AGA Fall 2015(1)

Traits of an Effective Inspector General

46 JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FALL 2015

O n Oct. 12, 1978, the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Act) became law and appointment of Inspec-

tors General (IGs) by the President, with advice and consent of Congress, became mandatory.1 It required that IGs be appointed, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration and investigations. Intending to protect IG independence and objectivity, the Act also consolidated the audit and inves-tigative function of the statutory IGs.2

The Act requires an IG possess these experiences, but success cannot be guaranteed based on experience alone. While these requirements seem reasonable and surely align with the mission of most Office of Inspectors General (OIGs); will having an audit, investigative or a law background have any bearing on the success of the IG? Or are the traits of a successful IG found in personal characteristics rather than his/her professional discipline?

ResearchIn December 2012, a qualitative

study explored the experiences, impediments to success and possibili-ties for improvement for state, local and federal IGs.3 An excerpt from the study is presented and addresses the question: What factors contribute to a successful and effective IG? Five find-ings are presented and integrated with existing literature on IGs.

By: Matthew D. Harris, Ph.D., CFE, CIG

Interpersonal and Communicative Skills

Prior research and legislation has emphasized independence, but IGs need strong interpersonal and commu-nicative skills, which may be equally important in fostering a successful and strong OIG.4 IGs who have the ability to communicate and interact with stakeholders are likely to be successful in their roles. In this study, IGs identi-fied interpersonal and communicative skills to be the most important factor in determining the success of an IG. Lead-ership and political savvy contribute to success, but IGs believed demeanor, tone and the ability to communicate problems effectively were key traits.

In one interview, an IG stated simply:

“As a general rule, IGs that sort of foam at the mouth are not effective … without interpersonal skills I don’t know that an IG could do the job.”

IGs mentioned several instances in which the inability of an IG to commu-nicate effectively led to an ineffectual tenure. Participants noted when IGs fail, the cause is not lack of experience or an inadequate knowledge of the audit and investigative discipline, but rather personal characteristics and an inability to communicate with staff, agency officials, and stakeholders. One IG recalled an experience with a former IG colleague:

“I have seen one particular IG fail particularly because of interpersonal skills and an overly exercised notion of independence.”

Most IGs believed maturity and character allowed them to overcome obstacles and be successful. In fact, many IGs used the term “demeanor” when identifying personal traits that led to their own success, but also to the demise of others. One IG suggested:

“I think it’s important to have someone with the appropriate demeanor. Interpersonal skills are necessary, because one of the challenges an IG has is having to interact with so many diverse members of the council, members of Congress, executive branch, agency heads, citizen, reporters…”

One IG summarized the importance of interpersonal skills:

“I have seen some of the smartest, experienced, and well-qualified IGs fail … not because they don’t have the experience, not because of inde-pendence, but because they simply have no idea how to communicate with people. They view the relation-ship between the agency and the IG as adversarial.”

Another noted:

“IGs who have a ‘pit-bull mentality’ are not likely to be effective.”

Personal IndependenceThe importance of personal indepen-

dence among IGs is well documented.5 Personal independence has often been discussed in terms of personal impair-ments.6 Personal impairments may

FALL 2015 JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 47

include conflicts of interest and personal or

ethical beliefs. The inability of an IG to remove personal impairments can damage the credibility of the office, creating long-lasting harm to success.7

Personal independence also refers to the ability of IGs to remove them-selves from political influences; to investigate all allegations fully, regard-less of whether the matter or subject is sensitive; and to produce reports that are firm, bold and 100-percent accu-rate. Personal independence is related to the moral consciousness of the IG.8 Personal independence may refer to the ability to conduct a complete inves-tigation regardless of the target, or to remain politically neutral and engage only in fact-based reporting.9 In the study, some IGs noted it was the most important factor to an IG’s success.

Participants explained they had to be able to do the job without fear of retaliation. Participants used terms such as courage, bold, character and integrity. Participants maintained that a successful IG is one who operated without fear of losing the job and who could navigate the “potential political minefields” that might be placed in his/her way. One IG discussed resignation if independence was compromised:

“They must be willing to walk out the door in the event they feel their independence has been compromised, and they cannot allow political or personal dynamics to affect their ability to be independent. To be successful I think ultimately you have to understand the politics, but not bow to them.”

Success can be found among IGs who remove

themselves from the political process

and refuse to allow the polit-ical process or players to deter their

work. The ability to set aside poli-tics is a challenge that participants

described experiencing on a regular basis. According to one participant, the mastery of balancing this quandary was what afforded success:

“I’m not going to play games with the facts, I’m going to find out what they are and report them. If you are someone who doesn’t like having folks mad at you then you need to consider another profession.”

Participants measured success in terms of an ability to develop internal and external relationships with stake-holders. However, participants also noted harmonizing the relationship between partnership and indepen-dence was akin to splitting hairs, and as one IG noted, a forever tenuous relationship:

“To be successful it’s balancing that fine line between independence and management, knowing when to develop that relationship with management and how far to go. I’ve seen peers of mine fail in their jobs because the agency hasn’t known enough about what they’re doing. And the agency head is continually surprised. That will lead to a quick ticket to the door. And I’ve seen other inspectors general being co-opted by their agency head and tell them everything all the time about anything. And you know, that leads to a quick demise too.”

One participant used the terms “courage” and “character” to explain how successful IGs operated without being overcome by independence issues.

“I think it’s courage and character. Because I have seen IGs who have all the experience, but it means nothing if you don’t have the courage to do the right thing and not worry about losing your job.”

Some participants questioned the personal independence of younger or midcareer IGs who might have been career civil servants. Others speculated that IGs who were not toward the end of their careers may have been reluc-tant to “go out on a limb” or be “bold” or courageous, because they had more to lose and were less independent. Partici-pants explained that IGs on a career track, or who were at early points in their careers, might be more likely to compromise their independence.

Learning the Organization Many newly appointed IGs arrive

at their new employer with years of experience, and some IGs find their first OIG job to be that of an IG. Still, many have previously served as an Acting IG/Deputy IG elsewhere, but does this experience translate into success?

IGs in the study relayed that of the new IGs who don’t succeed, many are ineffective because they did not learn and assimilate into the organization. Being able to quickly learn and adapt to the organizational culture were formulae for success. Participants explained that an IG does not have to have experience within the organiza-tion to succeed, but that an effort to learn the challenges the organizational representatives were facing was crucial.

To illustrate the point, one IG stated:

“You better get studied quickly about the challenges that the managers have to face. You have to be able to understand the context of the environment that you’re in. You’ve got to recognize: Are you in a service organization, are you in a grant organization, are you in a regulatory environment?”


a lack of public trust in the office, and certain failure for the IG. IGs who fail to engage agency officials and form rela-tionships are generally unsuccessful.10

Participants said leveraging rela-tionships with agency officials, while maintaining the integrity of audits and investigations, was a delicate balance to achieve and was a key component in their success. Participants noted problems were best handled when agency officials were not “blindsided.” IGs must walk a fine line, keeping the agency officials informed without compromising the independence of the agency. Building relationships with stakeholders allowed them to build rapport and trust. It’s important to demonstrate to managers that the IG and agency have similar goals.

To illustrate this point, one IG noted:

“We had a really good partnership … we’re all on the same team even though we’re kind of not, we are. … We kind of got buy-in with what we were thinking; we never surprised our department.”

Participants expressed that the mastery of the IG function was achieved when IGs built coalitions and assimilated themselves into the organization without compromising their integrity by becoming too “cozy” with the agency.

To illustrate, one IG stated:

“I think an IG has to be open-minded and willing to listen, both to his or her own staff and new ideas. It’s a hard position to be in, to be investigated and reviewed. You have to be sensitive to the outcomes that your investigations have on management.”

Participants noted that the ability to coalesce with people and to interact with them at all levels of the agency helped them promote the IG function and become effective. The impor-tance of leveraging these external relationships was revealed in differing accounts, but with similar successes. For example, one IG stated that he/she thrived on using external stakeholders

Learning the organization does not imply that IGs must cross the line between being part of the organiza-tion and being part of management. Learning the organization means that IGs have to be proactive in learning the policy, process, and procedures to develop an understanding of the root causes and systemic weaknesses in any organization. One IG stated:

“He or she must have a good command of the laws and regulations … and organizational mission.”

Building and Developing Relationships

Maintaining an open line of commu-nication with managers can be of value to both the IG and managers. The chal-lenge for IGs is to develop partnerships within the agency while finding the optimal balance of independence. The inability to balance partnership with independence will lead to criticism,

FALL 2015 JOURNAL OF GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 49

former IG officials employed in federal OIGs in the Washington, DC area; and, state and local IG participants were officials employed in state and county governments throughout the United States. Federal IGs were recruited from large, medium, and small OIGs and from federal commissions and boards. Participants had been employed as IGs for at least one year. The number of participants was sufficient to ensure data saturation and to support pattern and theme development. Open-ended, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify emergent themes and patterns of meaning that could be deduced from the participants’ shared experiences. An interview guide was used that included five demographic questions, three rapport-building questions, and 10 primary interview questions. Follow-up questions were presented to provide context and clarity. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded.

4. Project on Government Oversight. (Feb. 26, 2008). Inspectors General: Many lack essential tools for independence. Retrieved from www.pogo.org/pogo-files/reports/government-oversight/inspectors-general-many-lack-essential-tools-for-independence/go-ig-20080226.html

5. Ibid.6. U.S. Government Accountability

Office. (June 20, 2007). Proposals to strengthen independence and accountability. (GAO Publication No. GAO 07-1021T). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071021t.pdf

7. Vega, B. (2011, winter). Inspectors General: Evaluating independence and creating capacity. Government Law and Policy Journal, 13(2), 48-54.

8. Segal, L. (2010, fall). Independence from political influence — A shaky shield: A study of ten Inspectors General. Public Integrity 12, 297-314.

9. See Endnote 4.10. Harris, M.D. (2012). Inspectors

General: Exploring Lived Experiences, Impediments to Success, and Possibilities for Improvement. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (3536049). Retrieved from http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/1287784818.html?FMT=AI

11. See Endnote 6.12. See Endnote 7.

Matthew D. Harris, Ph.D., CFE, CIG, is an 18-year veteran of the federal law enforcement community who was an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), and held leadership positons at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and in the Inspector General community. Harris is an Assistant Special Agent in Charge with the USPS-OIG. He also teaches Government and Political Science at University of Maryland–UC.

to his/her advantage as a means to achieving success and explained that his/her relationship with Congress was key to its success, noting that the office took every opportunity to build and strengthen its congressional footprint. The IG stated candidly:

“You have to be able to understand the relationship with Congress and how to use it to your advantage.”

Although participants used differing techniques in forging these partner-ships, the results of the study showed that the participants believed they need to be proactive in seeking these partnerships, while preserving the independence of the office.

Respect for the Mission of the Inspector General Function

Respect for the mission of the IG function refers to the importance for the IG to have an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the IG Act and the IG mission. It is important for IGs to understand, appreciate, and be committed to the role and mission of the IG function. Participants gave examples of ineffective IGs who did not understand the role of IGs under the IG Act, those who over-emphasized their independence, and some who did not fully comprehend the statute or ordi-nance that created their offices. These participants believed their successes could be explained by an appreciation of the IG function. One IG explained:

“An IG has to be somebody who absolutely believes in the fundamental principles of the Act and who has the highest level of integrity and respect for the agency’s mission.”

ConclusionThe ultimate success of an IG office

is largely determined by the individual IG placed in that office. Success is deter-mined by the ability of that person to maintain personal, external and organizational independence, both in fact and appearance, while reporting the results of the work of the office to both the agency head and Congress.11 For IGs who have proven to be unsuc-cessful, it is often a result of their inability to communicate effectively with staff members or managers.12 Successful IGs avoid surprises. With limited exceptions, IGs should keep their respective agency advised of the OIG’s work and its findings on a timely basis and provide information helpful to the agency at the earliest possible stage. IGs must be independent, and those who use independence as a nego-tiating tactic with agency officials often have negative outcomes.

While research into IGs is limited, existing scholarship supports the belief that character traits are the best indi-cators of an IG’s success. Successful IGs develop strong interpersonal and communicative skills; embolden personal independence; learn and assimilate into the organization; understand the value of building and developing relationships; and respect the IG mission.

Endnotes1. Council of the Inspectors General on

Integrity and Efficiency. (2009). A progress report to the President. Washington, DC: Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Retrieved from http://www.ignet.gov/randp/fy09apr.pdf

2. Moore, M., & Gates, M. (1986). Inspectors-General: Junkyard dogs or man’s best friend? New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

3. Eighteen IGs, including nine federal IGs and nine state or local IGs, were selected for this research study by means of purposive and snowball sampling. The federal IG participants were current or

the certification for all seasonsNo matter where you are in your career, distinguish yourself — earn the Certified Government Financial Manager® (CGFM®) certification.

www.agacgfm.org/cgfm


AGA Fall 2015(1)

Documents

Transcript of AGA Fall 2015(1)