Part VI The Past as Prelude Were the Predictions of Cl.docx

Part VI: The Past
as Prelude: Were
the Predictions of
Classic Scholars
Correct?
James L. Perry is Distinguished Professor,
School of Public and Environmental Affairs,
Indiana University, Bloomington, and
Department of Public Administration, Yonsei
University, Seoul, South Korea. He is coedi-
tor of Motivation in Public Management:
The Call of Public Service (Oxford University
Press, 2008) and editor of the Jossey-Bass
Reader on Nonprofi t and Public Leadership
(2010). His current research interests
include public service motivation, collabora-
tion, and shared leadership.
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
yonsei.ac.kr.

Neal D. Buckwalter is a doctoral
candidate in the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs at Indiana University,
Bloomington. His research interests include
the role of transparency in government
administration, state and local government
structure, and fi scal capacity. Concurrent
interests include public service structures
and the potential to strengthen capacity
through effective mentoring efforts.
E-mail: [email protected]
S238 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special
Issue
James L. Perry
Indiana University and Yonsei University
Neal D. Buckwalter
Indiana University
Th e Public Service of the Future
Th is article seeks to identify the
status and infrastructure of public
service in 2020. It fi rst examines

Leonard White’s early eff ort at
predicting a future search for
public service, written in 1942,
but with an eye toward the
1950s and 1960s. Th e authors
assess the subsequent structural
and ideological development of
public service to lay a framework
for their own projection of the
public service of the future. Th ey anticipate important
foundational shifts that will lead to a revaluing of public
service and opportunities to reinvigorate public work.
Th e authors conclude with a list of six specifi c public
service infrastructure changes that they anticipate will
become manifest by 2020.
Guest editors’ note: In 1942, the University of Chicago
Press published a book edited by Leonard D. White titled
Th e Future of Government in the United States. Each
chapter in the book presents predictions concerning the
future of U.S. public administration. In this article,
James L. Perry and Neal D. Buckwalter examine White’s
predictions for the future of public service published in
that book, comment on whether White’s predictions were
correct, and look to the future to examine public admin-
istration in 2020.
In 1942, Leonard White edited a volume of essays written by
some of the most infl uential minds in public administration to
honor the career of
political scientist Charles Merriam, White’s men-
tor and colleague at the University of Chicago and
member of the Brownlow Committee. Th e essays
sought to predict the face of public administration
across a range of issues 20 years forward. White had
the daunting task of projecting the public service of

the future, which World War II made even more chal-
lenging. From our vantage point, with almost 70 years
of history on which to train our hindsight, White’s
prescience is impressive.
Th is essay articulates a vision
for public service in 2020.
Although full-scale world war
does not impede our view, we
face new infl uences on all of
the fronts that White identi-
fi ed in his essay—“global or
national, economic, political or
managerial, racial, community,
ideological” (1942, 192). After
briefl y reviewing White’s pro-
jections, as well as subsequent
historical developments, we off er our vision of the
public service of the future. Like White, we recognize
how short a decade is, and therefore anticipate the
distinct possibility of institutional inertia carrying
forward many current circumstances. As White also
recognized, however, “supernormal developments”
may intervene to bring opportunities for foundational
shifts in civic engagement and the public interest
(1942, 192). Considering this tension between inertia
and interruption, we envision the upcoming decade
as a time of revaluing for the public service, with op-
portunities to reinvigorate public work and strength-
en public service infrastructures for the twenty-fi rst
century.
White’s Vision: A Broader and Stronger
Administrative Apparatus
White intended his essay to be descriptive rather than

normative, with his projections resting on “contempo-
rary trends and probable tendencies” (1942, 216). Th e
essay’s forward-looking gaze is all the more intriguing
with White’s fi rm grounding in the history of public
administration. Th at White would pen this particu-
lar essay to honor Charles Merriam is signifi cant:
M erriam’s participation on the Brownlow Committee
dramatically reshaped the nature of public service and
certainly infl uenced White’s thinking about it.
Th e post-Brownlow focus on administrative manage-
ment ushered in an era of “government by administra-
tors” (Mosher 1968, 79). Th is was refl ected in White’s
Th is essay articulates a vision for
public service in 2020 . . . .
[W]e face new infl uences on
all of the fronts that [Leonard]
White identifi ed in his essay—
“global or national, economic,
political or managerial, racial,
community, ideological.”
The Public Service of the Future S239
expansion of the federal public service, with signifi cant
legislation
passed toward many of the government’s most important
missions
(Light 2008).
As the decade waned, the public paradigm began to shift. While

it is impossible to designate a single tipping point, 1968
certainly
was a pivotal year. A sense of disillusionment toward public
service
grew as citizens questioned the country’s escalating
involvement in
Vietnam, civil unrest and race riots spread throughout many
cities,
Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy were assassinated,
and the so-called counterculture gained infl uence. In the
academy,
a “New Public Administration” emerged from the Minnowbrook
conference (Marini 1971), and a leading scholar of the fi eld
pro-
claimed public administration’s “crisis of identity” for the
inability
to articulate its own set of theories and methods (Waldo 1968,
3).
Th ese developments had profound impacts on peoples’ desire
to
enter public service and on the professional preparation of those
who did.
Th e training of the public service also garnered increased
scrutiny
in 1968, in Frederick Mosher’s infl uential book Democracy and
the Public Service. Historically, civil service reforms based on
merit
principles centered largely on the core value of neutral
competence.
However, as Mosher pointed out, public servants are not neutral
automatons, but rather use their training and backgrounds to
shape
the direction of public actions. Th e vital need to understand
this
aspect of the professionalized public service and concerns

regarding
responsibility and accountability greatly expanded the
discussion
begun earlier by Friedrich, Finer, and White.
Th e 1970s brought arguably the most dramatic civil service
reforms
since the Pendleton Act in 1883. Th e federal Civil Service
Reform
Act of 1978, whose impetus was state and local reforms, embod-
ied President Jimmy Carter’s eff orts to improve management
and
hinged on the desire to extend and uphold merit principles. Th e
reforms introduced merit pay for mid-level managers,
established
the Senior Executive Service, and replaced the U.S. Civil Ser-
vice Commission with the Offi ce of Personnel Management,
the
Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Labor
Relations
A uthority. More than previous reforms, the Civil Service
Reform
Act focused attention on linking human resources and
performance
more directly. Despite the reforms, public service continued to
be
devalued in the public eye.
Civil service reforms were not the only important development
of
the period. A signifi cant change in our conception of public
service
began to emerge in the early 1980s, driven by structural and
ideological shifts. Historically, “public service” meant
government
employment.1 Yet new service provision arrangements that

began
to take hold in the early 1980s—driven by eff orts to introduce
market and quasi-market incentives into government—expanded
conceptions of the public sector. Th ese eff orts gained
momentum
in the 1990s, driven by notions of “reinventing government”
(Osborne and Gaebler 1992). Some scholars observed that the
increased use of private contracting and not-for-profi t service
pro-
vision was leading to “third-party government” (Salamon 2002),
or
“government by proxy” (Kettl 1988), enabling politicians to
claim
reductions in the civil service while masking the government’s
true
size (Light 1999b).
anticipation of a strengthened administrative apparatus at all
levels
of government, and a repositioning of administrative powers
involv-
ing growth in federal infl uence at the expense of states and
localities.
He also envisioned the postwar public service milieu to include
an
extension of merit system principles at all levels of government,
the
further development of public service careers, and the increased
im-
portance of civil service unions. Th ese initiatives, he argued,
would
be driven by a heightened professionalization of the public
service,
including ever-more focus on science, technology, and
management.
All of this would require greater discretionary judgment by

public
administrators.
White expressed cautious optimism about this broadened adm-
inistrative purview, describing an inherent tension between an
expansion of the “responsibility of offi cialdom” with the need
to commensurately increase the “responsiveness of offi
cialdom”
(1942, 213). While the former theoretically could enable more
eff ective execution of public policy, the latter must serve as a
check
against expanded power and authority in the hands of public
servants. In this way, White contributed an early extension to
the
now-classic—but then ongoing—debate between Carl Friedrich
(1940) and Herman Finer (1941).
How did White foresee the tension between increased discretion
and the need for greater responsiveness in the public service
being
relieved? Formal steps, such as improved public relations
techniques,
could enable offi cials to better ascertain the public’s
preferences.
However, these steps remain insuffi cient: the needed
responsiveness
must be found “deep in the spirit of the public service as a
social
organism. . . . [being] strengthened by example; hence the
invalu-
able contribution of the wise and tempered deans and guardians
of
the public service ethos, who are gathering in increasing
numbers as
the fruits of the merit system and of a career service ripen”
(1942,

215). Interestingly, White’s early recognition of the role of
public
service ethos in fostering responsiveness preceded by 50 years
the
recent growth in empirical research about public service
motivation
(Perry and Wise 1990).
How Far Have We Come Since White?
Many of White’s projections came to pass, some later than
antici-
pated. Th e right of federal employees to engage in labor
negotiations,
for instance, was not recognized until 1962, when President
John
F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10988. Collective
bargaining
had previously been used by some state and local governments,
but
change at the federal level dramatically altered labor–
management
relations in the public service. Similarly, other hiring and salary
reforms during this period aimed at greater equality for public
service
personnel and extending merit principles within the civil
service.
Major advancements during the 1960s also fi t White’s
predictions
for a shift to more federal infl uence in social programs and an
altered relationship between the federal government and state
and
local governments. Meanwhile, a sense of idealism toward
public
service grew early in the decade. In his 1961 inaugural address,
President Kennedy fostered enthusiasm for greater engagement

in
public causes. A growing number of policy initiatives sought to
expand civil rights and reduce poverty, eff ectively reframing
the
public service as a front line for achieving greater societal
equality.
Broadly speaking, it was a time of tremendous direction setting
and
Issue
the centrality of government to national survival and
achievement. To some extent, growth in acceptance is event-
driven. Th e 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City was the fi rst in a series of events
that
have altered the American psyche. Th e terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, have had even more profound infl uences
on
highlighting government’s legitimate roles and the nobility of
public service. When the story of the “Great Panic” of 2008 is
written and digested, we believe that the actions of the U.S.
Federal Reserve and Treasury Department will further reinforce
the standing of public institutions (Wessel 2009).
Another event—nonviolent but likely no
less infl uential than 9/11—is the election
of Barack Obama. Obama’s election crossed
both racial and ideological divides, and it is
likely to contribute to how we value public
service in 2020. Th e election of an African
American president almost 50 years after the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 marks a signifi cant

passage in American history. We expect that
this new political reality will aff ect public
service not only nationally, but in state and
local governments and the voluntary sector as
well. Furthermore, it creates the prospect for
opening new paths to social change, stimulat-
ing greater involvement of previously unengaged Americans,
and
igniting new hope among disenfranchised and alienated groups.
Th e shifts in rhetoric accompanying Obama’s election are of
lesser
historic novelty, but they are nonetheless signifi cant for how
Ameri-
cans will view public service over the next several decades.
Obama’s
2008 speech to the Democratic National Convention at the time
of
his nomination is instructive about a shifting public mood:
Th at’s the promise of America—the idea that we are respon-
sible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation;
the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am
my sister’s keeper. . . . [W]e must also admit that fulfi lling
America’s promise will require more than just money. It will
require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to
recover what John F. Kennedy called our intellectual and
moral strength.
Although the slumping economy has no doubt contributed to
the increased attractiveness of public work, many people
involved
with admissions in public aff airs programs attribute recent
robust
increases in both applications and enrollments to President

Obama’s
call to public service (Mangan 2009).
As further evidence of a profound shift in rhetoric about public
service, one needs to look no further than the British
Conservative
Party, the home of Margaret Th atcher, whose rhetoric was
closely
embraced by Ronald Reagan. George Osborne, a Conservative
Party
leader and now Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave a speech in
2009
about which David Brooks (2009) wrote,
In a party conference address earlier this month, Osborne
gave the speech that an American politician will someday
In the past decade, several scholars have noted the emergence of
a
substantively “new public service”: more diverse in
demographic,
educational, and work backgrounds; more open to pursuing
public
work in nongovernmental settings; more likely to switch sectors
during their careers; and decidedly committed to “making a dif-
ference in the world” (Light 1999a, 128). Janet and Robert Den-
hardt see the commitment to make a diff erence in the world or
to
“contribute to society” as the underlying motivational basis for
those
who choose public service careers (2003, 29). In their normative
view, the new public service should be guided by a focus on
demo-
cratic theory and aim chiefl y to be responsive to citizens, a
view that
stands in stark contrast to the New Public Management’s

economic
model, which treats citizens as customers.
We have come full circle to the present.
Although reform eff orts have changed the
context of public service, and social, political,
and economic trends have at times shaped
perceptions regarding its value, we continue
to grapple with many of the same core issues
that White and others acknowledged. Public
service that operates in a democratic context
struggles to balance apparently competing
values of effi ciency and equity, responsive-
ness and discretionary power (Denhardt and
deLeon 1995). Regardless of the challenges,
the importance of strengthening public service continues to be
rec-
ognized, as demonstrated in the spate of recent books on the
subject
(see, e.g., Bilmes and Gould 2009; Donahue 2008; Light 2008).
We see recent and ongoing social and technological
developments as
trending toward that end.
The Public Service of 2020
Like White before us, we fi x our projections on current trends
and
developments, with the intent to predict rather than prescribe.
Although the benchmark year of 2020 is only a decade away,
our
f uture search allows the possibility of—even anticipates—some
foundational shifts in the intervening years. Our discussion
begins
with the broadest of these shifts—revaluing public service—fol-
lowed by a description of what we believe is an emerging
infrastruc-

ture that both facilitates and reinforces public service in the
future.
The Pendulum Swings: Revaluing Public Service
We previously described the descent of the standing of public
service from the late 1960s to the late 1980s. Circumstances
began
to shift after the election of George H. W. Bush in 1988, when
rhetoric and reality once again began to accord public service
cau-
tious respect. We believe that public events and personalities
are
paving the way for a more positive—but still complex—role for
public service. Th ree broad developments—new political
realities
and rhetoric, generational transformations, and a normal
reascent
of public service—are precursors to improved standing of public
service in 2020.
New political realities and rhetoric. To be clear, we do not
envision the American people abandoning their historically
ambivalent relationship with government and the people who
embody it (Morone 1990). We anticipate, however, that the
contributions of public service will yield greater acceptance of
Th e election of an African
American president almost 50
years after the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 marks a signifi cant
passage in American history. We
expect that this new political
reality will aff ect public service
not only nationally, but in state

and local governments and the
voluntary sector as well.
Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009, which signifi cantly
expands
our national commitment to AmeriCorps and service programs
for
middle and high school students, will reinforce these trends.
And
recently, legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of
Represen-
tatives for both a Public Service Academy to foster the
development
of civilian leadership for public service and the Roosevelt
Scholars
Program, which would off er graduate-level scholarships in
mission-
critical fi elds in exchange for a federal service commitment.
Robert Putnam (2008) has gone so far as to suggest that the
Mil-
lennial Generation, whose members have been shaped by both
9/11 and the 2008 election, may be the new “Greatest
Generation.”
World War II was the formative event for the original Greatest
Gen-
eration. Putnam’s thesis is that 9/11 triggered a civic-
mindedness
among Millennials, but their political involvement,
foreshadowed
in the elections of 2004 and 2006, reached full fl ower in their

infl uence and success in the 2008 campaigns. Putnam
concludes,
perhaps with some hyperbole, but consistent with the sweep of
arguments here, “Th e 2008 elections are thus the coming-out
party
of this new Greatest Generation. Th eir grandparents of the
original
Greatest Generation were the civic pillars of American
democracy
for more than a half-century, and at long last, just as that
generation
is leaving the scene, reinforcements are arriving.”
Public–private dialectic. Th e political and generational changes
rest within a larger historical sweep. H. George Frederickson
called
attention to the historical dialectic in the National Academy of
Public Administration’s 2008 Elmer Staats Lecture. He
envisions the
pendulum swinging away from a private era toward a new
public
era: “We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the long era
of
bureaucrat bashing, of tearing down the managerial capacity of
the
national government, and the beginnings of reregulation” (2008,
6).
Frederickson’s contention that we are moving toward a “public
era” as a natural counterforce to an earlier era of public decline
and bureaucrat bashing gets support from noted economist
Albert
Hirschman. In Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and
Public
Action (1982), Hirschman argues that shifts from private action
to public action and back are quite normal in the larger

historical
sweep. Th e public–private dichotomy that Hirschman posits has
at
its core a very simple preference dynamic: “Acts of
consumption, as
well as acts of participation in public aff airs, which are
undertaken
because they are expected to yield satisfaction, also yield
dissatisfac-
tion and disappointment” (1982, 10).
have to give. He said that he is not ideologically hostile to
government. “Millions of Britons depend on public services
and cannot opt out,” he declared. He defended govern-
ment workers against those who would deride them as
self-serving bureaucrats: “Conservatives should never use
lazy rhetoric that belittles those who are employed by the
government.”
Perhaps the British are again the precursors of what we will
hear
from conservatives in the United States in the not too distant
future.
Osborne’s perspective certainly supports our contention that
public
service is being revalued.
Some readers may perceive our prognosis as overly optimistic
in light of recent developments in public opinion, which sug-
gest a growing antipathy toward government, as refl ected in the
tea party movement and partisanship surrounding issues such as
health care reform. As one perceptive observer of national
politics
observes, however, “Just because voters aren’t happy with
govern-
ment doesn’t mean that they don’t want government to play a

role
in their lives. . . . What they are saying is that they want
govern-
ment to do a better job” (Walter 2010). Despite frequent shifts
in
the winds of public opinion, we anticipate the overall trend in
the
next decade will contribute to revaluing public service.
Generational transformations. A second wave of change
involves
shifting patterns of public-regardingness across generations, as
refl ected in several recent trends. Tracking indicators of civic
engagement during the past decade show an upward shift among
the Millennial Generation, typically classifi ed as those born
between
1980 and 2000. It is from members of this cohort that the public
service of 2020 will look to replace large numbers of retiring
Baby
Boomers and aging members of Generation X.
Th e fi rst Millennials entered college shortly before 2000. A
snap-
shot of attitudes and behaviors among this group demonstrates
increased public-regardingness in a number of areas, according
to
annual surveys of college freshmen conducted by the Higher
Educa-
tion Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California,
Los
Angeles (UCLA). For example, the number of college freshman
who
reported that within the last year they had participated
(frequently
or occasionally) in organized demonstrations rose to an all-time
high of 50.2 percent in 2006. In 2007, 10.9 percent of

respondents
had participated in local, state, or national political campaigns,
up
from previous decades, but still not reaching pre-1970 levels.
Volun-
teering has increased steadily since the 1980s, up to 83.3
percent in
2007. Not only are more freshman volunteering, but also they
are
doing it for longer periods of time than respondents from 10
years
prior, as illustrated in table 1 (Higher Education Research
Institute
1997, 2002, 2006, 2007).
Changing political and civic attitudes of college freshman may
be a precursor of a public renewal, but it also signals
institutional
changes in higher education and government that could sustain
a revaluing of public service. Th e HERI group at UCLA (2009)
reported that among the goals that faculty listed as “very
important”
or “essential” for undergraduate education, instilling in students
a
commitment to community service saw the biggest increase
between
2004 and 2007, from 36.4 percent to 55.5 percent. Th e Edward
M.
Table 1 Hours per Week College Freshman Report
Volunteering,
1997, 2002, 2007
Hours Per Week in the Last Year Spent Volunteering a 1997b
2002c 2007d

None 31.5 27.7 25.1
Less than one 24.1 24.3 23.7
1–2 23.3 24.9 26.6
3–5 13.1 14.0 15.1
6–10 4.7 5.2 5.3
11–15 1.5 1.8 1.9
16 or more 1.8 2.2 2.2
Source: Higher Education Research Institute 1997, 2002, 2007.
a Weighted national average from all participating universities.
b N = 137,207 from 65 institutions.
c N = 119,061 from 66 institutions.
d N = 130,234 from 59 institutions.
Issue
to it in Th e New Public Service (1999a). Changing the mind-set
about and management of entry-level work in government is one
step in the right direction. Another step would be to fi nd ways
to reinforce the task signifi cance of public jobs (Grant 2008).
Government jobs still have potential for unique access to
intrinsic
motivations linked to the signifi cance of the tasks job
incumbents
perform. Th ese jobs need to be designed and managed to
activate
this potential.
• Mitigate systemic dysfunctions of public–private partnerships.
Th e design and management of public–private partnerships—
among them contracting and service delivery collaborations—in
recent years has strongly signaled the attractiveness of private
over
public jobs. Th e status of public jobs will languish if outsourc-

ing decisions are made primarily on ideological and effi ciency
grounds (Mulgan 2005). Th e specter of outsourcing raises
equity
and psychological concerns (Pearce 1983) that must be
remedied
for public jobs to recover their luster.
If these changes in public work can be institutionalized, then
the
prospects for sustaining the value of public service for the
longer-
term increase signifi cantly.
2. Recalibrating wage and salary structures. Th e decline in the
status of public service during the last third of the twentieth
century
has taken a toll on the relative fi nancial valuation of public
versus
private work. Th e fi nancial valuation of public work is more
acute
for higher- rather than lower-paying jobs, which are often better
paid in the public sector (Miller 1996). Higher-paying
professional,
administrative, and managerial jobs have historically been
better
compensated in the private sector. George Borjas (2003) studied
sector switchers and arrived at compelling fi ndings about wage
structures and the sorting of workers. Borjas suggests that as
public–private wage structures have evolved, the relative skills
of
“marginal” persons who moved across sectors also changed
signifi cantly. He concludes that the substantial widening of
wage
inequality in the private sector and the more stable wage
distribution in the public sector increased the prospect that
high-

skill workers were more likely to end up in the private sector.
Th ese
wage inequalities “created magnetic eff ects that altered the
sorting of
workers across sectors, with high-skill workers
becoming more likely to end up in the private
sector” (Borjas 2003, 52). Macro wage
structures are consequential for the public
sector’s ability to attract and retain a quality
workforce. Th e eff ects of macro structures,
however, are poorly understood and have had
little or no infl uence on public policy,
especially the dispersion and structure of
government wages.
John Donahue (2008) infers from Borjas’s
research that we need to pay more attention to dispersion in
wages
between the public and private sectors. Donahue’s solution is
quite
simple. He proposes that the distinctiveness of the public labor
market be changed by “pushing down the low end of the public
labor market, and lifting up the high end” (2008, 147). Th is
entails
more than depressing lower-level wages and increasing upper-
level
wages; benefi ts and job security also need to be fundamentally
altered.
As Frederickson notes in his Staats Lecture, New York Times
col-
umnist David Brooks also contends that we are in the midst of
an
episodic shift driven by three changing epochs: economic,
political

and generational. Brooks’ argument parallels elements of the
case
we build here, but we refer to his argument as further evidence
that
revaluing public service may, in part, be an outgrowth of
recurring
historical processes. Echoing Hirschman’s view from a quarter
cen-
tury earlier, Brooks (2008) wrote at the time of Obama’s
election,
“So today is not only a pivot, but a confl uence of pivots. When
historians look back at the era that is now closing, they will see
a
time of private achievement and public disappointment.” Many
Americans defi ned their well-being in recent years by growth
in
their stock portfolios, home equity, access to second homes,
dream
vacations and other acts of private consumption. Th ese pursuits
may
have produced satisfaction temporarily, but risky decisions by
bank-
ers, Wall Street fi nanciers, and mortgage lenders (not to
mention
citizens themselves)—the very institutions responsible for
creating
so much private wealth—have now generated widespread disap-
pointment and dissatisfaction. We believe that more Americans
will
seek to remedy their uncertainty and disappointment by turning
to public aff airs to fi nd satisfaction, which will serve to
further the
revaluing of public service.
Building Infrastructures for the Twenty-First Century
Although we believe that public service is being revalued, the

long-
term attractiveness of public service and the sustainability of
the
shift depends on bringing infrastructures—job designs,
compensa-
tion systems, and other concrete artifacts—into alignment with
the
social reconstruction that is under way. Longtime observers,
such as
Paul Light (1999a, 2008) and John Donahue (2008), believe that
the infrastructure supporting public service is more in tune with
industrial America of the 1950s—the world White was
predicting—
than 2020. Th is state of aff airs is the result of a variety of
factors,
not the least of which is a decline in the status of public service
that
led to its long-term neglect. What new infrastructures do we see
as
pivotal for reinforcing public service? We discuss six
infrastructure
components that will signifi cantly infl uence the long-term
status of
public service.
1. Reinvigorating public work. For all the
attention historically given to the
meaningfulness of public service jobs, we have
given the issue almost no serious attention in
the new governance era (Salamon 2002).
Inattention to the attractiveness of public
work has had predictable consequences—
many potential, high-quality employees
perceive that it is easier to fi nd satisfying work
outside government, often in the nonprofi t
sector.

Erosion of the attractiveness of government jobs has many
causes,
and reinvigorating public work will require concerted action as
we
move toward a new public era. Among the steps that can be
institu-
tionalized to reinvigorate public work are,
• Find ways to make jobs at all levels of government more chal-
lenging. Scholars (Buchanan 1974) pointed to the low challenge
of entry-level government jobs well before Light called
attention
Inattention to the attractiveness
of public work has had
predictable consequences—
many potential, high-quality
employees perceive that it is
easier to fi nd satisfying work
outside government, often in
the nonprofi t sector.
4. Reemphasizing public service across organizational systems.
Given the foregoing attention to wage and retirement systems,
you
might get the impression that what matters is money. Although
money is important, the eff ort to build infrastructures must, as
Paul
Light argues in A Government Ill Executed, “involve the right

motivations for service” (2008, 233). Indeed, public leaders and
executives have given some attention to the motivational
equation
and the unique call of public service. Th e U.S. Offi ce of
Personnel
Management (OPM), for example, includes public service
motivation among its list of six fundamental competencies for
federal senior executives. Th e OPM defi nes public service
motivation as follows: “Shows a commitment to serve the
public.
Ensures that actions meet public needs; aligns organizational
objectives and practices with public interests” (OPM 2010).
We foresee public leaders making progress during the course of
the
next decade to enhance and align public service values across
orga-
nizational systems. Research on altruism, public service
motivation,
and prosocial behavior (Paarlberg, Perry, and Hondeghem 2008)
has
begun to make headway in suggesting how infrastructures can
be
modifi ed to strengthen reinforcement of other- and public-
regarding
motivational orientations. Th e evolving research has begun to
identify
a number of infrastructure changes that might put governments
in
better position to reap the power of public service. Among them
are,
• Assessing applicants’ past public service behaviors in
selecting
employees to improve fi t with public service values and
account-

ability
• Providing formal opportunities for newcomers during
on-boarding (Partnership for Public Service 2008) and early
socialization experiences to learn about organizational values
and
expectations related to public service values
• Developing performance appraisal and performance monitor-
ing systems that include observations of behaviors that manifest
public service motivations
• Identifying benefi ciaries of jobs; establishing opportunities
for
direct contact between employee and benefi ciary; and
providing
clear channels for service benefi ciary feedback
• Interpreting organization goals in ways that allow employees
to
connect their work tasks to broad, positive public service
missions
• Designing compensation systems to emphasize long-term
attractiveness to employees and avoid extrinsic incentives that
crowd out intrinsic motivations
5. Repositioning training and development as a routine element
of the employment contract. A June 2009 White House proposal
to
set mandatory spending levels for employee training (Kauff man
2009) focuses attention on a historical limitation of public
service
infrastructure. John Berry, director of the OPM, observed in
announcing prospective federal reforms: “Th e president really
sees
this as a legacy opportunity, and he gets that this is a once-in-a-
generation chance to get this right” (Kauff man 2009).
Fundamental changes in the public sector’s human capital
invest-

ment policies are vital if gains in the public services’ status are
to
be reinforced and maintained. And a number of factors are
aligned
to make the legacy opportunity of human capital investment in
governments a distinct possibility. Th e fi rst factor is sheer
demo-
graphics—and the imminent wave of retirements and
generational
Donahue’s proposal is intriguing, but we have reservations
about the
advisability of pushing down lower-end wages and reducing job
se-
curity across government, a course of action pursued in some
recent
state-level reforms (Battaglio and Condrey 2006). Not only do
we
believe that it will be politically diffi cult to push down lower-
end
wages, but also we are concerned about the human
consequences
for lower-level workers. Reducing salary compression by
modestly
increasing salaries for professional, administrative, and
managerial
employees at the upper ends of salary schedules is a more
politi-
cally acceptable and constructive fi rst step. Increasing the
slope of
the salary line for public employees would help attract and
retain
higher-skill workers. Reducing salary compression could also
pay
dividends for lower- and middle-level employees who must
make

choices about where they pursue their careers. Regardless of the
specifi c details, we believe that a recalibration of wage
structures in
line with the options identifi ed here is under way and will
continue
for the foreseeable future.
Recent steps to improve student loan forgiveness provisions refl
ect
the trend toward recalibrating wage and salary structures that
we
project. Th e College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007
and
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
create
the potential to infl uence sector selection among college gradu-
ates. With education costs continuing to rise, many graduates fi
nd
themselves encumbered with daunting student loan payments.
Th e prospect of having the remaining loan balance forgiven
after
10 years of public service employment may provide just the
type
of fi nancial relief and incentive to attract quality employees
who
otherwise might chase higher salaries in the private sector to
repay
their student loans.
3. Redesigning public retirement systems. A long-expressed
justifi cation for giving public employees lower wages is the
lucrative
retirement benefi ts that many public employees receive. If
demonstrable changes are made in public wage structures as
suggested earlier, then retirement system designs could be
rethought

as well. Public jurisdictions have taken small steps in this
direction
during the last quarter century. We foresee changes in public
pension systems as a natural outgrowth of both the fi scal stress
that
states will confront over the course of the next decade and the
need
for states to reduce unfunded pension liabilities (Pew Center on
the
States 2010).
A rethinking of retirement systems could entail two obvious
changes. One would be to shift more of the burden for defi ned
benefi t retirement systems to employees. Th e introduction of
the
Federal Employee Retirement System in 1983 to replace the
Civil
Service Retirement System, which was originally created in
1920,
was the fi rst step down the path of greater employee
responsibility
for funding retirement.
A second change would be to convert defi ned benefi t plans to
defi ned contribution plans. Fiscally stressed states such as
Michigan,
for example, are considering converting teachers’ defi ned
benefi t
plans to defi ned contribution plans. Th e movement of public
pen-
sions toward defi ned contribution designs is likely to reduce
long-
term fi nancial obligations and increase governments’
credibility for
establishing new wage bargains with employees. Th is may
prove to

be a pivotal shift in public infrastructure.
Issue
public service and current developments, we
fi nd fertile soil for a revaluing of public service.
To accommodate and sustain a revalued pub-
lic service in 2020, we envision that public
service infrastructures will be modifi ed in six
key ways. By reinvigorating public work, new
life will be breathed into noble and meaning-
ful service. Attention will be given to highlighting the
challenging
and rewarding nature of public work, as well as more eff
ectively
structuring entry-level management and public–private
partnerships
in order to attract talented individuals to the public service.
Wage
and salary structures will be recalibrated and retirement systems
redesigned. Much can be done to reemphasize public service
across
organizational systems, reposition training and development as
a
routine element of the public employment contract, and rethink
ac-
countability structures that not only accommodate performance
but
also grant public servants a level of autonomy in which to
compe-
tently carry out work in the public interest.

Th e replacement of the Baby Boom generation will, by itself,
cre-
ate public service demand and opportunities that have not
existed
since the 1970s. Th e changes are less the result of growth as
they
are the exit of masses of job incumbents moving to another
stage of
their lives. Th is transition alone will change the public service.
We
can hope that the next generation of public employees will enter
a revalued and restructured public service. We are optimistic
that
demographic, social, political, and technological changes will
trend
in that direction.
Notes
1. Two semantic issues deserve comment. One involves the
precise scope of “public
service.” As we note, public service traditionally has referred to
government
employees. As nonprofi t and even for-profi t organizations
have been enlisted as
instruments of public action, however, we believe it is
appropriate to envision
public service more broadly. We use “public service” in that
spirit here, but, for
the most part, the people to whom we refer will be government
employees. A
related issue is our reference to public- or other-regarding
behavior, in which we
include civic engagement, community service, and volunteering.
We choose to

connect these behaviors to our discussion of public service
because a variety of
forms of civic engagement are indicators of public-
regardingness in the society.
We believe that shifts in public-regarding behaviors have a
direct bearing on the
status of public service in society.
References
Battaglio, R. Paul, Jr., and Stephen E. Condrey. 2006. Civil
Service Reform: Examin-
ing State and Local Government Cases. Review of Public
Personnel Administration
26(2): 118–38.
Bilmes, Linda J., and Scott W. Gould. 2009. Th e People Factor:
Strengthening America
by Investing in Public Service. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Borjas, George J. 2003. Wage Structures and the Sorting of
Workers into the Public
Sector. In For the People: Can We Fix Public Service? edited by
John D. Donahue
and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., 29–54. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Brehm, John, and Scott Gates. 1997. Working, Shirking, and
Sabotage: Bureaucratic
Response to a Democratic Public. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
———. 2008. Teaching, Tasks, and Trust: Functions of the
Public Executive. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.

Brooks, David. 2008. A Date with Scarcity. New York Times,
November 3.
———. 2009. Th e Reality Moment. New York Times, October
16.
changes in public service. Investments in
current and new public employees may be
essential to retain capacity in the face of retire-
ments. A second factor is that public work is
increasingly knowledge work. Add to this the
public’s high expectations for reliability and
performance. It is hard to imagine that leaders
will not eventually come to the conclusion
that human capital investments in public employees are both
effi -
cient and eff ective investments. A third factor is the shifting
institu-
tional rules where more employees are attached to public
service in
ways quite diff erent from traditional, lifetime career systems
(Perry
1994, 2007). New governance arrangements call for new skills
and
competencies (Salamon 2002). Th ese institutional changes
militate
for more training and development.
6. Rethinking accountability structures that accommodate
performance, but legitimize autonomy and competence of public
servants. Th at public servants wield substantial administrative
power is not new knowledge (see the previous discussion
regarding
Friedrich, Finer, and White). Th e potential to infl uence policy
through discretionary judgment in service provision has been a
signifi cant area of research (Lipsky 1980). Because of this, the

need
to understand and develop accountability structures has also
been
a focus of much research, particularly in the literature on
political
control of the bureaucracy (Wood and Waterman 1991).
Much of the control research is steeped in an economics-
oriented
tradition of principal–agent models, with a focus on securing
com-
pliance through supervision (Brehm and Gates 1997). While this
output-oriented approach may make sense in a private sector
set-
ting, the nature of the public sector holds some important
distinc-
tions. John Brehm and Scott Gates aptly note,
[B]ureaucratic policy output is notoriously diffi cult to moni-
tor. Public sector policy output typically does not lend itself to
piece-rate production. Ultimately, public sector organizations
are inherently infused with ambiguity. Th ere is almost never
a bottom line, but rather many overlapping and competing
goals. All organizations, even small private sector fi rms, face
problems of ambiguity, but public sector organizations must
overcome more fundamental issues of ambiguity—ambiguities
in terms of goals, design, and organization. (2008, 12)
What is needed are accountability structures that encourage
public
servants to achieve high levels of performance, but also provide
op-
portunities to exercise a degree of autonomy in their duties.
Brehm
and Gates (2008) suggest that appropriate training, the
cultivation

of trust, and improved task management can improve
accountability
structures in the public sector. Steps in this direction will help
make
the public service a more attractive career choice for those who
seek
to use their creativity in solving challenging public problems.
Conclusion
So what will the public service look like in 2020? Our review of
White’s future search reveals the importance of a healthy
respect for
historical developments in attempting to cut through the clouds
of
global and national economic, social, and political infl uences
that
shape public service. At the crossroads of the historical
progression of
To accommodate and sustain a
revalued public service in 2020,
we envision that public service
infrastructures will be modifi ed
in six key ways.
Buchanan, Bruce, II. 1974. Building Organizational
Commitment: Th e Socialization of Managers in Work
Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 19(4): 533–46.
Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt. 2003. Th e New
Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.

Denhardt, Robert B., and Linda deLeon. 1995. Great Th inkers
in Personnel Management. In Classics of Public Personnel
Policy, edited by Jack Rabin, Th omas Vocino, W.
Bartley Hildreth, and Gerald J. Miller, 21–41. New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Donahue, John D. 2008. Th e Warping of Government Work.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Finer, Herman. 1941. Administrative Responsibility in
Democratic Government. Public Administration Review 1(4):
335–50.
Frederickson, H. George. 2008. Finding Administration in the
Coming Public Era. Elmer B. Staats Lecture presented at the
Fall Meeting of the National Academy of Public
Administration, November 21, Washington, DC.
Friedrich, Carl J. 1940. Public Policy and the Nature of
Administrative Responsibility. In Public Policy: A Yearbook of
the Graduate School of Public Administration, vol. 1, edited
by Carl J. Friedrich and Edward S. Mason, 3–24. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Grant, Adam M. 2008. Employees without a Cause: Th e
Motivational Eff ects of Prosocial Impact in Public Service.
International Public Management Journal 11(1): 48–66.
Higher Education Research Institute. 1997, 2002, 2006, 2007.
Th e American Freshman: National Norms (annual series). Los
Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
———. 2009. Th e American College Teacher: National Norms
for 2007–2008.
http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/briefs/brief-pr030508-
08faculty.pdf [accessed August
28, 2010].
Hirschman, Albert O. 1982. Shifting Involvements: Private
Interest and Public Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.
Kauff man, Tim. 2009. Personnel Director Outlines Bold Plan
for Personnel Reforms. Federal Times, June 23.
Kettl, Donald F. 1988. Government by Proxy: (Mis)Managing
Federal Programs. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Light, Paul C. 1999a. Th e New Public Service. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
———. 1999b. Th e True Size of Government. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
———. 2008. A Government Ill Executed: Th e Decline of the
Federal Service and How to Reverse It. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of
the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Mangan, Katherine. 2009. Schools of Public Aff airs Benefi t
from Obama’s Call to Service. Chronicle of Higher Education,
May 11.
Marini, Frank, ed. 1971. Toward a New Public Administration:
Th e Minnowbrook Perspective. Scranton, PA: Chandler.
Miller, Michael A. 1996. Th e Public–Private Pay Debate: What
Do the Data Show? Monthly Labor Review 119(5), 18–29.
Morone, James A. 1990. Th e Democratic Wish: Popular
Participation and the Limits of American Government. New
York: Basic Books.
Mosher, Frederick C. 1968. Democracy and the Public Service.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Mulgan, Richard. 2005. Outsourcing and Public Service Values:
Th e Australian Experience. International Review of
Administrative Sciences 71(1): 55–70.
Obama, Barack. 2008. Acceptance Speech at the Democratic
National Convention, Denver, CO. New York Times, August 28.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/
conventions/videos/transcripts/20080828_OBAMA_SPEECH.ht
ml

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing
Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming
the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Paarlberg, Laurie E., James L. Perry, and Annie Hondeghem.
2008. From Th eory to Practice: Strategies for Applying Public
Service Motivation. In Motivation in Public Man-
agement: Th e Call of Public Service, edited by James L. Perry
and Annie Hondeghem, 268–93. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Partnership for Public Service. 2008. Getting On Board: A
Model for Integrating and Engaging New Employees.
Washington, DC: Partnership for Public Service.
Pearce, Jone L. 1983. Job Attitude and Motivation Diff erences
between Volunteers and Employees from Comparable
Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 68(4):
646–52.
Perry, James L. 1994. Revitalizing Employee Ties with Public
Organizations. In New Paradigms for Government: Issues for
the Changing Public Service, edited by Patricia W.
Ingraham and Barbara S. Romzek, 191–214. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
———. 2007. Democracy and the New Public Service.
American Review of Public Administration 37(1): 3–16.
Perry, James L., and Lois Recascino Wise. 1990. Th e
Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration
Review 50(3): 367–73.
Pew Center on the States. 2010. Th e Trillion Dollar Gap:
Underfunded State Retirement Systems and the Road to Reform.
Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States.
Putnam, Robert. 2008. Th e Rebirth of American Civic Life.
Boston Globe, March 2.
Salamon, Lester M. 2002. Th e New Governance and the Tools
of Public Action: An Introduction. In Th e Tools of

Government: A Guide to the New Governance, edited by Lester
M. Salamon, 1–47. New York: Oxford University Press.
U.S. Offi ce of Personnel Management (OPM). 2010. Senior
Executive Service Recruitment and Selection Fundamental
Competencies. http://opm.gov/ses/recruitment/com-
petencies.asp [accessed August 28, 2010].
Waldo, Dwight. 1968. Scope of the Th eory of Public
Administration. In Th eory and Practice of Public
Administration: Scope, Objectives, and Methods, edited by
James C.
Charlesworth, 1–26. Philadelphia: American Academy of
Political and Social Science.
Walter, Amy. 2010. Voters Aren’t Tired of Government.
National Journal, February 23.
Wessel, David. 2009. In Fed We Trust: Ben Bernanke’s War on
the Great Panic. New York: Crown Business.
White, Leonard D. 1942. Th e Public Service of the Future. In
Th e Future of Government in the United States: Essays in
Honor of Charles E. Merriam, edited by Leonard D.
White, 192–217. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, B. Dan, and Richard W. Waterman. 1991. Th e Dynamics
of Political Control of the Bureaucracy. American Political
Science Review 85(3): 801–28.
Acknowledgment:
Th is research was supported by WCU(World Class University)
program through the National Research Foundation of Korea
funded by the
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (R32-20002).

Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of
Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
WWW.THEPUBLICMANAGER.ORG70
T
Highs and Lows of the
Career Roller Coaster
Grimaldi
he working world has changed during the span of my working
career and
certainly since that of my father.When my father began his
career during the
height of the Great Depression, he worked twelve hours a day
and six days a
week. Then he went to school at night. In forty-four years of
work, he had
two employers. In my case, I worked for the federal government
for twenty-

six years—several different agencies, but essentially one
employer.
Meanwhile, today’s Generation Y’ers can expect to work for
multiple
employers. Indeed, the retirement system has been changed to
virtually
encourage such an outcome. So, it seemed apropos to discuss
some of the
virtues and liabilities of the new “screw ‘em, it’s a promotion”
or “I’ll get
mine and I’ll get mine again” mentality for job change.
Upside of Job Change
On the plus side of job change, you get to leave behind all the
mistakes
and enemies you made.You also get to ignore and move on from
any obli-
gations you might have because “you are never going to see
them again.”
The most effective proponent of this career path was Henry
Kissinger. He
moved swiftly from academe to national security advisor to
secretary of state
to international consultant to grand statesman. He never met a
challenge he

wasn’t able to overcome. In fact, he was able to drop in, become
the captain
of the team, call the plays, and leave for another team before
the play ends.
Think about it. This is a brilliant strategy that Henry was able
to hone to a
fine edge. If things worked out, he was a hero. If they didn’t, he
could claim
The Uncivil Servant
that the clowns who followed him
weren’t brilliant enough to carry out
his vision. Truly brilliant. Of course,
you have to be almost as arrogant as
you are bright to pull this off.
Risk of Peaking Early
Another advantage of rapid job
movement is that you get to try
something new before boredom
takes over. Of course, there is a risk.
There is always a risk.The risk is the

bombed-out hulk. (See below.) This
is the girl or guy who started as the
next hotshot. He or she moves to the
next job and the next and even the
next perhaps. Suddenly, at age twen-
ty-five or twenty-eight, say, the hot-
shot is at the top of middle manage-
ment at a tender age. Herein lies the
rub.Where do you go from there?
What do you do with a career
that peaks before thirty in the public
service? In the private sector, one
notes that at least Bill Gates was at
his first billion. Donald Trump was at
about $4 million, but of course that
is just about the same amount of
money Daddy gave him to “get his
start.” We won’t even go into the

Rockefellers or Kennedys, other
than to note that Teddy just snuck
under the wire to be old enough
when he was elected U. S. Senator.
And one cannot forget the joke
about Bush, the Father, that he was
born on third base and thought he
hit a triple. Well, I guess that would
apply to Bush, the Decider, as well.
Here you are at thirty knocking
on the executive door, and where are
you? You are looking into twenty
more years of labor with one or
maybe two rungs on the ladder. If
you got a promotion tomorrow,
would you hang around for nineteen
years and 364 days in hopes of the
last one? Are you going to be willing

to sit around getting 2.00345 percent
raises till they call your name for that
top rung?
Bombed-Out Hulks
Too many become bombed-out
hulks (BOHs). BOHs are what hap-
pens to the best and the brightest
when the pinch of the ever-thinning
career ladder takes job after job away.
The brass ring just isn’t within your
grasp.You are making decent money.
Your parents still think you are pro-
gressing and will one day own the
government. You are starting to see
that this is the last rung you will ever
stand upon. Your contemporaries
have moved on to the next level and
no longer have much time for you.

They may bring you along to the
next job, but generally they are
embarrassed for you.
You think you might quit or
take your talent to the private sector
or become a consultant. But by this
time your knowledge is so special-
ized that few will even recognize
what you do. You’d have to take a
couple of steps back. You have just
acknowledged that the upward spiral
of your career to date has lost some
momentum. You are married, with
kids. You have bought life insurance
because now you have something to
protect for the first time in your life.
It is not you, sadly, that has value, but
THE PUBLIC MANAGER F SUMMER 2006 71

your ability to provide a standard of
living—for others! You can see the
debt of college and weddings and
mortgages to the end of time.
You can’t relocate for a job
because you can’t move your kids to
a new high school. How will they
find a date to the prom? You can’t
start your own business because of
the budding debts and obligations
that have accumulated? How did that
happen so fast? And when did the
invasion on your freedom of move-
ment take place? And why weren’t
you guarding your own flanks?
Ironically, you still feel young,
just as bright and just as able as when
you were the new hotshot. What do

you do? You are a BOH. You walk
the halls recalling lost glory. People
don’t talk to you quite the same way.
People you were mentoring are now
at your level, but they don’t invite
you to the meetings where the deals
are cut and the decisions are made.
You are called afterward to carry out
the decisions you no longer influ-
ence. But you aren’t giving up that
easily. Just a year or so ago you were
an up-and-comer. Now, you have the
energy but no place to go with it.
Some get divorced. (It must be
the situation at home that is holding
you back.The spouse is not as enam-
ored of your momentum and long
hours.) The truly smart BOHs pour

that energy into something else.
They coach little league. They take
up art or play bridge or slow pitch
softball. (The beer belly won’t allow
you to get the bat around for that fast
stuff any longer.) Or they work out
at the gym—a good place to meet
the next significant other anyway. Or
they run for condo president.At least
there you can exert authority over
others and once again make deci-
sions about someone else’s money.
Exit Strategies
Or you start moving laterally to
other agencies.You might find some-
one who hasn’t figured you out yet
and laughs at your clever bons mots. If
you are really lucky, an elected official

or political appointee takes a shine to
your act and takes you along to his or
her next station in the train to politi-
cal office or corporate nirvana.
I can recall one such hotshot
who left government and went with
one of the Big Eight consulting
firms. (How dated does that make
me??) He became a “borrow your
watch to tell you what time it is”
consultant. You know these types.
They’re the ones who don’t really
add any value.They are brought in to
document the decision a politico has
made but still requires the weight of
a report to provide the gravitas to
have the nerve to make a change.
There are myriad firms and partners

who have made a fortune trading on
their contacts with former colleagues
in this way. If you are really lucky,
something like the U.S. Government
Performance and Results Act of
1993 will fall in your lap.You might
have been in the first wave of imple-
mentation of the latest rage to “make
government accountable.” You’re
now the expert. You can sell this
expertise. In the private sector, the
latest example was Sarbanes-Oxley. If
this wasn’t the latest incarnation of
the accountants’ employment act,
one will have to nominate its
replacement.
Later, this same hotshot left the
consulting firm after working for

one of the periodic commissions that
are going to reform the way govern-
ment functions.Talk about footprints
in the sand!! How many have there
been, and what is the difference left
in their wake? We are hard-pressed to
name them—two Hoover Commis-
sions, Grace,Volcker I and II, and let’s
not forget VP Gore’s National
Performance Review (the NPR, or
reinventing government initiative)
with its hammer symbol. For the
man who invented the Internet, he
should have been able to produce
better. And thank God for the aca-
demics to keep track of the wonders
of government they have left behind
as a legacy. They went with one of

the private-sector experts who was
going to reform government when
the guru declared victory and
returned to the firm his father had
started. Between them, they ran it
into scandal and poor performance.
Ah, what is life without irony?
Dragonslayer
Is this cynical? You bet. But do
not forsake me, oh my darlin’.
Occasionally, you read or hear of
Ol’ Johnson. He or she was the lucky
one. He or she had established a rela-
tionship with a former appointee
such that at a convenient point in his
or her career he or she is able to
escape BOH status (if he or she was
smart enough to “credential up” dur-

ing his or her idle time) and find a
job at some association or university
or think tank where his or her inside
knowledge is a plus—or even (shud-
der the thought) his or her expertise
is actually valued.
WWW.THEPUBLICMANAGER.ORG72
What one learns when one
makes this journey to the dark side is
that many denigrate the manage-
ment experience of government
executives.And what one finds is that
if you can manage in the Byzantine
environment of federal and, increas-
ingly, state systems, you can manage
anywhere. Coming from a system
where everyone can say “No” and no
one can say “Yes” into the world of

“get it done,” the creative juices
begin to flow. You know you can
digest anything they send at you—
because you’ve been there. You’ve
done it, and you’ve slain that dragon.
In the end, it is like going from
the major leagues to AA ball—with-
out the loss of physical and mental
skills that you acquired going from
hotshot to BOH. And it’s like riding
a bike.You don’t forget those lessons.
Now let’s be clear. You still aren’t
rich. In fact, had you stayed you
would likely be slightly ahead in asset
accumulation toward the ultimate
retirement. But what a fun and col-
orful ride it will have been.
In the end, if you are a

Generation Y’er, you never intended
to stay that long anyway. You were
punching your ticket only to get on
the fast track to corporate/lobbying/
consulting heaven. For those of us
who are your antecedents, the line
for that roller coaster has closed. And
you just ate wedding cake at your
child’s wedding.You feel a bit bloat-
ed, and a dose of indigestion is com-
ing on. [Burp!] Good luck and
Godspeed to all.
Public Sector April 2009 ��
ith plans to cut back-
room staff and cap
public servant numbers
and departmental funding, many

public servants will be consider-
ing their job security and career
prospects with trepidation.
Public Sector asked three people
working in the area of public sec-
tor recruitment and career advice
for ways to future proof your ca-
reer and what to do if you’re made
redundant.
Campbell Hepburn is General
Manager with The Johnson Group,
an agency specialising in recruitment
for the public sector.
Have a clear understanding about
this new environment and what is
expected of you as an individual,
your role, your team, your organi-
sation and where it fits into the big
picture.
Professional development
should be constant. Anticipate
which skills will be good in future
and develop those to make yourself
a valuable resource. The public sec-
tor is not immune from skill short-
ages and they are often around
specialisation.
Networking is absolutely criti-
cal in the public sector. It is not
just about positioning yourself
for new opportunities, but about
positioning yourself to seek help,

referrals, and just be informed
about the big picture and what’s
going on. Networking also makes
for an interesting and colourful
existence.
Develop your brand equity. It
is about being clear about who you
are and your chosen profession
and building the required skills,
competencies and experience that
reflect this.
Market your ‘brand’ by
building and maintaining diverse
personal networks; join IPANZ
and professional bodies and attend
events; keep connected through
online social networks like www.
Future proof your career
linkedin.com; build a reputation
for doing good work and being
productive.
Create career resilience in your
job – seize new opportunities, have
a can-do attitude, be flex-
ible, reliable and results
focused. Be known as a
team player, be visible, e.g.
be active in the social club,
volunteer to be part of new
projects.
Use a mentor or coach in

times of change.
There are plenty of oppor-
tunities at the moment if you
see it in a positive way – even
if that means employment
change. Embrace it for what it’s
worth and make the most of it.
Julie Thomas is a Service Delivery
Professional Practice Manager
with Career Services, a Crown
Entity and New Zealand’s largest
provider of independent career
information and advice.
Access available support to
assess your strengths, research
your career options, set goals
and develop a plan.
Increase professional
networking. If you find network-
ing challenging start with ‘hot’
contacts, such as ex-colleagues and
say you are starting to research
your options, my strengths are X,
Y, Z. Then move onto the warm
contacts and keep going out on a
web.
Join professional networks.
Question people about what’s
happening in their sector and or-
ganisation, in both the public and
private sectors.

Look for opportunities to
evidence your currency of skills
– for example if you are a general-
ist, what could you do more of
to future proof yourself. Identify
what employers are looking for.
Productivity is a big issue, so
you need to be able to evidence
that you can be productive and
effective.
At a time like this some people
may think now is my chance to
work less hours; it might pay less,
but will free you up for other
things.
If you are looking for a new
job, set yourself a timeframe
– whatever your tolerance level
is. When you reach it revise your
goals and your bottom line – what
you are prepared to compromise
on and what you aren’t.
Facing redundancy can be one
of the most stressful life events,
whether there is a lot or little
warning. Get personal support
networks in place.
Be resilient and hopeful for the
future, present yourself positively
and remain open to opportunities.

Penny Stonyer is General Manager
with Human Resource company Tal-
ent2 and has been recruiting for the
public service for 15 years.
In times of change it is inevitable
that there are opportunities and
challenges. It’s important not to
panic and think sensibly about
what skill sets are most likely to be
in demand.
The Government has said it
wants to shift resources from the
back office to service delivery.
It is important that you under-
stand better how service delivery
functions operate and how you
can contribute to that in a more
meaningful way to make yourself
a more effective and valuable
staff member.
Be proactive. Talk to
professionals and people you
value and who have insight,
including people who have
been around in difficult times
before in the public sector.
Job opportunities can
come from the most unlikely
sources and don’t necessar-
ily come along when you are
ready; have in your own mind
clarity about what you need in a

job, what turns your buttons on,
so you can test those opportunities
against a template and make the
right judgment call.
Wellington runs on network-
ing. Talk to people who under-
stand and have knowledge about
what is going on to enable you to
make informed decisions about
your career.
If you are made redundant be
clear it’s not about you personally,
but about the role and function.
Don’t come across bitter and
twisted. If you’ve got baggage
about the redundancy, prospective
employers will be really wary.
Don’t spray yourself around
– don’t have your CV everywhere
or you will look desperate.
“the most successful
people are those who
are good at plan b.”
James yorke

Part VI The Past as Prelude Were the Predictions of Cl.docx

Part VI The Past as Prelude Were the Predictions of Cl.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Part VI The Past as Prelude Were the Predictions of Cl.docx

Similar to Part VI The Past as Prelude Were the Predictions of Cl.docx (20)

More from herbertwilson5999

More from herbertwilson5999 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Part VI The Past as Prelude Were the Predictions of Cl.docx