Authors:
Dr. Geoff Abbott, DBA, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired)
Judy Douglas, Founder, Douglas Leadership Advisory; Fellow, National Academy of Public Administration
The Challenge – New Priorities and Expectations
Senior federal leaders have a daunting task and critically important roles to guide their organizations to successfully perform during Presidential transitions characterized by substantial changes in emphasis, priorities and policies. The speed, reach, and confrontations with law and authorities are emblematic of this Administration’s transition. Change comes fast and furious to all branches of government, as well as many other sectors, such as nonprofits and educational institutions. The professed Administration agenda is focused on a less costly and less intrusive government.
The emerging reality for federal agencies is filled with uncertainty on how to best serve the American Public.
Challenges for senior Federal leaders include:
- Missions and ‘success’ are being redefined or undefined
- Dramatic staffing and skill constraints, fueled by Federal hiring freezes, major workforce reductions, deletion of whole functions, firings and rehirings, and voluntary departures
- Uncertain funding and significant budget reductions, including cancellation of many government contracts
- Mutual distrust with their political leaders
Understand the ‘New Reality’ and Adapt
Regardless of position, it is possible to convert vision to practice and to identify opportunities to drive constructive change. The learnings from other circumstances can be applied now. ‘The concept of “leading from the middle” doesn’t just apply to middle managers, but to anyone, at any level, who influences or initiates constructive change to improve performance, often beyond their formal level of authority’.
Arthur Ashe, an inspirational tennis legend, and global civil rights and health activist, reminds each of us of the potential to make positive impact, regardless of the situation:
“Start where you are.
Use what you have.
Do what you can.”
“Start where you are.” Acknowledge the current situation and the new reality. What parts of the mission remain the same and can be built upon? What has changed, may no longer be relevant?
“Use what you have.” Identify available resources and capabilities. Pursue sensible choices within constraints. Make decisions and take action within remaining assets, including staffing, funding and legal authorities. Recognize it’s often unwise to wait for the ‘ideal situation’.
“Do what you can.” Senior Federal leaders who understand their new reality and are aware of the resources available to meet mission requirements, are positioned to propose, develop and implement creative solutions in the context of new realities.
Identify key business assumptions that may have changed. Evaluate changes to the definition of “success” for achieving the mission and establish new priorities. Changes may require “doing less with less”, discontinuing some services. Change may create opportunity to “lead from the middle” to develop and implement innovative solutions for the current priorities.
Identify gaps between capabilities and requirements for success. Formulate gap-filling strategies to achieve new goals and priorities.
A critical undertaking for leaders is to transform employees’ mindsets from ‘what was’ to align with the new reality. There is an opportunity to take a fresh look at processes and practices given the updated mission, goals and new priorities. A powerful “gap-filling”, adaptation-enhancing and retention strategy for the remaining workforce can include expanding the talent pool trained in improvement methodologies and tools, such as Agile and Lean Six Sigma.
Bake in Agility, Innovation and Consider Alternate Futures
Transformation of the status quo often spurs opportunities for constructive conflict over the best approaches, creative solutions and innovation. Senior Federal leaders can strengthen their standing by engaging effectively to propose impactful options. An understanding of the purposes underlying desired transformation is essential to propose viable alternatives. Demonstrating such context and understanding facilitates the chance to participate in the exploration of alternatives. “Invitation to the table” then can be built on the ability to quickly and creatively adapt applicable mission delivery expertise.
Difficult, though hopefully constructive, conversations can surface as key players share ideas that may highlight conflicting priorities, unanticipated consequences, and how to optimize components’ results without sub-optimizing overall agency efforts. These discussions can lead to shared learning and understanding of the new reality’s goals, objectives, opportunities and constraints.
Here's a real-world example:
- Conflicting Priorities and Unanticipated Consequences: Recently, it was suggested that the Federal government procure about 40 icebreakers for the US Coast Guard related to Arctic national security issues. However, this occurs when there also is intense pressure to reduce federal workforces, and 40 icebreakers would require hundreds of additional ship-qualified personnel. Currently, all the armed forces are having difficulty meeting recruiting quotas and the Coast Guard is mothballing cutters due to the lack of qualified personnel. Procuring these icebreakers could cost billions of dollars with only a few deployed due to shortages of qualified personnel.
- Increase Receptivity and Inform Decision Makers: Confronting reality by raising issues perceived as ‘speedbumps’ to a leader’s agenda can be risky if not handled wisely. An inquiry-based approach may drop barriers and allow novel and systemic considerations.
- Ask relevant questions. In our icebreaker example one could ask about the plan to budget for, hire and develop roughly 1,200 experienced sailors, where the icebreakers would be homeported, if new bases or piers are needed, and where the crews’ families would be housed.
- Consider overall systems impacts and costs. Preliminary cost estimates may consider the crew personnel and ship acquisition costs, but what about the fuel and maintenance budgets (including personnel to repair the ships), training costs, costs for additional barracks and family housing, building/leasing additional piers, etc.)? The idea is not to torpedo the suggested approach, but to make everyone aware of the true cost and potential issues that could occur and then let decision-makers decide how to proceed with full knowledge of the pros and cons.
- Look for Prospective Resources and Opportunities: Adopting such a low-threat, holistic approach creates a chance to explore other options that may be more advantageous. For instance, can we negotiate with friendly nations/allies with existing icebreakers to share the national security responsibility for our collective advantage to reduce our costs?...Could we hire experienced merchant seamen to augment Coast Guard crews on newly acquired icebreakers?...Should we consider construction of a large homeport and maintenance depot in northern waters close to the Arctic operating area to significantly reduce transit time and thus require less icebreakers?
- Identify Acceptable Options/Alternatives: Undoubtedly there will be pros and cons to each of the identified opportunities. Some will be non-starters, for valid political, national security or economic reasons. Others may have some cons that might be mitigated or overcome with a bit of foresight and innovation. The emphasis should be on prioritizing key goals, aligning available resources and capabilities, and finding the best approaches to efficiently and effectively execute for results.
A Leg Up on Managing Transitions:
To hone skills to address the challenges of the new reality, consider consulting William and Susan Bridges’ seminal work on navigating major change, Managing Transitions. This is a mainstay for organizational leadership to prepare for and execute complex and ever-changing missions. It includes thought-provoking insights and checklists for organizations and transitions of all sorts, moving from the status quo to a new operating environment. They discuss in detail the importance of managing endings and letting go; moving through the in-between time when the “new” isn’t fully operational and realignments are taking place; all the way through to managing the new beginning.
Dr. Geoff Abbott, co-author of this piece, wrote in his book, Unauthorized Progress – Leading from the Middle….to Make Meaningful Impacts 12 strategies for leading ‘from the Middle’ including four that may be especially useful now:
- Be the Expert or Engage Experts – show competence. Don’t just be an expert on your issue; become the expert, the go-to person. Know more about your challenge than anyone else.
- Demonstrate a Bias for Action – be proactive to achieve results. Credibility as a change agent with a reputation for positive results, builds decision makers’ confidence.
- Obtain a Sponsor/Champion –enlist help to navigate barriers. A powerful strategy for expediting an initiative is to seek out a senior advocate to guide progress, especially in a new, complex environment.
- Pilot-test Initiatives – provide a ‘proof of concept’ for new initiatives while reducing risks. Constrained scope testing can reduce concerns about risks, further evolve an initiative, assess the results, and improve it before expanding implementation.
As noted in the forward to this book, Admiral Thad Allen (retired), 23rd Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, noted “in the face of recurring skepticism on the value of government service, the hollowing of the federal workforce, and associated lack of institutional memory, and the need for a government that can meet the ever-increasing challenges of a rapidly changing world…we need leaders at all levels who can seize the opportunity to change their immediate world of work and inspire others to do the same. I can’t say it better than Arthur Ashe.”
Now as much as ever.
