TThe ProgramManager’s View

by Selena Rezvani and Stephen Pick

he federal program management community is a highly visible group that manages morethan $2.55 trillion dollars in annual budgets and oversees numerous programs critical toits constituencies. Despite this group’s importance, the experiences and insights of pro-gram managers have gone largely untapped and undefined.

Galvanized by the desire to close this gap in knowledge, the Council for Excellencein Government (CEG) and U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in partner-ship with Management Concepts and Robbins Gioia, launched a first-of-its-kind studyexploring the perceptions of federal program managers.A CEG-led committee—in placesince 2007—agreed to sponsor the survey with the goal of gaining knowledge to advancethe field of federal program management. Meeting over the course of a year, the com-mittee designed a survey instrument, guided by OMB’s participation and buy-in through-out the effort.

The survey represented an opportunity to gather baseline data on an important groupof federal leaders.The primary intention was to learn about program managers’ daily ex-periences, including practices that support their work as well as areas of unmet need. Sur-vey participants were asked about their program’s practices, professional development ex-periences, and suggestions for best positioning the next generation of program managers.Data were also collected regarding respondents’ personal demographics.

ApproachManagement Concepts oversaw the development and administration of the online

survey, while OMB identified and invited participation of program managers. In Febru-ary 2008, OMB requested the unincentivized involvement of 550 people, of which 123responded, a total response rate of 22 percent.The survey sample was not randomly se-lected, and like all surveys, responses may not fully represent the intended population—in this case, program managers. Furthermore, results discussed here should be treated asself-reported information rather than “fact.”

WWW.THEPUBLICMANAGER.ORG94

A recent survey shows the need for succession planning,formal training, and coaching to prepare the next generationfor increasingly complex responsibilities.

Image of Public Service

The sixty-five-item survey wassegmented into four main areas,whichwe discuss individually:� Clarity of responsibility and

accountability� Program management skills and

experience� Organizational alignment and

support� Execution and results.

ResultsDemographics

The survey uncovered a highly ex-perienced population of program man-agers, most of whom manage large pro-grams of more than $100 million (46percent).Although www.expectmore.govlays out seven categories of programs (di-rect federal,competitive grant,block/for-mula grant, regulatory,capital assets andservice acquisition, credit, and researchand development),most of the group sur-veyed manage competitive grant and di-rect federal programs (75 percent).De-spite their informal title of “programmanager,” many survey respondentsspecified they actually hold a“director”-level job title (40 percent),are at the GS-15 grade level or higher (71 percent),andhave worked in program managementfor the federal government for ten ormore years (60 percent).

Personal demographic data werealso collected, including gender, age,years until retirement,race/ethnicity,andeducation level. Surprisingly, the gen-der breakdown was nearly equal:51 per-cent of respondents indicated theywere male, and 46 percent indicatedthey were female.The survey responserate for females is slightly higher thanthe government-wide median, which

shows that women constitute 44 per-cent of the workforce.Majority trendsshow a highly seasoned group:most sur-vey participants were 54 years of age orolder (51 percent),were eligible for re-tirement within the next five years (55percent), and carried advanced de-grees at the master’s or doctoral level (74percent).Respondents did not representa diverse group,however, as 73 percentself-identified as Caucasian/White.

Overarching TrendsClarity of Responsibility and Accountability

The first survey section, coveringclarity of responsibility and accountability,asked participants about their program’sobjectives, including how goals arecommunicated and measured,and whois involved in assessing the program man-agement activity. Program managerswere also asked about the most valuableguidance they receive and what incen-tives are most motivating.

Forty-four percent of survey re-spondents indicated that there is eitherone reporting layer between them andthe agency’s head or they report di-rectly to that person.Most agreed thattheir individual performance goalsare clear and measurable and thatthey are held accountable for perfor-mance.The overwhelming majority ofrespondents (84 percent) affirmed thattheir agency has a formal program per-formance assessment process and it isconducted through the Program As-sessment Rating Tool (PART), eitherannually or quarterly.More than three-quarters noted that their program hasbeen evaluated by an outside organi-zation, most often OMB/PART, fol-

lowed by the U.S. Government Ac-countability Office (GAO).

Frustration with the PART was ex-pressed in many survey comments.Oneparticipant noted, “Sustained changetakes time and the PART process does-n't come anywhere close to accommo-dating this reality.” Despite skepticismconcerning the PART’s effectiveness,sur-vey respondents considered independentevaluations and discussions with a man-ager the most valuable methods for re-ceiving guidance on improving their pro-gram’s performance.

Program Management Skills and Experience

The second survey section, con-cerning program management skills andexperience,examined the areas of pro-fessional preparation,development,andtraining.Program managers were askedabout the value of training they received,certifications they may hold, and typesof training they would recommend forthe next generation of program man-agers. Most (94 percent) do not holdcertification from a professional organ-ization, such as the DefenseAcquisitionWorkforce ImprovementAct (DAWIA)Program Manager certification or Proj-ect Management Institute (PMI) Proj-ect Management Professional (PMP)certification.

Some (35 to 50 percent) notedthey have never received training in ar-eas that appear critical to programmanagement, including dealing withthe media,working with stakeholdersor Congress, requirements develop-ment, risk management, and budgetand financial management. For thosewho did receive training, the mostvaluable was training in leadership,pro-gram management, budget and fi-nancial management, and strategicplanning. One respondent pointedout,“I recommend Facilitative Lead-ership training … [because] we are re-

THE PUBLIC MANAGER � WINTER 2008–09 95

Selena Rezvani is the consulting lead for Management Concepts’ assessment practice.A specialist in organ-izational change, Selena received her master’s degree in social work from NewYork University and is com-pleting her MBA at Johns Hopkins University.Stephen Pick is a human capital consultant for Manage-ment Concepts.Formerly a human capital analyst and personnel psychologist at the U.S.Office of PersonnelManagement, Stephen has a PsyD from Rutgers University in organizational psychology.

sponsible for more than we are givenactual authority to do.”

In their comments,many respon-dents noted on-the-job experience,strategic planning training, and the“Leadership for a Democratic Society”training conducted by the FederalExecutive Institute as helpful devel-opmental experiences. Similarly,whenasked,“What type(s) of training wouldyou recommend for your successor andwhy?” most respondents proposedtraining in the areas of leadership de-velopment, project management, andperformance management.These datareinforce a July 2007 Partnership forPublic Service and GrantThornton re-port specifying that managers needmore workforce management training,specifically in the areas of leadershipand performance management.

Organizational Alignment and Support

The third survey section, whichexamined organizational alignment andsupport, asked respondents about per-formance goals, evaluation efforts, andsupport program managers receive fromexecutives and strategic planning activ-ities.The majority of respondents con-firmed that their individual performancegoals align with their program’s goals.Mir-roring the previous response,most also in-dicated that their program’s goals alignwith their agency’s overall goals.

A troubling finding, the majorityof program managers do not seek norreceive help from C-level executives.When asked,“To what extent do youseek/receive important support fromthe CFO, CIO, CHCO and CAO toaccomplish the goals of your pro-gram?” the largest respondent pools cit-ed “no contribution”: 33 percent forchief financial officers (CFOs), 33percent for chief information officers(CIOs), 45 percent for chief adminis-trative officers (CAOs), and 46 percent

for chief human capital officers(CHCOs).Among the C-level execu-tives about which they were asked, re-spondents reported they receive themost support from CFOs and theleast support from CHCOs. Further-more, program managers that receivemore C-level support correlated withthose who had larger budgets, a high-er level of education, and a longertenure as a federal program manager.Perhaps the more veteran a programmanager is, the more savvy he or sheis about attaining executive support.

Respondents affirmed that theirprogram’s strategic plan is shared withemployees, stakeholders, and the pub-lic but that events tend to drive stake-holder involvement.When asked howcustomers are involved in perfor-mance evaluation, respondents speci-fied that that activity happens through“surveys”(56 percent) and is“measuredby program success/customer satis-faction” (53 percent) most often.(They could select more than one re-sponse for this question.)

Execution and Results

The last survey section, dealingwith execution and results, asked ques-tions about program management ac-tivities and their difficulty.This sectionalso included questions dealing withthe communication of performance re-sults, how the PART could workbetter, and the resources and practicesthat could best position program man-agers for success.

Most participants reported thatthey receive timely, objective infor-mation about their program’s perfor-mance and cost status.Nonetheless, asprogram managers receive information,they pass it along in varying degrees oftransparency. For example, respon-dents noted that program and perfor-mance results are shared with em-

ployees (94 percent), stakeholders (88percent), the public (80 percent), andgrantees (55 percent),and most considertheir programs effective in accom-plishing goals and achieving meaning-ful results.This relatively positive find-ing complements recent results postedon OMB’s www.expectmore.govWebsite,which show that 72 percent of fed-eral programs are performing (as op-posed to“not performing”) on the ba-sis of PART assessments.

Although survey data assessingthe difficulty of daily activities variedgreatly, those most often rated as ex-tremely difficult by respondents are de-veloping measures and assessing pro-gram results (18 percent), respondingto special requests from OMB (16 per-cent), and preparing or negotiatingbudget requests (14 percent). Onerespondent wrote,“I’m spending moretime feeding measurement systemsthan focusing on strategic decisions andinvestments that will produce future re-sults.” Another survey-taker shared,“Any free time has been taken up withPART,GPRA,ABC. ...The never end-ing requests from DC for data, infor-mation, etc., has resulted in staff oftennot having time to actually work onprogram requirements.”

In their comments, respondentsnoted a desire for a more flexible eval-uation instrument that is less subjec-tive than the 25-item PART. Illustrat-ing this point, one participant noted,“[PART] ratings themselves seem ar-bitrary, not uniform across similarprograms, and the final rating processis non-transparent.”This characteri-zation is consistent with a recently re-leased GAO report, which also sur-veyed federal program managers andfound them frustrated with both thePART and OMB’s raters.

When asked the most motivatingincentive, these program managers

WWW.THEPUBLICMANAGER.ORG96

most often selected monetary rewards(70 percent), followed by promotions(55 percent), and internal recognition(53 percent). (Respondents could se-lect more than one response.) One par-ticipant suggested,“Significant mon-etary awards based on a percentage ofmeasurable cost savings to the gov-ernment [would be most motivating].”The highest-rated investment choiceto help program managers betterachieve their objectives was addition-al budget for program-related re-sources (non-staff) (64 percent), fol-lowed by additional staff (53 percent),and finally additional investment in in-formation technology (50 percent).(Respondents could select more thanone response.) Lastly, respondents ex-pressed their desire to interact more of-ten within their peer group. Whenasked what would help their programbe most successful, the program man-agers most often selected “a networkof federal program managers to sharebest practices and lessons learned, inperson and online.”

ImplicationsMany inferences can be drawn

from the findings of this initial study.A foundational issue—the ambiguityof the program manager role—was un-derscored throughout this initiative.When compiling the list of programmanagers to invite to the survey, for ex-ample, we often encountered thequestion“What constitutes a ‘program’and subsequently a ‘program manag-er’ within the federal space?” and re-ceived varied answers. Inconsistencypervades the program managementcommunity—in job title, preparationfor the job, difficulty of everyday ac-tivities, and execution of projects.

The dispersion of responses forprofessional development and trainingreinforce the notion that program

managers are not positioned similarlyin their roles. Results point to a po-tential need to train program managersin a more standardized fashion,perhapsenacting a certification requirementwith customized training particular tothis population. Consistency couldalso be gained through increasedknowledge sharing online or in per-son. A network of program man-agers—a notion that was well re-ceived in the survey—could serve toeducate program managers on bestpractices, for example. Formalizedmentoring programs could also serveto improve consistency in the role.Many survey takers sought more C-level support than they actually re-ceived, and discussions with a managerwere seen as a helpful activity inmeeting performance goals.

Many survey participants are near-ing retirement, so the survey findingsalso lead to the question,“Will Gen-erations X andY be ready to take theprogram management reigns?”Fortu-nately, more associations and nonprofitsare starting to provide resources to thisyoung and evolving community.ThePartnership for Public Service’s An-nenberg Leadership Institute, TheCouncil for Excellence in Govern-ment’s Fellows Program, and other in-dustry learning and mentoring pro-grams are offering specific training ingovernment leadership. Emergingcoaching programs, succession plan-ning, and formal training will also helptrain junior managers to one day as-sume the responsibilities that our sur-vey group currently holds.

ConclusionProgram management continues to

be a little understood segment of gov-ernment.Although program managershave tremendous responsibility pro-grammatically and financially, not

enough is known about the daily ex-periences of this population.This surveywas an initial attempt to illuminate theprogram manager role by identifyingwho program managers are and whatthey encounter day to day.We stronglyencourage more research into the mak-ing of successful programs, whetheracademic,practitioner based,nonprofit,or, ideally,a fusion that generates coop-erative research.

How the program manager role willevolve in the short term under the newadministration is unknown.Numerousfactors are likely to impact programmanagers, but even if they are a “mov-ing target,” the federal governmentneeds to thoughtfully convene thisgroup more often, facilitating a contin-ued, open dialogue. Successfully posi-tioning the next generation of programmanagers should be an issue importantto allAmericans, regardless of adminis-tration.As one survey respondent put itbest,“All of us are better than one of us.”

ReferencesGAO. Government Performance: LessonsLearned for the Next Administration onUsing Performance Information to Im-prove Results, GAO-08-1026T, July 24,2008. www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=A83047andac-cno=A83047.

Naval Sea Systems Command. The Men-toring Network: A Voluntary LearningPartnership. A Guide for Mentors, Ver-sion 1, August 2007.

Office of Personnel Management. “Execu-tive Branch Employment by Gender andRace/National Origin September 1992–September 2005.”Federal EmploymentStatistics. www.opm.gov/feddata/html/tot05rno.asp.

OMB.Mid-Session Review, Budget of theUnited States Government, Fiscal Year2009. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/09msr.pdf.

Partnership for Public Service and GrantThornton. Federal Human Capital: ThePerfect Storm. A Study of Chief HumanCapital Officers. www.ourpublicservice.org/OPS/publications/viewcontentdetails.php?id=119.

THE PUBLIC MANAGER � WINTER 2008–09 97