacities. For example, in
creating a CMO position for DHS, Congress has required the DHS CMO to
develop a transition and succession plan to guide the transition of
management functions with a new administration. The administration and
Congress could also consider options of other possible mechanisms to
help agencies in maintaining leadership continuity for the position.
For example, the benefits of a term appointment for the position, such
as instilling a long-term focus, need to be weighed along with the
potential challenges of a term appointment, such as a lack of rapport
between members of a new senior leadership team with any change in
administration. Moreover, as emphasized in our interviews and the forum
discussion, career appointments for the COO/CMO have advantages that
should be fully assessed when considering the position's roles,
responsibilities, and reporting relationships.
Use of Term Appointments for COO/CMO Positions Would Help to Provide
Continuity:
The establishment of a term appointment is one mechanism that should be
considered for providing continuity to the COO/CMO position. We have
previously endorsed setting a term appointment for the COO/CMO position
because it would help provide the continuing focused attention
essential to successfully completing multiyear transformations. Large-
scale change initiatives and organizational transformations typically
require long-term, concerted effort, often taking years to complete and
extending beyond the tenure of many political leaders. Providing a COO/
CMO with a term appointment of about 5 to 7 years would be one way to
institutionalize accountability over the extended periods needed to
help ensure that long-term management and transformation initiatives
provide meaningful and sustainable results.
Statutory term appointments currently exist for various senior-level
positions in a number of agencies, bureaus, commissions, and boards in
the federal government. As described in table 1, the lengths of such
terms can range from 3 to 15 years. The methods of appointment for
these term positions vary as well, including appointment by (1) the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, (2) the secretary
of a cabinet-level department, or (3) an agency head with the approval
of an oversight committee. Government agencies in the United Kingdom,
New Zealand, and Ireland also have COO-type positions in place with
term appointments of 5 to 7 years.
Table 1: Term Appointments at Selected U.S. Agencies:
Agency: Air Traffic Organization,[A] Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA);
Position title and length of term: Chief Operating Officer; 5 years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
FAA Administrator, with the approval of the Air Traffic Services
Committee. There is no statutory provision on reappointment of the
officeholder;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The
COO is to serve at the pleasure of the Administrator, and the
Administrator is to make every effort to ensure stability and
continuity in the leadership of the air traffic control system.
Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of term
shall be only for the remainder of that term.
Agency: Architect of the Capitol;
Position title and length of term: Architect of the Capitol; 10 years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President, following recommendations from a special congressional
commission, and confirmed by the Senate. May be appointed to more than
one 10-year term;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms:
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to
remove the officeholder. No statutory provision.
Agency: Federal Bureau of Investigation;
Position title and length of term: Director; 10 years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The officeholder
may not be reappointed;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms:
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to
remove the officeholder; No statutory provision.
Agency: Federal Reserve Board;
Position title and length of term: Chairman; 4 years[B];
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no
statutory limitation on a Chairman serving more than one 4-year
term.[C];
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms:
President may remove members for cause. An individual appointed to fill
a vacancy among the seven members of the board shall hold office only
for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor.
Agency: Federal Student Aid, Department of Education;
Position title and length of term: Chief Operating Officer; 3 to 5
years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
Secretary of Education. May be reappointed by the Secretary to
subsequent terms of 3 to 5 years as long as the incumbent's performance
is satisfactory per required annual performance agreement;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The
COO may be removed by the President or by the Secretary for misconduct
or failure to meet performance goals set forth in the performance
agreement. The President or the Secretary must communicate the reasons
for any such removal to the appropriate committees of Congress. No
statutory provision.
Agency: Government Accountability Office;
Position title and length of term: Comptroller General; 15 years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President, following recommendations from a special congressional
commission, and confirmed by the Senate. The officeholder is limited to
a single 15-year term;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The
Comptroller General may be removed by impeachment or by adoption of a
joint resolution of Congress. Removal by joint resolution can occur
only after notice and an opportunity for a hearing and only for certain
specified reasons: permanent disability, inefficiency, neglect of duty,
malfeasance, felony, or conduct involving moral turpitude. No statutory
provision.
Agency: Internal Revenue Service;
Position title and length of term: Commissioner; 5 years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate; May be appointed
to more than one 5-year term;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms:
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to
remove the officeholder. Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring
before the expiration of term shall be only for the remainder of that
term.
Agency: Office of Personnel Management;
Position title and length of term: Director; 4 years[D];
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no
statutory provision on reappointment of the officeholder;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms:
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to
remove the officeholder. No statutory provision.
Agency: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency;
Position title and length of term: Comptroller of the Currency; 5
years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no
statutory provision on reappointment of the officeholder;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: May
be removed by the President for reasons to be communicated by him or
her to the Senate. No statutory provision.
Agency: Office of Thrift Supervision;
Position title and length of term: Director; 5 years[E];
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no
statutory provision on reappointment of the officeholder;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms:
There are no statutory conditions on the authority of the President to
remove the officeholder. Appointments to fill a vacancy occurring
before the expiration of a term shall be appointed only for the
remainder of that term.
Agency: Social Security Administration;
Position title and length of term: Commissioner; 6 years[F];
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no
statutory provision on reappointment of the officeholder;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The
officeholder may be removed only pursuant to a finding by the President
of neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Appointments to fill a
vacancy occurring before the expiration of a term shall be appointed
only for the remainder of that term.
Agency: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;
Position title and length of term: Commissioner for Patents; 5 years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
Secretary of Commerce. May be reappointed to subsequent terms by the
Secretary as long as the incumbent's performance is satisfactory per
required annual performance agreement;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The
Secretary may remove the Commissioner for misconduct or unsatisfactory
performance under the required performance agreement. The Secretary
must provide notification of any such removal to both Houses of
Congress. No statutory provision.
Agency: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;
Position title and length of term: Commissioner for Trademarks; 5
years;
Method of appointment and provision for reappointment: Appointed by the
Secretary of Commerce. May be reappointed to subsequent terms by the
Secretary as long as the incumbent's performance is satisfactory per
required annual performance agreement;
Conditions for removal and provisions for filling unexpired terms: The
Secretary may remove the Commissioner for misconduct or unsatisfactory
performance under the required performance agreement. The Secretary
must provide notification of any such removal to both Houses of
Congress. No statutory provision.
Source: GAO.
[A] Executive Order No. 13180 (Dec. 7, 2000) established the Air
Traffic Organization within FAA and gave responsibility to head the Air
Traffic Organization to the Chief Operating Officer for the Air Traffic
Control System of FAA, a position created pursuant to Pub. L. No. 106-
181 (Apr. 5, 2000).
[B] Members of the Federal Reserve Board, including the Chairman, serve
terms of 14 years from the expiration of the terms of their
predecessors. The Chairman's term is 4 years.
[C] A Chairman may not be reappointed after serving a full 14-year term
as a member.
[D] The 4-year term does not have to coincide with the President's term
in office.
[E] An individual may continue to serve after the expiration of his or
her term until a successor is appointed.
[F] An individual may continue to serve after the expiration of his or
her term until a successor enters office.
[End of table]
Term appointments for senior positions in federal agencies have been
established in a number of cases primarily to promote and enhance
continuity and independence. For example, during congressional
deliberations on the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which
established OPM, conferees agreed that the OPM Director should have a 4-
year term but declined the requirement that the term coincide with the
President's so as to afford the Director with a measure of independence
in performing his or her duties. During congressional deliberations in
1994 to establish the Social Security Administration as an independent
agency, creating a 6-year term for the agency's Commissioner was viewed
as one key feature to insulate the position from short-term political
pressures and provide increased stability in the management of the
agency. In testimony leading up to the 1998 restructuring of IRS, the
explanations for establishing a 5-year term for the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue chiefly centered on the goal of providing continuity
in the position.
At the four case-study organizations, none of the COO/CMOs were
appointed or selected for their positions under a term appointment at
the time of our review. As the COO/CMO at Treasury, the Assistant
Secretary for Management was a noncareer position serving at the will
of the President. As the COO/CMOs at Justice and IRS, respectively, the
Assistant Attorney General for Administration and the Deputy
Commissioner for Operations Support were both career SES positions
without designated terms.[Footnote 35] As the COO/CMO at MIT, the
Executive Vice President served MIT's President and the university's
board of trustees and held the position without any predetermined
length of service.
The case-study officials and forum participants agreed with the need to
ensure leadership continuity in the COO/CMO position, but there were
mixed views as to whether a term appointment would be a strong
mechanism for ensuring continuity in a COO/CMO position. Advantages of
a term appointment included fostering accountability for the incumbent
and the long-term consequences of his or her decisions, signaling to
others in the agency that the incumbent will likely be in the position
for the long term, and protecting the incumbent from undue political
influence. Some case-study officials said that term appointments could
potentially be a vehicle for promoting and enhancing continuity of
leadership in the agency, assuming that the length of the term was
sufficient to help ensure that long-term management and transformation
initiatives are successfully completed. A forum participant said that
changes in leadership at an agency would not pose a problem as long as
the goals and milestones were clear and the definition of success was
the same regardless of the leadership.
Limitations of a term appointment included the need to develop new
working relationships with a different leadership team when an
administration changes as well as the fact that incumbents can readily
leave the position prior to the end of any designated term. A number of
forum participants expressed a strong concern that the agency head
should have the ability to select the agency's leadership team,
especially given that personal relationships and rapport are so
important. For example, a participant said that an individual who is
"inherited" in the COO/CMO position by another Secretary can be easily
marginalized. Some forum participants had concerns that longer terms,
such as 7 years, would deter individuals from applying for COO/CMO
positions. During the forum, however, the Comptroller General pointed
out that many individuals would accept a COO/CMO position out of a
desire to serve, regardless of term.
Career Appointments Could Be Option for Continuity in COO/CMO
Positions:
Another option for promoting the continuity of leadership in the COO/
CMO position is the use of career appointments. As we have previously
reported, high turnover among politically appointed leaders in federal
agencies can make it difficult to follow through with organizational
transformation because the length of time often needed to provide
meaningful and sustainable results can easily outlast the tenures of
top political appointees. In previous testimony, we have suggested that
the individual serving in a COO/CMO position be selected without regard
to political affiliation.[Footnote 36]
At the time of our review, the individuals in the COO/CMO positions at
the three federal case-study agencies served under varying types of
appointments, including both career and noncareer. As the COO/CMO at
Treasury, the Assistant Secretary for Management was a presidentially
appointed, Senate-confirmed position. As the COO/CMO at Justice, the
Assistant Attorney General for Administration was a career SES
position, but appointment to the position is subject to the approval of
the President but not subject to Senate confirmation. As the COO/CMO at
IRS, the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support was also a career
SES position.[Footnote 37]
The case-study officials and forum participants offered a range of
insights, views, and examples from their experiences regarding the
issue of promoting continuity in the COO/CMO position by using career
appointments. Several officials we interviewed at the case-study
organizations told us that career appointments for COO/CMO-type
positions in federal departments and agencies would provide a number of
benefits over political appointments. These interviewees said that
career SES personnel are more likely to help ensure continuity in the
position, are generally more familiar with federal management issues,
and can be easily reassigned to another position if they are not
effective in the COO/CMO role. A department official also told us that
another advantage in serving as a career COO/CMO is the degree of
independence that can be brought to important decisions under
consideration at an agency. Some forum participants agreed that career
senior executives were the best option for filling COO/CMO positions
because career executives could offer continuity and experience as
administrations come and go. A participant remarked that because
political appointees currently fill many of the executive-level
administrative management positions that in the past were filled by
career executives, a loss of continuity and experience has resulted.
Some agency officials and forum participants raised concerns about
filling COO/CMO positions with career civil servants. The challenges
cited include the view that there might not be enough qualified career
applicants for these positions and restrictions on the administration's
ability to select individuals for these positions. For example, one
forum participant said that the President and Secretary should have
latitude in determining who fills the COO/CMO position because the
relationship is crucial. There was also discussion on whether the
senior management official in an agency should be a presidential
appointment requiring Senate confirmation, while Senate confirmation
would not be required of those officials who lead specific management
functions (for example, financial management, information technology,
or human capital) and who report to that senior management official.
Forum participants differed in their views on the appropriate
appointment type for the COO/CMO. During the forum, the Comptroller
General suggested that some COO/CMO positions could be presidential
appointments with Senate confirmation and others could be appointments
without Senate confirmation.[Footnote 38]
Conclusions:
Given the long-standing management challenges faced by many government
agencies, as well as the organizational transformation now taking place
across government in response to a post-9/11 environment and other
changes, new leadership models are needed to help elevate, integrate,
and institutionalize business transformation and management reform
efforts. A COO/CMO, given adequate authority, responsibility, and
accountability, could provide the leadership necessary to sustain
organizational change over a long term.
While they may share a number of common circumstances, each department
and agency in the federal government nevertheless faces its own unique
set of characteristics and challenges in attempting to improve and
transform its business operations. Yet as we learned from our case
study and forum discussion, a number of common criteria can be used to
determine the type of COO/CMO that would be appropriate in a federal
agency. Once such a determination is made, a number of common
strategies can be adopted to put such a position into place and to help
ensure that it will work effectively. The strategies underscore the
importance of clearly identified roles and responsibilities, good
working relationships, inclusive decision-making structures and
processes, and solid accountability mechanisms.
As Congress considers COO/CMO positions at selected federal agencies,
the criteria and strategies we identified should help to highlight key
issues that need to be considered, both in design of the positions and
in implementation. While Congress is currently focused on two of the
most challenging agencies--DOD and DHS--the problems they face are, to
varying degrees, shared by the rest of the federal government. Each
agency, therefore, could consider the type of COO/CMO that would be
appropriate for its organization and adopt the strategies we outline to
implement such a position. Because it is composed of the senior
management officials in each department and agency, the President's
Management Council, working closely with OMB, could play a valuable
role in leading such as assessment and helping to ensure that due
consideration is given to how each agency can improve its leadership
structure for management. Moreover, given the council's charter to
oversee government management reforms, it can help institutionalize a
leadership position that will be essential to overseeing current and
future reform efforts.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To address business transformation and management challenges facing
federal agencies, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with the
President's Management Council to (1) use the criteria that we have
developed for determining the type of COO/CMO positions that ought to
be established in the federal agencies that are members of the council
and (2) once the types of COO/CMOs have been determined, use the key
strategies we have identified in implementing these positions.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Congress should consider the criteria and strategies for establishing
and implementing COO/CMO positions as it develops and reviews
legislative proposals aimed at addressing business transformation and
management challenges facing federal agencies. In doing so, the
implementation of any approach should be determined within the context
of the specific facts and circumstances that relate to each individual
agency.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the
Director of OMB. The Associate Director for OMB Administration and
Government Performance told us that OMB had no comments on the draft
report. We also provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Acting
Attorney General, the Executive Vice President of MIT, and the
participants of the April 2007 forum for their review and technical
comments. Treasury, IRS, and several forum participants provided us
with technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 45 days
from its date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and other
interested congressional parties. We will also send copies to the
Director of OMB, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, the Attorney General, and the President of MIT. In
addition, we will make copies available to others upon request. The
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-6806 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Bernice Steinhardt:
Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives for this study were to identify:
* criteria that can be used to determine the type of chief operating
officer (COO)/chief management officer (CMO) or similar position that
ought to be established in federal agencies and:
* strategies for implementing COO/CMO positions to elevate, integrate,
and institutionalize key management functions and business
transformation efforts in federal agencies.
To identify these criteria and strategies, we (1) gathered information
on the experiences and views of officials at four organizations with
COO/CMO-type positions and (2) convened a Comptroller General's forum
to gather insights from individuals with experience and expertise in
business transformation, federal and private sector management, and
change management.
To select the organizations to include in our study, we collected and
reviewed literature on general management integration approaches and
organizational structures of public and private sector organizations,
and we reviewed our prior work on the COO/CMO concept as well as
organizational transformation issues at the Department of Defense (DOD)
and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We also collected and
analyzed organizational charts of the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act
federal agencies as well as those federal agencies required to report
under the President's Management Agenda. We also consulted with various
nonprofit organizations with experience in federal and state/local
government. We sought to identify organizations that had senior-level
officials with responsibility for integrating key management functions,
including, at a minimum, human capital, financial management,
information technology, and acquisition management, and who generally
did not have direct responsibility for the mission programs and
policies of their organizations. We considered a range of diverse
missions and also took into account that the COO/CMOs of the
organizations were appointed to their positions under varying methods.
Our organization selection process was not designed to identify
examples that could be considered representative of all COO/CMO-type
positions.
The four organizations included in our review are three federal
agencies and one nonprofit organization: the Department of the Treasury
(Treasury), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of
Justice (Justice), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
At the headquarters of these four organizations, we interviewed senior
officials and we collected and reviewed documents related to the COO/
CMO position. We conducted semistructured interviews with the
individuals serving in the COO/CMO positions (Acting Assistant
Secretary for Management at Treasury, Deputy Commissioner for
Operations Support at IRS, Assistant Attorney General for
Administration at Justice, and Executive Vice President at MIT) as well
as those managers who reported directly to the COO/CMOs. These
interviews focused on how the COO/CMO position functioned in their
respective organizations as well as the officials' views and insights
on issues such as roles and responsibilities, reporting relationships,
accountability mechanisms, and decision-making structures and
processes. In carrying out our work at these four organizations, we did
not assess the effectiveness of each COO/CMO serving in these
respective organizations nor did we determine whether any specific COO/
CMO position directly resulted in a higher level of organizational
performance. Rather, we attempted to highlight the experiences and
views of officials in carrying out the COO/CMO position.
The Comptroller General also hosted a forum on April 24, 2007, to bring
together former and current government executives and officials from
private business and nonprofit organizations to discuss when and how a
COO/CMO or similar position might effectively provide the continuing,
focused attention essential for integrating key management functions
and undertaking multiyear organizational transformation initiatives.
This forum was designed for the participants to discuss these issues
openly and without individual attribution. Participants were selected
for their expertise but also to represent a variety of perspectives.
Prior to the forum, we provided each of the participants with a
briefing paper that included background information on the four case-
study organizations, some preliminary results of our initial work on
these case-study reviews, as well as key statements from our prior work
related to the COO/CMO concept. The highlights summarized in this
report do not necessarily represent the views of any individual
participant or the organizations that these participants represent.
We also interviewed officials from the Office of Management and Budget
to discuss the establishment and implementation of COO/CMO positions in
federal departments and agencies.
We conducted our review from August 2006 through July 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Forum Participants for "Implementing Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions," April 2007:
Moderator: David M. Walker; Comptroller General of the United States,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Participants:
William L. Bransford; General Counsel, Senior Executives Association.
Jonathan Breul; Executive Director, IBM Center for The Business of
Government.
James A. Champy; Chairman of Consulting, Perot Systems Corporation
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology Board Member).
Gene L. Dodaro; Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Government Accountability
Office.
Jennifer L. Dorn; President and Chief Executive Officer, National
Academy of Public Administration.
Gordon England; Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense.
Mark W. Everson; Commissioner, U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
Robert F. Hale; Executive Director, American Society of Military
Comptrollers (Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force - Financial
Management and Comptroller).
John J. Hamre; President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for
Strategic and International Studies (Former Deputy Secretary of
Defense).
Sallyanne Harper; Chief Administrative Officer/Chief Financial Officer,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Bruce R. James; President and Chief Executive Officer, Nevada New-Tech,
Inc. (Former Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Government Printing Office).
Clay Johnson III; Deputy Director of Management, U.S. Office of
Management and Budget.
Nancy Killefer; Managing Partner, McKinsey & Company.
John A. Koskinen; President, U.S. Soccer Foundation (Former Deputy
Mayor, Government of the District of Columbia).
Samuel T. Mok; Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Labor.
Sean O'Keefe; Chancellor, Louisiana State University and A & M College
(Former Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
Linda M. Springer; Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Max Stier; President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for
Public Service.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Key Responsibilities of Statutory Chief Officer Positions
in the Federal Government:
Position: Chief financial officer;
Enacting law(s): Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-
576);
Key responsibilities of position:
* Develop and maintain an integrated agency accounting and financial
management system, including financial reporting and internal controls,
which complies with applicable accounting principles and standards and
provides for;
- complete, reliable, consistent, and timely information;
- the development and reporting of cost information;
- the integration of accounting and budgeting information; and;
- the systematic measurement of performance;
* Direct, manage, and provide policy guidance and oversight of agency
financial management personnel, activities, and operations, including
the;
- development of agency financial management budgets and;
- recruitment, selection, and training of personnel to carry out agency
financial management functions;
* Approve and manage financial management systems design and
enhancements projects and the implementation of agency asset management
systems.
Position: Chief information officer;
Enacting law(s): Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13);
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-106), as renamed pursuant to
Pub. L. No. 104-208 (Sept. 30, 1996);
Key responsibilities of position:
* Carry out information resources management responsibilities of the
agency, including information collection and control of paperwork,
information dissemination, statistical policy and coordination, records
management, privacy and information security, and information
technology;
* Provide advice and other assistance to the head of the agency and
other senior management personnel to ensure that technology is acquired
and information is managed consistent with the applicable law and
priorities established by the head of the agency;
* Develop, maintain, and facilitate the implementation of a sound,
secure, and integrated information technology architecture for the
agency;
* Promote the effective and efficient design and operation of all
information resources management processes for the agency;
* Monitor and evaluate the performance of the agency's information
technology programs, and advise the head of the agency whether to
continue, modify, or terminate a program;
* Annually, as part of the strategic planning and performance
evaluation process:
- assess the requirements established for information resources
management knowledge and skills of agency personnel;
- assess the extent to which the positions and personnel at both the
executive and management levels meet those requirements;
- develop strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and
professional development to rectify any deficiency in meeting those
requirements; and;
- report to the head of the agency on the progress made in improving
information resources management capability.
Position: Chief human capital officer;
Enacting law(s): Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002; (Pub. L. No.
107-296, Title XIII);
Key responsibilities of position:
* Set the workforce development strategy of the agency;
* Assess workforce characteristics and future needs based on the
agency's mission and strategic plan;
* Align the agency's human resource policies and programs with the
agency's mission, strategic goals, and performance outcome;
* Develop and advocate a culture of continuous learning to attract and
retain employees with superior abilities;
* Identify best practices and benchmarking studies;
* Apply methods for measuring intellectual capital and identify links
of that capital to organizational performance and growth.
Position: Chief acquisition officer;
Enacting law(s): Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003; (Pub. L. No.
108-136, Title XIV);
Key responsibilities of position:
* Advise and assist the head of the agency and other agency officials
to ensure that the agency's mission is achieved through the management
of the agency's acquisition activities;
* Monitor and evaluate the performance of the agency's acquisition
activities and programs, and advise the agency head on the appropriate
business strategy to achieve the mission of the agency;
* Increase the use of full and open competition in the acquisition of
property and services by establishing policies, procedures, and
practices that ensure that the agency receives a sufficient number of
sealed bids or competitive proposals from responsible sources at the
lowest cost or best value;
* Increase appropriate use of performance- based contracting and
performance specifications;
* Make acquisition decisions consistent with all applicable laws and
establish clear lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility
for acquisitions;
* Manage the direction of acquisition policy and implement the agency-
specific acquisition policies, regulations, and standards;
* Develop and maintain an acquisition career management program to
ensure an adequate professional workforce;
* As part of the strategic planning and performance evaluation process:
- assess the knowledge and skill requirements established for agency
personnel and their adequacy for facilitating the achievement of the
performance goals for acquisition management;
- develop strategies and specific plans for hiring, training, and
professional development to rectify any deficiencies in meeting such
requirements; and;
- report to the agency head on the progress made in improving
acquisition management capability.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Bernice Steinhardt, (202) 512-6806 or steinhardtb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant
Director; Charlesetta Bailey; Martene Bryan; K. Scott Derrick; and
Karin Fangman made major contributions to this report. Others who made
important contributions include Carolyn Samuels and Jay Smale.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Defense Business Transformation: Achieving Success Requires a Chief
Management Officer to Provide Focus and Sustained Leadership. GAO-07-
1072. Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2007.
Assesses the progress DOD has made in setting up a management framework
for overall business transformation efforts and the challenges DOD
faces in maintaining and ensuring success of those efforts, including
the need for a CMO.
Homeland Security: Management and Programmatic Challenges Facing the
Department of Homeland Security. GAO-07-452T. Washington, D.C.:
February 7, 2007.
Discusses the numerous management challenges at DHS, including the
transformation of the department. Suggests various solutions to enhance
overall transformation efforts.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-07-310. Washington, D.C.: January
2007.
Reports on government programs and operations that are considered high
risk. Suggests solutions and continued oversight and action by
Congress.
Defense Business Transformation: A Comprehensive Plan, Integrated
Efforts, and Sustained Leadership Are Needed to Assure Success. GAO-07-
229T. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2006.
Discusses DOD's efforts to develop an enterprisewide business
transformation plan and compliance with legislation that addresses
business systems modernization. Suggests a COO/CMO position as a
solution to improve business transformation.
Department of Defense: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to Effective
Financial and Business Management Transformation. GAO-06-1006T.
Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2006.
Discusses DOD financial and business management challenges. Suggests
actions needed to enhance business and financial transformation
efforts.
21st Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet Current and
Emerging Challenges. GAO-05-830T. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2005.
Discusses long-term fiscal challenges and other significant trends and
challenges facing the federal government. Suggests ways federal
agencies can transform into high-performing organizations.
Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained Approach
Needed to Achieve Management Integration. GAO-05-139. Washington, D.C.:
March 16, 2005.
Examines DHS's management integration efforts. Recommends actions to be
taken by the Secretary of Homeland Security and Congress.
Chief Operating Officer Concept and its Potential Use as a Strategy to
Improve Management at the Department of Homeland Security. GAO-04-876R.
Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2004.
Discusses the management and organizational transformation challenges
at DHS. Describes how a COO can be a tool to address DHS's challenges.
Comptroller General's Forum: High-Performing Organizations: Metrics,
Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st
Century Public Management Environment. GAO-04-343SP. Washington, D.C.:
February 13, 2004.
Summarizes the findings of a GAO forum held in November 2003 on high-
performing organizations. Discusses the key characteristics and
capabilities of high-performing organizations.
Results-Oriented Government: Shaping the Government to Meet 21st
Century Challenges. GAO-03-1168T. Washington, D.C.: September 17, 2003.
Describes significant performance and management problems facing the
federal government and the importance of periodic reexamination and
reevaluation of agencies' activities. Suggests a range of options that
Congress could use to eliminate redundancy and improve operations.
Highlights of a GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer Concept: A
Potential Strategy to Address Federal Governance Challenges. GAO-03-
192SP. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2002.
Summarizes the findings of a GAO roundtable held in September 2002 on
the COO concept and how it might be used in selected federal agencies
as one strategy to address certain systemic governance and management
challenges.
Managing for Results: Using Strategic Human Capital Management to Drive
Transformational Change. GAO-02-940T. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2002.
Discusses the importance of human capital. Suggests actions that the
federal government needs to take in order to reform human capital.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See GAO, Defense Business Transformation: Achieving Success
Requires a Chief Management Officer to Provide Focus and Sustained
Leadership, GAO-07-1072 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2007) and
Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained Approach
Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 16, 2005).
[2] For example, see S. 179 and H.R. 1585.
[3] See Section 2405 of Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266, 548-550,
August 3, 2007.
[4] IRS is a bureau of Treasury. In this report, we will often refer to
the three federal organizations as agencies.
[5] In this report, we will often refer to these positions as COO/CMOs
rather than using their formal position titles.
[6] In this report, we use "second level" and "third level" in
reference to reporting relationships. "Level II" and "Level III" are
used to refer to the level of compensation under the federal
government's Executive Schedule, which does not necessarily correspond
to the reporting level in the agency.
[7] The commission, formally titled the Commission on Organization of
the Executive Branch of the Government, was established by Congress in
1947. See 80th Cong. ch. 207, 61 Stat. 246 (July 7, 1947). Its
membership was bipartisan, including members of the administration and
both Houses of Congress. Half of its members were from outside the
federal government.
[8] The three PBOs are Federal Student Aid in the Department of
Education, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the Department of
Commerce, and the Air Traffic Organization in the Federal Aviation
Administration.
[9] For additional information, see GAO, Performance-Based
Organizations: Lessons from the British Next Steps Initiative, GAO/T-
GGD-97-151 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997).
[10] GAO, Highlights of a GAO Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer
Concept: A Potential Strategy to Address Federal Governance Challenges,
GAO-03-192SP (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2002).
[11] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2007).
[12] The President's Management Council was reconstituted by President
Bush in 2001. The council has focused its efforts on the management
agendas of each administration.
[13] The PMA was launched in August 2001 as a strategy for improving
the management and performance of the federal government and includes
five governmentwide initiatives: strategic management of human capital,
competitive sourcing, improved financial performance, expanded
electronic government, and budget and performance integration. OMB
developed criteria to measure success and a PMA scorecard to track
agency progress for each of the five initiatives.
[14] GAO, Managing for Results: Using Strategic Human Capital
Management to Drive Transformational Change, GAO-02-940T (Washington,
D.C.: July 15, 2002).
[15] GAO-07-1072.
[16] GAO-02-940T.
[17] For example, see GAO, Defense Management: Additional Actions
Needed to Enhance DOD's Risk-Based Approach for Making Resource
Decisions, GAO-06-13 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2005).
[18] GAO, The Chief Operating Officer Concept and its Potential Use as
a Strategy to Improve Management at the Department of Homeland
Security, GAO-04-876R (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2004).
[19] Section 1203 of Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003,
Division H, Pub. L. No. 108-7 (Feb. 20, 2003), codified at 2 U.S.C. §
1805.
[20] GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001).
[21] GAO, GAO's High-Risk Program, GAO-06-497T (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
15, 2006).
[22] GAO, Federal Chief Information Officers: Responsibilities,
Reporting Relationships, Tenure, and Challenges, GAO-04-823
(Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004).
[23] GAO, Human Capital: Observations on Agencies' Implementation of
the Chief Human Capital Officers Act, GAO-04-800T (Washington, D.C.:
May 18, 2004).
[24] For example, see GAO, Comptroller General's Forum: High-Performing
Organizations: Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High
Performance in the 21st Century Public Management Environment, GAO-04-
343SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004).
[25] GAO, Executive Guide: Maximizing the Success of Chief Information
Officers: Learning From Leading Organizations, GAO-01-376G (Washington,
D.C.: February 2001).
[26] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2003).
[27] See GAO, USCIS Transformation: Improvements to Performance, Human
Capital, and Information Technology Management Needed as Modernization
Proceeds, GAO-07-1013R (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2007); GAO-07-1072;
and GAO-05-139.
[28] GAO-04-876R.
[29] Pub. L. No. 105-244 (Oct. 7, 1998), codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1018.
[30] Pub. L. No. 106-113 (Nov. 29, 1999), codified at 35 U.S.C. § 3.
[31] At the time of our review, the COO/CMO position at IRS (Deputy
Commissioner for Operations Support) was filled by a career member of
the SES who subsequently retired. According to Treasury, in September
2007, the position was filled by a "critical pay" appointment employee
already in the IRS. The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105-206) allowed IRS to appoint up to
40 individuals (at any one time) to designated "critical pay" positions
at a compensation level up to the Vice President's, currently $215,700.
Under the act, these "critical pay" positions must require an extremely
high level of expertise and be critical to the accomplishment of IRS's
mission.
[32] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Shaping the Government to Meet
21st Century Challenges, GAO-03-1168T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17,
2003).
[33] GAO, Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits From Selected
Agencies' Use of Performance Agreements, GAO-01-115 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 30, 2000).
[34] In this regard, it should be recognized that in drafting any
statutory requirement to include consequences for poor performance for
a presidentially appointed COO/CMO, such a requirement may interfere
with the President's constitutional power to appoint, and subsequently
remove, such an official.
[35] As noted earlier, according to Treasury, in September 2007, the
IRS COO/CMO position was filled by a "critical pay" appointment
employee already in the IRS. Under its "critical pay" authority, IRS
can appoint individuals to designated positions for terms of up to 4
years.
[36] GAO-02-940T.
[37] As noted earlier, according to Treasury, in September 2007, the
IRS COO/CMO position was filled as a "critical pay" appointment, which
is generally not subject to the title 5 requirements governing
appointments to the SES.
[38] See GAO, Potential Oversight Issues, GAO-07-235R (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006). We recommended that Congress review the
presidential (political) appointment process and examine whether
political appointees can be categorized by the differences in their
roles and responsibilities, such as policy, operational and management,
and adjudicatory positions.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates".
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, DC 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice:
(202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, jarmong@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
