Senior Executives Give Low Marks to Obama Appointees

Updated: May 28, 2011 | 9:10 a.m.
May 27, 2011 | 4:03 p.m.

President Obama gets low grades. (Pool/Getty Images)

Government Executive is part of the National Journal Group Inc. and the Atlantic Media Company. From time to time, Government Executive and National Journal will share content and collaborate on features and events.

A new survey shows strained relationships between senior career federal managers and executives and the political appointees they work with.

In the survey, respondents rated Obama appointees lower than those in previous administrations. Obama appointees earned a C average, or 2.0, compared with a 2.3 for those in the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations. More than 30 percent gave Obama appointees a D or an F for overall job performance, while only 20 percent awarded past appointees such low marks.

The study, conducted in April by Government Executive's research division, the Government Business Council, involved surveying 148 Senior Executive Service members and GS-15s about their attitudes toward current challenges and Obama administration initiatives.

The survey revealed skepticism about the ability of current political appointees to improve agency performance. One respondent said, "The role [of senior leadership] has increased, but the effectiveness, skill and knowledge has dramatically decreased."

Obama officials lack functional and agency-specific knowledge, according to survey respondents. Nearly 60 percent of respondents gave Obama appointees a grade of C or lower for their functional expertise, with less than 37 percent giving them A or B grades. Many believe appointees don't understand human resources and procurement rules, saying they presume the "institution is there as an obstruction" and attempt to "break organizations."

Appointees have "unbelievably poor communication with career employees," one respondent commented. Almost 40 percent of managers gave appointees Ds or Fs on collaboration and communication with their staffs. Some "have a divide-and-conquer strategy, and there are way too many industry fingers allowed in decision-making," a respondent noted. At another agency, a manager said the result has been "politicization of normal agency functions."

Further results of the survey will be featured in "The Chiefs," a June 15 special issue of Government Executive on challenges faced by government's chief officers.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Related Content
Expert Opinions
Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

7:33 a.m.

Latest Response by Michael Schmidt: Debate is Microcosm of Energy Policy

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

6:25 p.m.

Latest Response by Jack Rafuse: The LNG Export Conundrum: Dow Chemical

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

4:23 p.m.

Latest Response by Bernard L. Weinstein: Export more LNG to fight climate change

More Expert Opinions »

Columns
Charlie Cook: Off to the Races

Republicans’ Hatred of Obama Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals

May 20, 2013
Republicans are so focused on their bitter battles against Obama, they can’t see how little impact the “scandals” have had on public opinion.
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
More Columns »