Contrary to the Washington Post report of the Partnership for Public Service study, the Senior Executive Service is not "broken" and "mired in tired bureaucratic traditions." That is not to say that the SES would not benefit from reform, and the Senior Executives Association has proposed many needed reforms over the years. 

The assertion that the advocates of the service "hoped it would lead to a promotion system much like the military's"—in which promotions are based on serving in various capacities and different locations—is off the mark. The advocates, in fact, wanted to provide flexibility to political management to move executives to positions where, in their view, they were needed. Little or nothing in the statute addressed the issue of a promotion system. Therefore, it is no surprise that these executives "have been viewed primarily as agency-specific assets, not federal or national assets."

So which of the Partnership study recommendations should be adopted to revitalize the career leadership corps? 

• Provide a centralized office in OPM to address SES policy and programs. For several years, SEA has recommended such a focal point for managing the executive corps—and not just the SES, but all equivalent positions—with a government-wide perspective. OPM Director John Berry announced the establishment of the office this week

• Institute onboarding programs for new executives and ongoing development and training for current executives. Successful private sector corporations recognize the value of caring for top leadership, and it is long past time that the federal government do so, as well. This is particularly true because career leaders bring the continuity and long-term perspective—which political appointees cannot—to achieve policy and program objectives.

• Address the growing problem of inadequate executive pay, which is deterring many strong GS-15 candidates from aspiring to the SES. For virtually all of the Association's almost 30 year life, SEA has pressed for pay reform, often as a solitary voice. Because the likelihood of Congress de-linking its pay from SES pay—as the study recommends—is remote, we need at least to adopt SEA's recommendations to restore locality pay and include SES performance awards in the "high 3" annuity calculation.

Which of the Partnership study recommendations are ill-advised?

• Creation a new "‘National SES Corps' of mobile managers who will have rotational assignments and...work in multiple agencies...and the private sector during their careers." The value of executives who know their agencies' business should not be so easily dismissed, nor should we be quick to create two separate services which can pose new problems, e.g., how to enable executives seeking to move from one to another. Much can be gained from providing services to facilitate executive mobility—never done in the 30 year history of the SES—and to facilitate identifying executives whose skills and experience are needed in other agencies or in times of national emergency. Nothing has precluded achieving greater mobility but the lack of will and resources. This is abundantly clear by the fact that both DoD and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have moved, within the current SES framework, to require joint duty for SES positions. Finally, we are already faced with a crazy quilt of equivalent executive services—why should we further splinter the corps when what is needed is to bring these positions together under an umbrella which will enable managing the corps in a way to best use all of this executive talent?

• Abolishing Qualification Review Boards which vet candidates. While some may question its "real value," the fact is that its existence serves as a strong deterrent to any ill-advised decision to hire an unqualified candidate. A study has shown that the average time for QRB vetting is 2 weeks and that the greatest delays in hiring occur at the agency level, often due to the sign-offs required. The notion of a post-audit review is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

Finally, a few other recommendations would require thoughtful implementation.

• While no one would argue with improving the hiring process—including promoting better assessment tools—making the process more "applicant-friendly" should never override the need to assure that candidates are fully qualified.

• Determining whether individual executives are better suited to an SES versus an SL or ST position should not override the flexibility provided by the SES, namely, the ability to place an executive who manages large resources in a position which requires little such responsibility because he or she can uniquely provide value there.