Lapas attēli

Most of GAO's senior executives are responsible for responding to requests from the Congress for audits or evaluations of government programs within the framework of one of GAO's 32 issue areas. To carry out this responsibility, they must develop expertise in issues such as financial management reform, information technology, health care delivery and financing, major weapon systems, the administration of the tax system, transportation programs, or the implementation of governmentwide management initiatives.

To be successful, issue area senior executives' understanding of these agencies and programs must be commensurate with, and over time may exceed, the scope of knowledge expected from senior agency officials in the executive branch. Management of our work also requires issue area executives to develop knowledge about and professional relationships with representatives of the other organizations that are relevant to or affect the agencies they review.

On a day-to-day basis, issue area senior executives bring conceptual and team-building leadership to the work we do and to the staff carrying out that work. These responsibilities include the development of a strategic vision for the issue area to anticipate and plan for the evolution of issues facing the Congress. Issue area executives contribute directly to the methodological design and development of complex individual assignments, to the framework and sophistication of the analysis of the data, and to the structure and content of GAO reports. A typical issue area senior executive team may manage 25-50 assignments, involving staff in Washington and several regional locations. In addition to their substantive contributions, they are expected to motivate assignment teams to meet important congressional deadlines, to do so efficiently, and in a constantly changing environment.

GAO executives testify frequently on the results of our work before committees of the Congress. As shown in table 1, for example, in fiscal year 1995, 72 senior executives testified a total of 246 times, and this pace has been matched or exceeded in most recent fiscal years. During the period from fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1995, GAO senior executives testified before congressional committees more than 1,500 times.

Page 7

[blocks in formation]

To be responsive to congressional needs in testimony, our senior executives must command both very detailed knowledge about the specific work being reported as well as a depth of understanding of the issues and operations of the agencies or programs under review and the context in which the issues are being debated.


Historically Band IIIs, as assistant directors, have been the hands-on supervisors of the assignments we carry out. They demonstrate expertise at a program or sub-agency level, and-for several concurrent assignments-design the project plan, supervise and participate in data collection and analysis, and ensure that products are delivered on time, within cost estimates, and meet GAO's demanding quality standards.

Typically, a Band III assumes responsibility for a logically defined sub-issue within an issue area's responsibilities. To be successful, they must develop an in-depth expertise about those specific aspects of an agency's programs or functions that affect this subissue, and plan assignments in response to specific congressional requests or in anticipation of future congressional needs. They must motivate individual assignment teams and provide support to ensure that obstacles can be overcome and the work completed on time and within manageable costs. Oftentimes they participate in key interviews and analyses and may be the primary authors of our reports, particularly on more complex assignments. They are often the principal contact with congressional staff in presenting the results of specific assignments.

As assignments have become more complex, and as the demands for information to be provided more quickly have increased. Band IIIs have become more closely focused on fewer assignments, typically 3 to si, to enable them to provide the in-depth support and

Page 8

management necessary to meet these demands, and produce high quality products on time.

In recent years, as we have undertaken work in increasingly technical and complex areas, we have also strengthened our capacity by employing technical experts to support our work. Specialists in such areas as information technology, financial management, economics, statistics, tax administration, and other fields significantly enhance our capability to address complex issues. Many of these specialists also occupy Band III positions because it is necessary to pay salaries in that pay range to retain a high level of expertise. Today, about 17 percent of our Band IIIs are providing specific technical or functional expertise rather than filling the traditional assistant director role.



Our and others' work on the management of organizations that are being downsized shows that continuous workforce planning and concern about the morale and stability of the surviving workforce are important to the continuing success of the downsized organization. After a reduction and the necessary adjustment of staff allocations both in headquarters and regional offices, as has occurred at GAO, staff may be faced with new or changed jobs and may need additional support to achieve the level of productivity required in our smaller environment.

Studies of organizations that have downsized have also found that retention and motivation of the remaining employees is an important factor in maintaining an effective, if smaller, organization. Career development and progression opportunities remain important as factors in encouraging and motivating surviving staff. Reductions in middle management positions need to be balanced with the need to permit staff at all levels to aspire to and achieve career growth.

In GAO and in other organizations that have downsized, the departure of many senior, experienced staff results in a loss of expertise that requires additional adjustment for remaining staff, places increasing demands on managers and executives, and requires a continuing investment in training. In a smaller GAO, managers and senior executives will increasingly face significant competing demands to manage a complex workload while also providing support and training for staff.

Page 9


Successful management of GAO during this period of downsizing and in the upcoming transition at the end of my term of office will require maintenance of a strong leadership that can provide continuity and assure that our work continues to be timely and of high quality.

We, therefore, need to retain flexibility in the assignment of Band IIIs and senior executives. Some promotions to Band III positions will be necessary to ensure that our workload can be effectively managed. Similarly, the ability to establish, make appointments to, or eliminate senior executive positions within the broad guidelines of our existing authorities is critical to our ability to maintain the governmentwide program and issue area expertise that make our work most useful to the Congress. We will consult with our appropriating and authorizing committees about our management needs as we work to meet our future responsibilities to the Congress with fewer


We are providing copies of this letter to the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; and the Legislative Subcommittee, House Committee on Appropriations.

[blocks in formation]


Mr. PACKARD. You brought up asbestos abatement. How have you progressed on that and where are we in this process and what is planned for this budget?

Mr. BOWSHER. We are making good progress. As you may remember, we didn't make a lot of progress when GSA controlled the building. But we are now getting one floor done every year.

Mr. PACKARD. How many floors are done?

Mr. BOWSHER. We will have four floors done at the end of this year. We will have the fifth floor done in the next year. And that leaves us with two floors to do.

Mr. PACKARD. This budget reflects the fifth floor then?

Mr. BOWSHER. Yes. The third and fifth floors are reflected in the request.

Mr. PACKARD. And has that been going satisfactorily?

Mr. BOWSHER. Going quite well. The Corps of Engineers is our general contractor. We finally got the right general contractor, and it is the same firm that does the Pentagon, which has the same problem because it was built by the same builder, unfortunately. Mr. PACKARD. So in the next two years, beyond 1997, we will expect about the same amount for an additional floor each year?

Mr. BROWN. Actually the cost will decrease as we get closer to the end of the project. We estimate that in 1998, the cost will be about $9 million.

Mr. PACKARD. And this year it is how much.

Mr. BROWN. This year for 1997 we are estimating about 13 million.

Mr. PACKARD. I see.

Mr. BOWSHER. And we are saving rent; every time we can finish a floor, we bring people out of leased space.

Mr. PACKARD. They are not in leased space?

Mr. BOWSHER. When we bring them in, we save millions of dollars of leased-space money.

Mr. PACKARD. If there are any questions as we proceed, by other Members of the committee

Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, this question is probably not one that fits your agency's expertise, but has anyone studied what the hazard is of undisturbed asbestos?

Mr. BOWSHER. Yes, other people have studied that. Our building, unfortunately, had ductwork made of asbestos (and that is the situation also at the Pentagon) so we didn't have a choice except to remove the asbestos. I think, that those who studied this issue have concluded that in some buildings, not disburbing the asbestos is safer than removing it.

They also say that some ceilings containing asbestos can be painted and painting contains the asbestos. But our problem was that asbestos was in the ductwork.

Mr. THORNTON. I apologize for the interruption.

Mr. PACKARD. It is a good question because the cost-benefit ratio-you wonder if it really is worthwhile to do. But I guess we have to go by the experts and by the law.

[A question from Chairman Packard, and response, follow:]

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »