February 1996 J. Christopher Mihm is an Assistant Director for Federal Management and Workforce Issues at the U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO). He manages GAO efforts to assess the implementation of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and other results-oriented management initiatives. He was a major
contributor to the GAO reports: Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal
Management Reforms and Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insights for Federal Management
Reforms.
Several initiatives are shifting the focus of Government managers from program inputs to program results. Managers are now required to look at how well their programs are meeting intended objectives rather than at compliance with detailed procedures. Results-oriented initiatives that most affect human resources managers are:
What are the most important components of GPRA?. GPRA has four key elements:
What incentives encourage results-oriented management?. Three things come to mind:
How are human resources managers affected by these organizational performance initiatives? As agencies focus on results, human resources planning must become an integral part of the strategic planning process. Managing for results challenges human resources managers to produce creative ways of developing employees capabilities and using them to get work done. Managing for results requires training. Dan Kettl of the Brookings Institution has noted that when the Australian government began focusing on results, it found that training was essential, especially for middle managers. Australia spends about 5 percent of its personnel budget for training. Before budget cuts, the U.S. spent 1.3 percent for training. Now with tight budgets, Federal agencies will have difficulty keeping training money. Human resources managers will need to find alternatives to classroom training in order to develop employees without spending training dollars. Human resources managers should focus on redesigning their programs especially their appraisal and awards programs to align with the results-oriented goals of the organization. Our work has shown that traditional human resources programs may not be compatible with managing for outcomes and results. But it's not easy to do, as we've found from our studies abroad. Our work on leading foreign countries has shown that, although there is broad agreement on holding agencies accountable for achieving results, there is as yet no consensus on the best approach for holding individuals accountable. The challenge is to find the best approach to link individual performance to organizational performance. I think the flexibilities introduced in the new performance management regulations are very exciting and are a potentially important first step toward presenting agencies with the freedom to be able to develop appraisal programs that will produce accountability and management for results. Finally, human resources offices and other support functions are under pressure to show that they are of value to the organization. If human resources offices do not show that they have a customer focus and that they are results oriented, it is unlikely that they will survive the downsizing efforts. |