Joining Forces: Interagency Collaboration and "Smart Power"

Joining Forces
Interagency Collaboration and “Smart Power”

A Candid Survey of Federal Employees

Sponsored by:

About
The Research Intelligence Division
Of Government Executive Media Group

Dedicated to Advancing the Business of
Government
Through analysis, insight and analytical independence

Extension of GEMG’s 40 Years of Editorial
Standards & Ethical Values
GBC studies influential decision-makers to produce
intelligence-based analysis

www.govexec.com/gbc 2

Methodology and Scope

• In October of 2010, the Government Business Council launched a survey to a sample of federal
managers from the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for
International Development. The survey tested the behavior and attitudes of these managers on the
concept of ―smart power‖ and the role of interagency collaboration in their agencies. The result of this
research was ―Addressing Geopolitical Challenges: The Smart Power Approach‖, a GBC Insight Report.
• In October of 2011, GBC launched a similar survey to another sample of federal managers, this time also
incorporating responses from additional agencies and non-profit organizations.
• Research sought to determine:
– how federal agencies are currently addressing global challenges, whether they have adopted smart
power approaches and how agencies might implement cooperative and interagency solutions;
– the effect of interagency collaboration on the cost and overall success of achieving an agency’s
mission.
• GBC distributed the survey in two ways: by email to Government Executive’s subscribers; and through an
open link on GovernmentExecutive.com and via social media. The outreach targeted federal managers at
the Departments of Defense, State and U.S. Agency for International Development, but also included
other qualified federal managers.
• The following report uses results from the 268 federal and non-profit employees who completed the 2011
survey. A full 1130 participants began the survey, and 296 completed the survey.
• The report also incorporates data from both the 2010 and 2011 surveys when interesting trends or
changes in outcome were apparent.

Respondent Profile


Respondent Areas of Employment

Profile Federal employee
81%
(Defense, State, AID)

Federal employee (Other
• In the 2011 survey, more than 80 Agencies)
19%
percent of respondents are from
the U.S. Department of Defense,
NGO/Non-profits/Independent
the U.S. Department of State, or 2%
Contractors
the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
• The remaining respondents
include other federal agencies, Number of People Overseen
military, independent contractors
and other non-governmental Over 200 7%
parties. Over half of the
respondents surveyed oversee at
least one person. 51 to 200 8%

21 to 50 8%

6 to 20 22%
Percentage of respondents, n=268

1 to 5 20%

Respondent Profile: Departments and Agencies Represented*

Agencies listed in order of frequency


Respondent Profile: Other Departments and Agencies Represented*
Department of Homeland Security United States Government Accountability Office
Department of Agriculture United States Postal Service
Department of Veterans Affairs Department of Commerce
General Services Administration Department of Education
Department of Energy Department of Labor
Department of Health and Human Services Executive Office of the President (including OMB)
Department of the Interior National Science Foundation
Department of Justice Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Personnel Management
Department of Housing and Urban Development Small Business Administration
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Social Security Administration

Agencies listed in order of frequency


Executive Summary
Similar Missions, Separate Approaches
The federal agencies most involved in defense, diplomacy and development have overlapping missions. A full
70 percent of defense managers and 92 percent of Department of State respondents believe ―protecting the
security of the United States abroad‖ to be a mission priority of their agency. Yet, 40 percent of State
Department managers report that collaboration with the Department of Defense has failed to meet their
expectations.

Help Wanted
Diplomacy, defense and development need not be the missions of only the Departments of Defense, State
and the U.S. Agency for International Development; other federal agencies can also contribute. For
example, 50 percent of managers say that the Department of Commerce has the potential to make additional
contributions to U.S. interests abroad.

Political and Cultural Challenges Impede Collaboration
Managers are increasingly skeptical that collaboration will help them to achieve overall mission success.
Sixty-two percent of managers in 2011 believe that interagency collaboration will help overall mission
success, compared to 83 percent in 2010. Agency politics and poor communication are the central
challenges. Managers describe ―turf wars‖ that are detrimental to forming efficient working relationships.

Budget Pressures to Increase Importance of Collaboration
Federal managers are less optimistic about the potential cost-savings of interagency efforts, yet most agree
that budget pressures will increase the importance of interagency collaboration. A full quarter of federal
managers in 2011 expect that collaboration will increase the costs of achieving their mission, while 65 percent
of federal managers say that budget pressures will ―significantly‖ or ―somewhat‖ increase the importance of
interagency collaboration at their agency.


Smart Power Smart Power Applicability to Challenges
Remains Applicable
to the Same Humanitarian 47%
Challenges assistance/disaster relief 66%
Stabilization/reconstructio 42%
n 50%
• While the central smart-power
worthy challenges have not 41%
changed significantly from Conflict prevention
44%
2010, a few areas have lost
support in 2011. While 66 percent 23%
Counter-illicit networks
of managers surveyed in 2010 23%
said that humanitarian assistance
17%
and disaster relief can be helped Maritime security
by smart power solutions, 47 11%
percent of managers in 2011 say 31%
the same. Security assistance
30%
• Other areas such as maritime
security and irregular warfare Asymmetric 29%
have gained support. threats/complex… 32%
17%
Irregular warfare
14%

Percentage of respondents, n= 263 (2011) n=145 (2010) 10%
None of the above
4% 2011 2010


Smart Power Only Ability of Federal Government to
Somewhat Implement Smart Power Solutions
Attainable for
Federal Agencies -5% 2011 2010

• Similar to 2010, most managers in
2011 still believe smart power is 51%
only somewhat able to be
46%
implemented.
• Forty-six percent of managers in
2011 believe that the federal +5%
government is somewhat able to
implement smart power
solutions, compared to 51 percent
in 2010. 17%18%
15% 15%
11% 12%
10%
5%

Fully Mostly Somewhat Not implement I don't know
implement implement implement smart power
smart power smart power smart power solutions
Percentage of respondents, 2011: n= 266, 2010: n= 148 solutions solutions solutions


Federal Agencies “My agency has the tools and capabilities it needs to
Continue to Have the adequately address geopolitical challenges”
Tools to Address
Geopolitical 68%
Challenges
51% 2011 2010
• Agencies are confident that they
have the tools and capabilities 46%
they need to address global
challenges. A full 68 percent of
managers ―strongly‖ or
―somewhat‖ agree that their
agency has the tools and
capabilities it needs to address
geopolitical challenges. 22% 22%
• While 15 percent of managers in
15% 16% 16%
2010 fully agreed that they have
the capabilities to address 12%
geopolitical challenges, 22
percent say the same in 2011.

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat Strongly disagree
disagree
Percentage of respondents, n=265 (2011), n=224 (2010)


Agencies Effectiveness of Collaboration by Organization
Collaborate Most
Effectively with
Other Agencies Interagency
15% 59% 18% 8%
partners
• Federal agencies work most
effectively with other
agencies, compared to their work
with the private sector and non-
governmental organizations. More Private Sector 15% 50% 22% 14%
than two-thirds (74 percent) of
federal managers work at least
somewhat effectively with
interagency partners.
• Almost half of federal managers’ NGOs 12% 42% 22% 25%
agencies either do not work with
NGOs (25 percent), or do not
work with them effectively (22 Very effectively
percent). Somewhat effectively
Not effectively
We do not work with partners on geopolitical challenges

Percentage of respondents, n= 237


Interagency Effectiveness of Interagency
Collaboration Has Collaboration over Past Two Years
Made Small Strides
52%
2011 2010
37% 45%
• Federal managers agree that
interagency collaboration has
improved since 2009. Thirty-
seven percent of managers in 32%
2011 say that interagency 28%
collaboration has grown
―somewhat‖ or ―significantly‖ more
effective over the past two
years, compared to 31 percent
11% 10%
who said the same in 2010.
7% 7%
• A full 45 percent of managers in 5%
3%
2011 believe that interagency
collaboration remains about as
effective, compared to 52 percent Significantly Somewhat About as Somewhat Significantly
from 2010. more effective more effective effective less effective less effective

Percentage of respondents, (2011)n= 256 (2010)n=145


―While increased interagency
―Agencies do not give up collaboration would seem to have
resources to be more efficient with benefits in terms of bringing a
other Agencies--DOJ is not DOD wider set of interests and skill sets
is not State is not Treasury. to any given issue, it also creates
Agencies do interagency transaction costs that can be
collaboration when there is a significant, both in time and
mutual interest in performing the resources. All of these factors can
mission…[We need to] fashion an combine to increase costs and
interagency effort that has definite make government less rather than
goals for definite periods of time.‖ more nimble when dealing with
complex geopolitical issues that
often demand swift and decisive
action.‖

15

DoD, State and AID Top 5 Mission Priorities by Agency
Share Mission Overlapping Priorities
Goals
Department of Department of
USAID Other Agencies
Defense State
n= 170 n=30 n= 13 n= 54
Protecting the Protecting the
• Federal agencies have shared security of the security of the
Provide Advance
70% 92% emergency food 95% counter- 55%
mission priorities; managers United states United states
aid abroad terrorism efforts
identify aligning goals, particularly abroad abroad
between the Departments of Reduce Protecting the
Advance Form ties with
Defense and State. DoD and counter- 59% foreign 92%
widespread
90%
security of the
52%
USAID also have at least one poverty and United States
terrorism efforts governments
disease abroad abroad
mission priority in common.
Foster economic Support
• Other agencies also have similar Protect U.S. Protect U.S.
growth in international
objectives to DoD, State and citizens 54% citizens 90% 90% 49%
developing activities of
overseas overseas
USAID. Advancing counter- countries agencies
terrorism efforts, for example, is
Support Assist newly
an objective of both DoD and Form ties with international formed
Form ties with
managers at the Department of 52% 87% 84% foreign 42%
foreign military activities of democracies in
governments
Homeland Security. agencies governance
Support natural
Support conflict
disaster Support natural
resolution, Protect U.S.
recover, relief disaster recover,
47% prevention and 87% 84% citizens 38%
and risk relief and risk
Percentage of respondents, n= 267 mitigation overseas
reduction reduction abroad
abroad
abroad

Defense and Quality of Collaboration Between State
Diplomacy Struggle and Defense
to Work Together
Defense collaboration with
6% 32% 29% 18% 15%
the Department of State
• While slightly more than half (54
percent) of State Department
respondents say that their
collaboration with the Department
of Defense meets their
expectations, another 40 percent
report that it failed to meet their State collaboration with the 6%
20% 34% 40%
expectations. A significant portion Department of Defense
(39 percent) of DoD respondents
indicated that collaboration with
State failed to meet their
expectations. Exceeded my expectations
• Eighteen percent of Defense
Met my expectations
respondents and six percent of
State respondents say that Failed to meet my expectations
collaboration with one another
would be beneficial. My agency has never collaborated with them, but would find it beneficial

My agency has never collaborated with them, and would NOT find it
Percentage of respondents, (DoD) n=215, (State) n=35 beneficial


Other Agencies Potential vs. Actual
Have Potential to Contributions to Geopolitical Challenges
Address Geopolitical
60%
Challenges 53%
56%
51% 50% 49%

36%
• Agencies outside of DoD, State
and USAID have the potential to 27%
23%
contribute to U.S. government 18%
efforts to address geopolitical
challenges. Federal managers
believe many more agencies have
the potential to contribute than are Intelligence Agriculture Commerce Homeland Security
U.S. Trade Representat
doing so currently. 48%
• For example, only 18 percent of 44% 42% 42%
managers believe that he 37%
Department of Commerce is 27%
currently contributing globally, yet 24%
more than half (51 percent) see a 17% 15%
greater role for Commerce in 9%
international affairs.

Energy Justice Treasury FTC Education
Percentage of respondents, (Potential) n= 257, (Actual) n=259
Potential Actual


Less Optimism for Collaboration’s Effect on Overall Mission
Collaboration’s Role Success
toward Mission -21%
Success
2011 2010

• Managers are increasingly 83%
skeptical that collaboration will
help them achieve overall mission
success. Sixty-two percent of 62%
managers in 2011 believe that
interagency collaboration will help
overall mission
success, compared to 83 percent
in 2010.
• In addition, more managers are
wary of collaboration’s potential
hazards. Fourteen percent of 16%
managers in 2011 believe 14%
8% 9%
interagency collaboration would 5% 3%
make their overall mission less
successful, an increase of eleven
percent believed since 2010. No change More successful Less successful I don't know


Interagency Politics Challenges to Interagency Collaboration
and Ineffective
Communication
Interagency politics 53%
Pose Greatest
Lack of clear interagency policy 51%
Challenges
• Politics and communication are Ineffective lines of communication 50%
the central challenges to
interagency collaboration. More Cultural resistance to collaboration 47%
than half of federal managers
identify interagency politics (53 Lack of dedicated funding/budget 41%
percent) and lack of clear
Lack of time to focus on collaboration 32%
interagency policy (51 percent) as
challenges to collaborating with Security concerns 29%
colleagues outside their
department. Not an agency priority 29%
• Security and technology are not
the central obstacles to Technical elements not compatible 26%
collaboration. Only 22 percent of
managers describe the clearance Unsure who to contact outside agency 25%
process as a hurtle and 26
percent identify incompatible Security clearances not compatible 22%
technologies.
None of the above 10%

Other 4%


Smart Power Future “The departure of smart power advocates such as current
Secretary of State Clinton and Former Chairman of the Joint
Uncertain after Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen will _____ efforts to implement
Mullen and Clinton smart power solutions.”
Leave Office
Prevent Streamline
Other
4% 2%
• When asked to describe how the 3%
departure of smart power Hasten
advocates Secretary of State 5%
Clinton and Former Chairman of Delay
the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen may Propel 21%
bear on smart power’s 5%
implementation, 21 percent of
managers say it will ―delay‖
efforts, while 19 percent say it will Divert
―not change‖ efforts. 5%
• In comments, federal managers
also suggested Clinton and Modify Not change
Mullen’s departures would 7% 19%
―eliminate‖ or ―muddle‖ efforts to
implement smart power solutions.
To others, it ―depends on their Reinforce
replacements.‖ 10%

I don't know
Percentage of respondents, n= 268 19%


―The cost of achieving the mission
would be reduced if the
―The costs will shift, depending on
collaboration was actually done in
how much agencies' goals are in
an intelligent manner. Sadly, it
sync. But increased collaboration
rarely is. Entities are too focused
will increase effectiveness, even if
on fighting bureaucratic turf wars
it's not less costly.‖
at a detriment to efficiency and
effectiveness.‖

22

Agencies Are Less Collaboration’s Effect on Cost of Mission
Optimistic about Cost-
Saving Benefits of -10%
2011 2010
Interagency
Collaboration
52%
• While more than half of managers
(52 percent) believed interagency
collaboration would reduce the 42%
+10%
cost of achieving their mission in
2010, only 42 percent of
managers say the same in 2011.
• A full quarter of federal managers
25%
in 2011 expect that collaboration 23%
will increase the costs of 21%
achieving their mission.
15%
12%
10%

Reduce Cost Increase Cost No Change I don't Know


Current Budget Budget Pressure’s Impact on
Pressures Will Make Collaboration
Interagency Significantly
Collaboration More decrease
importance Somewhat
Important 7% decrease
importance
• Despite doubts about costs, the 9%
budget environment will make
interagency collaboration more
important. A full 65 percent of
Significantly
federal managers say that budget
increase
pressures will ―significantly‖ or
importance Have no
―somewhat‖ increase the
39% effect on
importance of interagency
importance
collaboration at their agency.
19%
• Sixteen percent of managers
believe the opposite to be true—
that budget pressures will
decrease the importance of
Somewhat
collaboration. 65% increase
importance
26%



Contact

Erin Dian Dumbacher
Associate Director of Research
Government Business Council
Tel 202.266.7619
edumbacher@govexec.com

http://www.govexec.com/GBC


Smart Power
December 5, 2011

This document is confidential and is intended solely for the use and information of the client to whom it is addressed..

Booz Allen is concentrating its efforts to support government and
other entities in making Smart Power actionable and to overcome
obstacles to collaboration

Today’s Environment Moving Forward

 Agencies believe that they possess the tools  Develop agency visibility into how the
and capabilities needed to adequately address resources and capabilities of others can
geopolitical challenges supplement or augment their mission
 Smart Power collaboration is perceived as  Help Departments and Agencies do more with
having a cost in terms of achieving missions less while leveraging complimentary
 Not viewed as an everyday decision-making capabilities from other organizations
model  Establish methods to measure impact of
 Lacks defined strategies or processes applying Smart Power solutions
 Reactive implementation  Illustrate strategic and operational frameworks
 Characterized by ad hoc decision making and capabilities that can unite actors in a
common purpose

27

For those issues that require a Smart Power approach, Mission
Integration provides a means for government agencies to focus on
five critical areas

Smart Power
Mega-
Community
f

BUSINESS

28

A Deeper Look—Managing and Budget

Current Landscape Strategies
Streamline resource allocation to reduce duplicative efforts
Build understanding of how to bring in external-to-
Limited funding government actors and develop mechanisms for resource-
pooling
Revisit budgetary processes within organizations to expand
special authorities
Authority mandates hinder
Explore creative engagement (public-private partnerships)
resource sharing
Clarify and properly align directives that delineate
organizational authorities and permission to collaborate
Integrate collaboration as part of upfront planning to build
understanding of where resources of others can be used
Explore longer term planning cycles to account for both
Collaboration Costs More
upfront costs, and longer term savings
Increase alignment between budget and impact, developing
performance metrics that measure value

29

A Deeper Look—People and Culture

Current Landscape Strategies
Explore mechanisms to expand cross-agency interactions
outside of urgent response situations
Lack of Trust Develop organization-specific strategies and policies to
improve proactive and integrated planning, training,
exercises, and coordination
Clarify and properly align directives that delineate
Absence of Clear Policy organizational authorities and permission to collaborate

Coordinate with other actors types for common missions
Duplicative Action Develop mechanisms to share mission planning and
priorities
Incentivize collaboration and coordination as a part of
individual performance
Cultural Resistance Develop understanding across all levels of the organizations
that collaboration and coordination is valued and ―a way of
doing business‖

30

Joining Forces: Interagency Collaboration and "Smart Power"

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Joining Forces: Interagency Collaboration and "Smart Power" (20)

More from Booz Allen Hamilton (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Joining Forces: Interagency Collaboration and "Smart Power"

Editor's Notes