Wyofile Interview With Chief Schultz: I. How Many Applicants Does it Take to Show “Stunningly Little Interest?”

Wyoming’s a great state,  it is blessed with beautiful scenery, abundant natural resources and good people.  It also has two news outlets, the Cowboy State Daily (funded by a Wyoming businessperson) and Wyofile (funded by national philanthropic organizations and readers).  It’s interesting to see what the different media outlets focus on when they interviewed the Chief. The point of this first post on the Chief Schultz Wyofile story is to focus in on why people would or would not apply for the State Director positions and question the Wyofile narrative about how the numbers may reflect the interest in the new State Director positions.

The U.S. Forest Service received roughly 300 applications for the 15 new state director jobs created during a major agency reorganization that’s dissolving regional offices the agency’s first chief, Gifford Pinchot, created nearly 120 years ago.

That’s 20 applications per job, on average, for well-paying “senior executive service” positions at a federal agency that employs roughly 30,000 staff.

It’s a figure that, to many, suggests stunningly little interest in the jobs and a reminder that it remains a tough time to be a Forest Service employee tasked with managing 193 million acres of the United States.

I wonder who these “many” are and how much they know about SES and how the FS works.

But U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz on Tuesday sounded upbeat about the 300 applications, a datapoint he offered without prompting. Applicants are a mix of Forest Service veterans and outside candidates, and there are more than he needs to fill the state director jobs and restructure. Schultz’s team has already narrowed the pool of candidates and is starting to arrange for interviews, he told WyoFile from a boardroom at Park City’s Deer Valley Resort.

“I expect [interviews] to begin within the next couple weeks,” Schultz said.

I have never selected SES candidates, but part of my job in R2 as an RO Director was that we reviewed positions choices, including Supes, although my understanding was that the WO made the final choice for them.  When I read “to many” this suggests “stunningly little interest”,  I was surprised.  I wonder whether the “many” put themselves in the place of reviewers.  I’d reserve “stunningly little interest” for 1 or 2 applicants, or maybe zero, as we have had for ranger jobs on grassland districts in the Dakotas. Or the many times I tried to hire 14s in DC. Neither was particularly “stunning” though, the advantages to applicants didn’t outweigh the disadvantages.

Twenty per position seems bountiful to me- for those who have gone through 20 applications, reference checking, interviews and so on, if you do it right, it’s a lot of work.

Picking people for these kinds of leadership positions is probably the most important task in any organization.  You don’t want people who create drama, and against whom employees will revolt. And those are just the internal criteria.. getting along with obstreperous States, other Federal agencies, NGO’s, politicians and so on is also required.  The most likely people to be qualified would be Forest Supes or other 15s with Forest Supe experience (Regional Directors, Deputy Regional Foresters, and miscellaneous WO types).

One thing we don’t know is how many of the candidates are in the FS.  Given that the positions were open outside the FS, and that there is some  switching between the FS and BLM, I would guess that highly qualified candidates might have applied from those places also. So if we were to look at the proportion of FS employees applying over the total number of FS employees eligible, it turns out we know neither one.

The number of eligible employees should be current 15s, likely with backgrounds as Forest Supervisors,  which is not 30K.  I would look it up, but with people retiring the number is no doubt a moving target.  Like most organizations, the FS is a pyramid with fewer people near the top.

The next question would be “why would 15’s not apply?” I can answer for myself, as I considered applying to SESCDP (the candidate development program).  When I was going through it, they told us that as part of the SES pool, we could be moved wherever.  I wasn’t mobile at the time due to family reasons. I tried to address some ECQs but just didn’t have a fire in my belly for it, in fact, quite the opposite.  I have always been perfectly happy as a 15 and the additional hassle and money and potential moving drama just wasn’t worth the responsibility for me. Some 15’s are probably happy where they are, the Forest, the community, their employees, their family and so on. It’s probably true that the locations of these positions are better for families than DC, but moving…  The older among us (generally some correlation between grade and age) may have health concerns and may not want to move their medical care.)  So many reasons not to move..

My wise retired SES associates tell me that the strategy is to wait until you are retirement eligible to move to SES, that way if the higher-ups want to move you, for big or small “p” political reasons or needs, you can just retire.

There is some risk that being a State Director now will get you reassigned when a D Admin comes in.  As my BLM retiree friends tell me, both parties do this.  You might have given someone the impression that you were too helpful to the Trump Admin, however that would be measured. Or maybe the fact that you accepted the position during the Trump Admin put you on the list. Or someone who doesn’t like you could start the rumor that the  R politicals liked you (not everyone in the FS is a good person). Perhaps someone in the new Admin is owed a favor and wants an SES position in your location.

I know all this sounds negative, so hoping that an SES retiree will chime in with the positive side- it probably has something to do with the good that can be done in those positions.