Federal Government in Flux
Summary
In this episode, Jason Briefel and Natalia Castro of FEDtalk interview Max Stier, the President and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. They discuss the mission of the Partnership, which is building a better government and stronger democracy. They also explore the challenges of navigating partisanship and political pressure, the importance of trust in government, and the role of the private sector versus the public sector in solving national problems. Max shares his favorite public servant and highlights the initiatives and opportunities the Partnership is focusing on in 2024.
Takeaways
The Partnership for Public Service works to make the federal government more effective and efficient.
Navigating partisanship and political pressure is a challenge, but the Partnership remains nonpartisan in its approach.
Building trust in government and educating the public on the role of government are important initiatives.
Leadership transitions and succession planning are crucial for the future of the federal workforce.
To learn more about the Partnership for Public Service, visit: Home • Partnership for Public Service (ourpublicservice.org). To nominate people or teams for consideration for the Partnership’s Service to America Medal, click here.
-
Jason Briefel (01:07.698)
Hello and welcome to Fed Talk. I'm your host, Jason Breifel, joined by my colleague, Natalia Castro.
Natalia Castro (01:13.87)
Hello, everyone.
Jason Briefel (01:17.15)
And this season, we're exploring the federal government influx. And I am super pleased to have a great guest here helping us kick off this season. And as we dive into this topic, someone who's been in and around this space for a long time, he's the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service. Max Stier, thanks so much for being here with us on Fed Talk.
Max (01:43.291)
It's a pleasure. Jason and Natalia, thank you for inviting me.
Jason Briefel (01:47.194)
Awesome, Max. Well, this is a really interesting time in our nation's history, a really critical time for our federal government and its ability to both accomplish its mission and transform to better deliver that mission for the American people. And before we dive into discussion, just for those listeners who may, for some reason, not be familiar with the partnership, which has been around for 22 years, can you just let us
know what the organization is, what your mission is, and kind of what you all are up to and trying to accomplish.
Max (02:22.039)
Yeah, thank you for that. And I'd like to believe that a lot of people know, but truth is that we have a lot more work to do. But we are a nonpartisan nonprofit organization working for a better government and a stronger democracy. And our theory of the case is that we live in a very scary world, lots of challenges that move very fast. And we have one tool as a society to address those big challenges that has the premature of the public and taxpayer resources behind it.
federal government. And the tendency is for most people inside and outside of our government to spend all their energies on the policy choices that are being made and very, very little energy on ensuring that the institution itself is best able to deliver on the results of those policy choices. And, you know, to be very blunt about it, we have a wonderful government that is
Max (03:21.853)
demanding new capabilities and throwing new challenges at it. So our goal is really about capacity building. How do we make our federal government more effective to do what we need it to do?
Natalia Castro (03:35.358)
Max, thank you for that overview. I think the partnerships work is incredibly important. As you mentioned, there is often a strong focus on policy that is not coupled with a focus on implementation. We here on Fed Talk are huge believers in the people behind the policy, the people that actually get it done. And the partnership has been a long time advocate for those people, which is why we wanted to have you on our first season of this new Fed Talk.
program that we've launched this year. You have been president and CEO of the partnership since its founding. What keeps you motivated to get out of bed each day and continue doing this work, even when the focus is so much on the policy and not always on the people?
Max (04:22.339)
Well, look, I think at the end of the day, purpose is what motivates me and a real belief that policy choices are virtually irrelevancy if you can't get them done effectively. And I also am a big believer in the road less traveled. I think that we all have opportunities to make our world a better place. And those opportunities are larger when you choose a path that not everyone else is following.
I could give another answer, which is I'm stubborn, which is undoubtedly true as well. But I feel lucky and a lot of gratitude to the ability to work in this area. And all I have to do is to take a look at the public servants themselves and what they're accomplishing. You are both familiar with our Service to America medals, which really works to identify the most innovative federal employees. And by the way, we have nominations open for the Service to America medals, the Sammies.
would be great if your listeners would think about great public servants that they could nominate, but you just have to look at them and the work that they're doing and you're like, anything I can do to help you achieve those ends is a good thing. It makes for a good day, a good week, a good month, a good year, a good decade, on and on and on. So not hard on my part. I feel again, really lucky to be able to do this work.
Jason Briefel (05:48.53)
I feel really similarly, Max, that it is the great people on the inside when sometimes you feel like you're banging your head against the marble walls of Washington, D.C. And and they also give me and I think our whole team at Shaw Bransford for energy to go forward. You know, I do think that, you know, it's just facts that we live in an era of kind of rampant, runaway, partisan polarization.
And I'm curious how the partnership builds bridges across administrations, across organizations to try to navigate that landscape to get to this place where we can have more critical discussions. And sometimes we're able to because of that partisanship or those lenses that different people or organizations might be bringing to the table.
Max (06:33.463)
Yeah, no, I think obviously that.
It's a big challenge for us as a society. And what we know is that we are a society, we are a country. And I think there's a tendency to focus on all the differences and not enough attention paid to the community that we represent. And it's one of the reasons why I actually enjoy the work that I'm doing, which is it is and should be outside of the partisan battle lines. You know, there are absolutely important
legitimate disputes about the role of our government and those policy issues we just identified. But there really should be zero disagreement over the desire to see our government succeed in doing whatever it's supposed to do and succeed in doing it in as most efficient and effective way possible. And that's part of being in a democracy. You don't get to choose. You are part of the
body politic that collectively gets to choose through your elected leaders. But what holds us together is this collective entity that has got the imprimatur of the public and taxpayer resources behind it to achieve the goals that our political process ultimately sets. And the more we can focus on that, the better I am a firm believer that there are more agreement
And it's best often to focus on the places that people can agree on before trying to get to the places where they disagree. I think there's a tendency to move immediately to the disagreement place and then everything becomes a disagreement. So, but I would be.
Max (08:23.515)
not truthful if I didn't say it's a harder environment today than it's ever been during my lifetime. And I think it calls upon all of us to really get back to first principles and the core requirements of a successful society to say we have to do better. And part of doing better is to focus again on those places where we can come together and not separate.
Jason Briefel (08:50.35)
Yeah, I find it interesting Max that there are, you know, the National Governors Association among other organizations who are pushing just basics of civility and decency, the ability to have disagreements without, you know, coming to fisticuffs. And, you know, that feels hard in kind of the cancel culture that we're living in today. And I wanted to follow up and just ask, you know, have you felt any pressure, you know, whether from
from your board, from staffs, from others in this space to take a more partisan stand on any issue. I know, for example, coming out of January 6, there were people and organizations who said, there are various lawmakers that we can't or won't work with right now. How do you navigate that kind of stuff? Has that come up for you and the team at the partnership?
Max (09:41.275)
So you know, Koki Roberts was one of our very early board members, and I remember vividly her coming to do a staff lunch at the partnership and getting a version of this question.
asked of her as a board member and as a prominent journalist and a very thoughtful person, unbelievably thoughtful person. And she was, you know, categorical on this, that, you know, part of the partnerships DNA, part of its capability to be successful is the fact that it's nonpartisan. And I say nonpartisan, not bipartisan, because I think those are different things. And so
I certainly have not felt any pressure to be partisan. I think the challenge is the way in which certain choices we make might be perceived as partisan. And we have to do our best to understand why that might be the case, still speak up on the issues as we must according to our values and charter. But...
also do it in a way that is true to our DNA of being nonpartisan. And that's hard sometimes. And I just this past weekend heard a journalist talk about the difference between being objective and balanced. And I think that is part of what we try to do. Bluntly, we've been concerned about choices that
administrations have made of both parties. And I will say that I don't think any administration has really focused on these institutional health issues at the level that I believe is important. But once more, that's not being partisan just because there's a
Max (11:37.375)
political flavor in charge at that moment. It's actually being objective according to our understanding of what is good for our society and our democracy. So yeah, it's hard. I think there's too much of lens looking through that defining everything as partisan. And I think it is a product, and I will describe this as Washington, more than it is in most other places. And we try to step around that,
you've got to realize that that's how much can be perceived. So, you know, it's part of the, you know, the judgments we make day to day and, you know, over months and years. And a lot of it's about like the people that we bring together. We have our five C's that are our core DNA and
It's, you know, we believe in continuity. Like one of the challenges for our government is the turnover of leadership means that focuses on things like sustainable organizations don't happen, connectivity across the different parts of government and parts of our society. The third C is being constructive. And I think that helps us. So our view is that it's pretty easy to find problems. It's way more valuable to find solutions. And so we do our
best to not just identify, hey, this is not working, but say, and this is a better way of trying to make it happen. And I think that helps on this issue when you can focus constructively. I think then there's less of that partisan lens that dominates.
Natalia Castro (13:10.846)
Max, I want to pull the thread on this just a little bit more. There were a couple of things that really stood out to me in your response just now. You talked about how even though there has been this issue on both sides across administrations of not enough focus on the workforce, you guys still have these kind of core values that you push forward. You try to be constructive in a time where there just isn't.
a lot of political impetus to really focus on the people and the workforce across administrations. I'm curious, how does the partnership try to find even maybe small victories or what does victories look like for the partnership in a world where we just know there isn't enough political attention on the people on both sides?
Max (13:58.635)
Yeah, well, I love the, you know, again, this is part of me, but the constructive is focusing on those small victories. And, you know, it's interesting that, you know, one of the early pieces of legislation that went through the House and support, you know, again, by both political parties was something that was improving the hiring process. So, you know, I do think that there are lots of places, and especially if you can take it outside of preexisting battle lines, that you can actually get agreement
A lot of this stuff just makes sense. I mean, most people, at the end of the day, given a choice of saying, I want our tax dollars to go to good use versus bad use. I want them wasted or not wasted. I mean, the answers are pretty clear. I want Americans to get good service versus bad service. When you boil it down in this way, and it really is about this in most instances, you can really get agreement. I do think one of the big challenges here is that even if you get agreement, if you don't get prioritization, you don't win.
And I think this is an important lesson that I've learned over time, which is in a world in which there's so much and too much happening at any given point, it really requires...
um, a depth of commitment from champions in the congress or elsewise to move anything. And so, um, you don't win simply by getting everyone to say, yeah, that's a good idea. You only win if they say, yeah, it's a good idea. And it's one of the three things I'm going to make happen. Uh, so, um, that's really important. And I, my own, you know, sort of, uh, worldview is persistence is an undervalued virtue. So if you keep at it, yeah, oftentimes you can get, you know, wins as
Max (15:39.709)
the small wins that are happening already, or getting them done, is a really good strategy to create momentum and impact.
Natalia Castro (15:51.118)
Speaking of winning, we are in a presidential election year with two major parties that are offering fundamentally different visions for the federal government and especially the federal workforce. I think this is one of the few elections in recent memory where the federal workforce is really part of some platforms. There is a lot of discussion about politicization in the government, the accountability of the federal work.
force, things like that. How does that affect your work and the way that the partnership pursues its objectives?
Max (16:27.447)
Well, you're right. I mean, we have entered the political silly season. And I think that everybody gets a little more fraught in terms of the way they behave and act and look at things. And we're part of that ecosystem. And so I think it's important for us to understand that. And there are very important issues that are on the table as well. And one of the things that I try to understand
understand is that there really is a difference between the political campaign and the governance questions that are really the primary focus of the partnership. And a great example of that is our Center for Presidential Transition.
You know, we're not offering advice to anybody about how to win an election, but we are saying to them You know winning an election isn't actually the end goal. It's actually governing That's then and you can't be effective at governing if you start preparing for it after you've already won because there's no time It's way too complicated too hard. It's the largest most important takeover of any system and any entity in our history and one of the things that's true this cycle, which I think is
I'm hopeful will be treated differently is understanding that a transition is not simply an incumbent, I'm sorry, not simply a challenger winning over an incumbent. An incumbent winning a second term actually is a transition as well. And a smart incumbent would do pretty much the same kind of investing in personnel planning and in implementation issues that a challenger needs to do. And so far that has not ever happened before.
So we stick to our knitting. We focus on the issues that are, what are our purpose as an organization. And that can be challenging. Sometimes people try to pull you in and you have to just step aside when that happens, when you can. Now, I think in this cycle, there are also, as you've noted, some issues about the federal workforce that have been raised in the primaries. And...
Max (18:41.387)
will speak up when we believe that our voice is important. And the one issue that has probably received the most attention is something that came up at the end of the Trump administration, which is the so-called Schedule F, which would convert large numbers of queer civil servants into something that would be the equivalent of a new group of political appointees. And our position is really straightforward on that, which is...
You're undermining the capability of our government to do what you want it to do. Uh, and it's a bad choice and it's taking us back to the spoil system. And we have already too many political appointees.
more than any other democracy out there by a huge margin. We don't need more. We need fewer actually. And indeed there's actually a way better way to deal with any legitimate and there are legitimate concerns around accountability, around good leadership, and around effective management of the federal workforce. So we have a whole set of proposals that we think would make things better without burning the house down. So that's our advocacy there. But in general,
Again, that's not partisan. That's just following our views about what will make our government better to serve the American public.
Jason Briefel (19:56.882)
Max, I think you present a really important dichotomy, and it's one that I feel like it's lost in the sauce, you know, between the folks who are on that campaign staff, you know, significant proportions of Americans on the left and right who see things through, you know, the blue or the red lens. And as you said, you know, winning the election isn't the end of the race, you know, governing and implementing your ideas, and hopefully implementing them in a sustainable way.
that delivers the value and promises that are made to the people is part of the key. And, you know, I appreciate the partnership's longstanding advocacy on this notion that, you know, the number of appointees writ large that we have in the current system is not actually helping us deliver more. I know there's a lot of academic research that also shows that it diminishes presidential authority when you have all of these different layers of both appointees and senior career managers and.
you know, how do we better educate? Who is the audience that needs to be educated about, you know, how we've designed and how we staff the government? You know, because I do think that many Americans are focused on those policies, and they don't know how, they probably don't care how they're getting implemented. And that's part of, I feel, the challenge and the hole that we're in, where some of the ideas that are being advanced like Schedule F seem palpable.
You know, many Americans can't even name all three branches of government. Let's be honest.
Max (21:30.347)
Yeah, well, first of all, Jason, I think that's very thoughtfully said. And I will try to take this in a different direction because I think you covered that turf extremely well. I mean, part of the work that we've been doing at the partnership, and this is a newer portfolio for us, is really trying to understand the relationship between the rest of our society and our government and to build trust in our public.
sector institutions. And our theory, ultimately, is that we need a trustworthy and trusted government both. And largely, our work has been focused on the trustworthy piece. And we're now spending more energy on understanding and hopefully influencing the trusted piece. And I think the direct answer to your question about how do you address the gap in understanding is you fill it with information,
Max (22:27.929)
is most Americans, if you say the federal government, they are thinking about bickering politicians in Washington.
That is what comes to mind for them. What we need to round out the picture with is those career civil servants who are in fact the ones that make up the bulk of our government and who are doing things that are fundamentally of immense value to the American public. And we need to see those stories told better by everybody. And when I say everybody, I mean, our federal government needs to do a better job of telling those stories.
doing a better job of it. We are trying to do that, trying to get our Sammy's Service for America medals program out to a larger audience and tell the stories in other ways. And we need especially key stakeholders like the entertainment industry and the business community also sharing those stories because we see that,
when that happens, that there's a whole different conversation and a whole different appreciation of why caring about the fact that only 7% of the federal workforce is under the age of 30 actually matters, not in an abstract way, but to Americans who want to get their social security checks and make sure that we're protected from foreign adversaries and ensure that their food and water are safe and on and on and on and on and on. So...
A lot of this is about really ensuring that those stories about those people who are, you know, 85% of them outside of the DC area, 40% of them being veterans, you know, on and on and on, that matters a lot and filling that gap would make a huge difference. So we've got increasing effort to do that. We're a small against size of problem and, you know.
Max (24:26.867)
efforts like this podcast will help and we need more of it.
Natalia Castro (24:31.854)
You know, Max, I think the way you frame up this issue is really interesting to me because you talk about all these different ways that the federal government is really integral into the lives of most Americans without them even realizing it. And for me, I'm someone who grew up in a more conservative household, in a more conservative area. And if you would have asked, you know, me as a kid, my family, who the change agents were in our country, it would be private sector businesses and these, you know, these big business leaders and stuff like that.
Mark Cubans of the world. And there was this kind of perception, I think, and it is very common in the more right-leaning circles that the person to answer your problems is not the public sector, it's the private sector. And so this storytelling is incredibly important so people understand the role of government in our country. What would be your just maybe one minute reply to someone who says, the private sector can do it, we don't need so much to get done in the public sector?
Max (25:29.031)
Yeah, well, it's a wonderful question. And I think it's important to appreciate where people are coming from. Because it doesn't help to hide from that. You have to understand. So I think that's exactly right. And I think you come back to the question, do you want the private sector to protect us from foreign threats? Do you want the private sector being the front line on our borders? Do you want the private sector...
um uh allow to uh you know collaborate or to uh um
to make agreements that are monopolies. So again, do you want the private sector to be the tax collector for you? Do you want the tire? So you start asking those kinds of questions and you're like, maybe not, maybe not. And then, are you happy about your social security check or your small business loan or?
you know, your weather information, you know, the list goes on and on. I think.
unpacking the set of services that are being provided by our government, the highway that you're driving on. Again, the list is long and important. And at the end of the day, I think there are legitimate differences about how far afield or how deep you want the public sector to go. But whatever it is, there's going to be some element. There are very,
Max (27:10.054)
And even there, you're not immune from threat, environmental, otherwise. You need to get mail. You still have to care about the climate. You still want to make sure that the water you're drinking doesn't have mining runoff going into it, and that the air isn't poisoned. There are a lot of public goods that we expect and need.
Natalia Castro (27:14.006)
You still need to get mail.
Max (27:33.847)
wherever we are. So there's going to be some level of public sector desire everywhere, and you want it to be good. And if you want to live in a democracy, setting that level is not yours to make by yourself. It's a collective effort. And we have to understand that and then agree that if someone wants something more, they're going to have to make it.
and they have their voice and accountability and have the majority, then we have to support that too being done right. Anyway, I never had a conversation with a small government proponent.
that didn't include agreement on this, ever. And so I think if you can actually make it a real conversation, the answers are going to be pretty clear.
Natalia Castro (28:27.598)
And I think one of the keys of what you just said is regardless of how big or small you think it's supposed to be, there's going to be something and it needs to work well. And that's something I've always appreciated about the partnerships mission, about what we do here and about the conversations we're trying to have is even if you believe there should only be 10 government employees, they should be 10 great employees who are doing their job for the American people.
Max (28:39.642)
Right.
Max (28:52.427)
Right, exactly right. It will stay. Yes, yes, yes.
Natalia Castro (28:55.298)
That's far too few, but it has to be done well.
Max (29:01.263)
Right.
Jason Briefel (29:03.614)
And that sentiment, you know, just working with you, Natalia, coming from different perspectives and worldviews is something that I think I've always appreciated is how do we get to better? How do we have that different conversation as opposed to what is the policy? Because we can fight about the policy all day long. But the outcome, what service, good or benefit are we providing and delivering for the public? I think that there's a lot more common ground there, hopefully, especially given that we're all paying into this system with our taxes.
Well, Max, you talked about your important work about trust. And I think that this is a huge topic and I'm glad to see it getting increased attention. You know, I'm curious about opportunities or initiatives, you know, either that you all are running at the partnership or that you may have kind of focused on either especially Congress and the executive branch, which is I know the two of the three branches of government that you all focus on most.
What are some things in 2024 that you're excited about and see some opportunity space around?
Max (30:05.419)
Well, number one, I do think that there are some broader system changes that need to take place. And moving legislation is always challenging, and it's just even harder today. But I'm hoping that we might see more attention to issues like the broken confirmation process or the actual constructive ways of making our civil service better, the fact that we have a pay system that
9 is crazy. It's all about internal equity and not market connectivity. So here again, you think about ideology. The reality of this is that this is a system, the arguments usually are federal employees pay too much or too little. And the basic answer is they're paid in the wrong way. And so let's fix the way they're paid. And that will resolve whether they're going to be paid more or less because they're paid in the right way. And that's
Max (31:05.333)
to do the job that you have to do. So I'm hopeful around, you know, I still believe, and sometimes in elections years, you can see more movement in that way, because no one knows who, in fact, is going to be in charge. They may be more willing to try to make sure that it's going to be good for whomever is in charge, thinking that it might be them.
Obviously our Center for Presidential Transition work is kicking in. And I think that has really significant implications for every cycle is different. I think this cycle is extra challenging. I want to lean into this question of what does a good planning look like for a second term transition? I'm very excited. I think it's a profound problem that our government only has 7% of its workforce under the age of 30.
and we've started a government-wide student internship program that I think is making real tracks and getting really high quality diverse talent into agencies and I'd love to see that grow further and that really excites me. I'm a big believer at the end of the day that it all boils down to leadership and our work around developing a common leadership model for what good public
Max (32:23.237)
that at scale has been very important. So I'm hopeful that we grow that out, get more buy-in to this common vision. You know, it's across the board. You know, our three priorities are great talent, great leadership and a good relationship, effective relationship between our society and our government. And we have programming across the board and all of them. And I raised the AMEs earlier, can't help but come back to that. I think once again, back to the constructive piece, the way we'll have better government
the good things that are happening and share those and build on them. And those will answer many, many of the challenges that exist. So plenty to do. I mean, there's no shortage of work for everybody at the partnership. I'm hopeful that everyone will get a little bit of a break over the holidays. But 2024, I think, is going to be a doozy.
Jason Briefel (33:14.91)
Yeah, absolutely. And I really appreciate you mentioning the leadership piece. As you know, we represent several different federal employee professional associations, including a lot of work at the Senior Executives Association. And that's an area that I'm particularly focused on and paying attention to this year, just recognizing the really significant proportion of experienced leaders who are ready and eligible to retire. I predict a significant number of them will indeed.
do so, we've seen those numbers ticking up over the past several transitions, and, you know, are we doing enough inside of our agencies to prepare that bench? And to prepare the bench not just with people who know the technical aspects of their job, but kind of have the interpersonal skills, the emotional intelligence, are fostering that psychological safety in their organization so that all of their staff can really bring their best and also kind of roll with the reality that no one really knows where we're going.
You know, there's kind of the playbooks of the past have been shredded in many ways, including around transition. And so, you know, what do we do when there's no playbook? What do career leaders do when there's no OMB memo telling them the steps to follow? And I'm curious about your thoughts on that. And if you're seeing whether it's generational differences or...
increased attention to this matter within agencies. I know that you all are doing some critical work with your leadership center.
Max (34:42.675)
Yeah, no, look, I mean, I'm excited. I were on track for I think it's the second leadership, annual leadership conference, early in the new year, which I'm with SEA, which I'm very much looking forward to seeing and participating in. And I think, again, we're on the same page. I mean, if you boil down our theory of change, it comes down to leadership inside and outside of government,
Max (35:12.849)
but leaders matter. And so, you know, your point, I think, is a really important one, that our world is changing and our government needs to keep up and get ahead of those changes. And that's all about people. And so, you know, a great example, in my view, is in the technology space, it's a real problem that it's something under 4% of the federal workforce is under the age of 30 in technology.
But the reality is the bigger challenge is, the lack of investment in the leaders in government to understand technology and its implications for mission delivery. And unless you have leaders who are literate and sophisticated, they're not gonna even know where or when or why to lean on expertise that is inside or outside of government. And so, we have a program where we're trying to help.
uh you know SES and GS15 understand AI. I mean obviously everyone is talking about AI and we've been doing this for five years already uh so it's a long-standing effort um but the bottom line here is technology is an enabler it's and it's fundamentally changing both the kinds of problems we have to address and as well as the opportunities to really do things better. So
Max (36:39.241)
leaders. We need to help them have the skills and the capabilities that can answer the call of today. Your point about retirement, I mean, it's hard to know. We've been talking about retirement tsunami for a long time. The truth of the matter is that
federal employees are there more for mission than anything else. And so they stick around even though if they can be retirement eligible, and even if it might not make financial sense for them, but they care about what they're doing. It's still the case that we're losing a lot of really important talent. And we ought to have a robust pipeline of good people coming in. And in my view, more mobility. I think it's...
In today's world, the problems we need our government to solve are rarely solvable by a single agency or a single level of government or a single sector.
And I think you have better outcomes if you have people who have experience in multiple organizations and multiple kinds of, of organizations. And by and large, that is not what happens in our, in our, in our public service where people have a tendency to go into an agency and not move around. And that's not good for them. It's not good for us. So, that's another place where
We had a proposal a while back that you shouldn't be able to get into the SES unless you've, the SES, not the SLRST, important distinction, unless you've worked in multiple agencies, multiple levels of government or multiple sectors. And I'm like, that's a pretty low bar as far as I'm concerned. And if you're actually a subject matter expert, you should be an SLRST and not an SES. But I think that mobility piece you ask about, that's one where I would be leaning in very heavily,
Max (38:31.197)
that matters a lot for capability. And I think it's good all the way around.
Jason Briefel (38:37.114)
Yeah, I remember. I'll go ahead and tell you.
Natalia Castro (38:37.246)
Max Yufs.
Max, you've spoken a lot about some of these initiatives in the executive branch and Congress. The partnership is not as involved with the judiciary. I'm just curious what some of the logic and rationale for that is. Obviously the judiciary is more backward looking, doesn't really engage in the policy implementation as much. I'm just wondering if that's more of a strategic choice or if it's just because of the nature of the judiciary.
Max (39:05.199)
both.
Yeah, I think it's your, so one, I mean, we get calls about going into state and local all the time and we're like, no, can't do. We have to draw a line someplace. We probably have drawn lines not sufficiently tight as it is. For sure the judiciary matters, but I do think it's really different. And so it's strategic in the sense that we're trying to focus as much as we can on the places where we think we can make the most difference.
And the judiciary has a pretty different set of problems. It's a pretty interesting place to learn from. So as an example, one of the things that I really think is healthy about it is that if you're a lawyer, the most respected...
job you can get immediately after law school is working in the federal government as a clerk for a judge. And so that's an area again where we've got the right alignment of talent and prestige. And I'd love to see that happen in other places. But again, there's certainly things that could be improved. But and I...
for two different judges myself and I have certainly lots of views, but we don't have the bandwidth to be doing that. So it's not, that's the only reason why we're not in that arena.
Natalia Castro (40:30.926)
That's a really interesting point. I'm in law school right now at night, and we often talk about like clerk, it's all about clerking, everyone wants to clerk. And you're right, it is a really, really prestigious position, despite the fact that it's very low pay, despite the fact that it's not a super consistent, it's only a one year term, but it really still has that prestige associated with it. And I...
Max (40:44.377)
Yes.
Max (40:48.14)
Yes.
Natalia Castro (40:54.142)
You know, I'm so glad you said that, because I never really made the connection about how different that is from perceptions about other jobs in the federal government. But it really is all the federal government. So you've given me some good food for thought. I'm glad you mentioned that. It is a really interesting dichotomy.
Max (41:09.167)
Awesome.
Jason Briefel (41:10.166)
Yeah, we're very proud that Natalia has, while working for us full time, been going to night school at George Mason and will be leaving us, sadly, but also happily, at the end of this spring and once she passes the bar because she is going on to become a clerk for a federal judge. So, so you hit the nail on the head, Mac.
Max (41:29.387)
Well, congratulations to that and thank you for, yeah, that's wonderful to hear.
Natalia Castro (41:32.283)
Thank you. I appreciate it.
It really is. It's a very great opportunity to both serve your country and to gain a mentor and to do all of those things that you really only get working for the federal government, seeing the perspective of when people come to government with their issues, how they're resolved in a way that that's just and fair for all the parties. So I'm very excited and it'll be my first opportunity for public service. So hopefully many more after that.
Max (42:01.259)
Well, thank you for doing it and enjoy. Yes.
Natalia Castro (42:05.462)
Thank you. Before we close out, let's give you a fun question, Max. Who would you say is your favorite public servant and why?
Max (42:15.535)
So I will say that I would choose a Sammies winner, honestly. And there are so many of them that it's really impossible to pick. And I would ask your listenership to go to servicetoamericametals.org. I mean, this past year, we had just an extraordinary team from the FBI and DOJ that did a great sting operation, getting thousands of
global criminals tricking them into using a system that was supposedly encrypted but was actually government run. We obviously had the story around the bipartisan infrastructure law, on and on and on. I'm a big fan of the, on the career side of the people we're honoring and the Sammies. I will say on the political side, Teddy Roosevelt is someone who I admire.
Everyone has challenges and history teaches us more and more about them, but it's also important to be real clear about the things that they've accomplished. And he really was fundamental in building the merit-based systems that we have today, as well as the national parks, et cetera. So a pretty fascinating figure and someone who dealt with adversity and made that a strength. So in any event, lots of folks to admire in the public service.
Jason Briefel (43:42.158)
Absolutely. Well, Max Stier, president and CEO, the Partnership for Public Service, thank you so much again for joining us and helping us kick off this new season of Fed Talk. We're going to continue exploring the federal government and flux. It's been so great to kind of learn what you all are up to and to have this discussion today. Big shout out to everything that you and the team are doing. As you know, we have a lot of mutual friends and colleagues in touch and
We'll look forward to see if we can make some of these positive and incremental changes through the year and keep working at making the system better for us all. And thanks again so much for sharing your time with us here today on Fed Talk.
Max (44:22.563)
Thank you. It's been a real pleasure. I've enjoyed it and happy holidays to you too.
Natalia Castro (44:30.606)
Awesome.
