In April, the organization I was leading got DOGE'd, so I've been on admin leave the last several months. I've been doing some writing projects while looking for employment. I'm working on a paper outlining the values of organizations with a healthy acquisition culture. I'm working on the framing, but what I'm interested in is how to build, maintain, and/or change an acquisition culture into a healthy one. I've come up with an outline, based on what I've learned on the job, from this website, and from people I've worked with and for.

The initial point is that everyone contributes to the culture. Leaders have an important say, but workers at every level contribute. Even if you are the most junior person in the room, you can and should contribute positively to the culture. Next, the three prongs of a healthy culture that I'm working with are:

1. Be Curious. Read widely, interrogate the regulation, and figure out how other people are doing things.

2. Know your mission. Understand what your office does, why it is important, and the major challenges your office faces.

3. Center people. Invest in relationships, host training, book talks, and simply tell people about things you are interested in. (And this goes for all the stakeholders of a contracting office.)

Thoughts or critiques? Certainly there are thousands of values one could include, but I'm trying to identify what's most broadly applicable.

If you'd like to contribute formally, reach out to me by DM and I would be happy to interview you. I am not interested in stealing anyone's work, so I will provide attribution or anonymity as requested.

Last note--there are many references to acquisition culture in the forums, but I was not able to identify one that addressed it head on.

Here is a draft of the article, constructive comments welcome: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mbmEnaVUzi0687h2Y6BJ_1nFFgByCQXo2oCr_s1F0_A/edit?usp=sharing

Deleted. Accidental post.

I did not read the draft article; I am responding to the three points you raised in your post. They got me thinking ...

Can you separate culture from the people who make it up? Your focus seems to be on people, for obvious reasons. People are what drive culture, after all. But let's say you are a newcomer to the office. Do you accept the culture you get, or do you try to influence it, to change it? In this case, the culture is separate and distinct from the individual. So, maybe culture is an aggregation of individual attitudes, but also separate and distinct from any single individual, such that if you take the individual out of the culture, the culture still exists?

Anyway, thought-provoking. To your points, I would suggest:

1. Be curious. Interrogate the unwritten rules, the way it's always been done. Challenge the norms; respectfully request justification, especially if how it's always been done seems suboptimal. Suggest improvements.

2. Know your customers' mission(s). Understand how your role supports and advances their mission. Understand how your efforts, and the efforts of those around you, create value. If you don't see the connection, maybe there isn't one and you need to move on.

3. Personnel development should be the primary focus of any culture. It is perhaps even more important than supporting the mission. Any culture that doesn't support the development of its people should be avoided. As a corollary, any individual who resists development (e.g., opportunities to learn, grow, advance in skills/knowledge) should be sidelined and, if possible, eased out.

There is a vast literature on corporate culture, institutional change, why some places are better to work at than others, how to make your workplace a better place to work for you and others, etc.

Specific to acquisitions, I think the mission part is very important. Making the agency's mission a prominent part of the acquisition culture is good. The two people I know who are Contracting Officers and who tell me they have a great corporate culture worked in NASA and the Corps of Engineering. For both of them, the specific mission (something to do with satellites, hydroelectric dams) was important to them personally and very prominently part of corporate culture. If you go into the acquisition office and you are just buying widgets and professional services with the attitude of a hired hand, that's a bummer.

The Europeans, and Italians in particular, have some relevant research on a related topic- how does culture effect procurement (as they call it) outcomes? Not exactly your topic, but close. Two important papers.

BUREAUCRATIC COMPETENCE AND PROCUREMENT OUTCOMES, Decarolis (Italian), 2019

Summary: Bureaucratic competence leads to significant reductions in delay, cost, and re-negotiations. Competence is defined as three factors 1) cooperation among employees, 2) incentives, and 3) skills. Cooperation is most important. Caveat: To get to this conclusion, the authors make some bold and maybe unwarranted assumptions with data I know very well (FPDS and FEVS).

Relevance: Cooperation is similar to your concept of 'Centering People, and is very important.

Active and Passive Waste in Government Spending: Evidence from a Policy Experiment, Bandiera (also Italian), 2008

Summary: For public procurement outcomes, inefficiency is very important. Highly efficient buyers produce much better outcomes. They argue it's the governance structure that matters, rather than the individuals. Autonomous small agencies with narrow mission do best. Large centralized hierarchical government organizations do worst. Caveat: You need a MA in Economics to read this paper published in the very prestigious and math-heavy American Economic Review.

Relevance: Culture matters. A 'good culture' directly leads to better outcomes like lower prices paid.

3 hours ago, here_2_help said:

I did not read the draft article; I am responding to the three points you raised in your post. They got me thinking ...

Can you separate culture from the people who make it up? Your focus seems to be on people, for obvious reasons. People are what drive culture, after all. But let's say you are a newcomer to the office. Do you accept the culture you get, or do you try to influence it, to change it? In this case, the culture is separate and distinct from the individual. So, maybe culture is an aggregation of individual attitudes, but also separate and distinct from any single individual, such that if you take the individual out of the culture, the culture still exists?

I don't try to define culture in the article--it is a bit beyond the scope. But I do say that everyone can influence the culture. I say it this way, "Acquisition leaders are accountable for building and maintaining a healthy acquisition culture, but everybody is responsible for it." Whether you accept it, influence, or try to change it, you are affecting it.

1 hour ago, General.Zhukov said:

There is a vast literature on corporate culture, institutional change, why some places are better to work at than others, how to make your workplace a better place to work for you and others, etc.

Specific to acquisitions, I think the mission part is very important. Making the agency's mission a prominent part of the acquisition culture is good. The two people I know who are Contracting Officers and who tell me they have a great corporate culture worked in NASA and the Corps of Engineering. For both of them, the specific mission (something to do with satellites, hydroelectric dams) was important to them personally and very prominently part of corporate culture. If you go into the acquisition office and you are just buying widgets and professional services with the attitude of a hired hand, that's a bummer.

The Europeans, and Italians in particular, have some relevant research on a related topic- how does culture effect procurement (as they call it) outcomes? Not exactly your topic, but close. Two important papers.

BUREAUCRATIC COMPETENCE AND PROCUREMENT OUTCOMES, Decarolis (Italian), 2019

Summary: Bureaucratic competence leads to significant reductions in delay, cost, and re-negotiations. Competence is defined as three factors 1) cooperation among employees, 2) incentives, and 3) skills. Cooperation is most important. Caveat: To get to this conclusion, the authors make some bold and maybe unwarranted assumptions with data I know very well (FPDS and FEVS).

Relevance: Cooperation is similar to your concept of 'Centering People, and is very important.

Active and Passive Waste in Government Spending: Evidence from a Policy Experiment, Bandiera (also Italian), 2008

Summary: For public procurement outcomes, inefficiency is very important. Highly efficient buyers produce much better outcomes. They argue it's the governance structure that matters, rather than the individuals. Autonomous small agencies with narrow mission do best. Large centralized hierarchical government organizations do worst. Caveat: You need a MA in Economics to read this paper published in the very prestigious and math-heavy American Economic Review.

Relevance: Culture matters. A 'good culture' directly leads to better outcomes like lower prices paid.

Interesting sources--I was listening to a podcast about the cost of building mass transit the other day, and Italians do it better and cheaper than any other country.

On 7/30/2025 at 8:44 AM, KeithB18 said:

Here is a draft of the article, constructive comments welcome: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mbmEnaVUzi0687h2Y6BJ_1nFFgByCQXo2oCr_s1F0_A/edit?usp=sharing

From the article:

"There is an old saying that, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” It persists because it is true."

How old is that saying? Who said it? Explain what it means, then prove it. (Isn't strategy a product of culture?)

"Curiosity is a superpower."

How is curiosity's power made manifest? What is the source of its power? What does it produce? How does it work? Say it up front, then elaborate.

Generally, I don't buy all of your thinking about the contribution of individuals to the creation of culture. I think the key driving force of culture is mimesis, so I think leadership is the key to the creation and maintenance of culture. To follow a leader is the copy them. For example, Major General James M. Gavin, who became the Army's youngest division commander during World War II, commanded the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment and then the 82d Airborne Division, and is credited with creating one of the most aggressive regimental and divisional cultures. He dressed like an ordinary infantryman. He carried an M-1 rifle like ordinary infantrymen and used it in battle. He made sure his men saw him in front. He dug his own foxhole in the center of the line. He told new officers, "In this outfit officers jump first and eat last," and "If you want a decision, go to the point of danger." Every paratrooper sought to emulate him and follow him. He showed the way by going first.

Leaders set the tone and direction. If they are good, others follow and indoctrinate newbies. How did Gavin's leadership manifest itself? During the German offensive of the Battle of the Bulge an American tank destroyer crew came upon an infantryman with a bazooka and asked directions. The infantryman (a PFC Martin) responded, "If you're looking for a safe place, get behind me. I'm the 82d Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are going." (Look it up on Google.)

I think culture is created by leaders, and sustained and bolstered by followers they inspire.

"If everyone is responsible then, leaders are accountable."

???

I’ll add the personal embodiment of mission is an essential component of a positive culture. Individuals need a clear vision of mission and understand how they can contribute. The two cited examples of NASA and the Army Corps of Engineers are spot on.

I also agree with Vern’s leadership comments. Leadership also needs flexibility. Qualities of leading 2,000 people differ from that of leading 20 people.

4 hours ago, formerfed said:

Qualities of leading 2,000 people differ from that of leading 20 people.

How so?

15 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

How so?

The 2,000 employee leader is a visionary that sets strategic plans and direction and inspires employees throughout the organization to help achieve them.. They effectively delegate to subordinates to carry out supportive actions. They monitor activities to ensure all employees feel connected to the organization..

The 20 employee leader is an effective personal communicator. That leader builds one on one relationships with employees. They are a strong mentor and coach. They can also bring employees into decision making as appropriate so the process is collaborative.

@formerfed

Thanks for responding.

But I frankly think those descriptions and distinctions are too general and simplistic in light of the varieties of today's public and private organizations, work, and work environments.

The most I think I would say is that all leaders should have clear and appropriate principles, ideas, and plans, communicate them clearly, and act upon them as consistently as circumstances permit.

If I had time to think about it more I might add something.

On 8/4/2025 at 9:23 AM, Vern Edwards said:

From the article:

"There is an old saying that, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” It persists because it is true."

How old is that saying? Who said it? Explain what it means, then prove it. (Isn't strategy a product of culture?)

"Curiosity is a superpower."

How is curiosity's power made manifest? What is the source of its power? What does it produce? How does it work? Say it up front, then elaborate.

Generally, I don't buy all of your thinking about the contribution of individuals to the creation of culture. I think the key driving force of culture is mimesis, so I think leadership is the key to the creation and maintenance of culture. To follow a leader is the copy them. For example, Major General James M. Gavin, who became the Army's youngest division commander during World War II, commanded the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment and then the 82d Airborne Division, and is credited with creating one of the most aggressive regimental and divisional cultures. He dressed like an ordinary infantryman. He carried an M-1 rifle like ordinary infantrymen and used it in battle. He made sure his men saw him in front. He dug his own foxhole in the center of the line. He told new officers, "In this outfit officers jump first and eat last," and "If you want a decision, go to the point of danger." Every paratrooper sought to emulate him and follow him. He showed the way by going first.

Leaders set the tone and direction. If they are good, others follow and indoctrinate newbies. How did Gavin's leadership manifest itself? During the German offensive of the Battle of the Bulge an American tank destroyer crew came upon an infantryman with a bazooka and asked directions. The infantryman (a PFC Martin) responded, "If you're looking for a safe place, get behind me. I'm the 82d Airborne, and this is as far as the bastards are going." (Look it up on Google.)

I think culture is created by leaders, and sustained and bolstered by followers they inspire.

"If everyone is responsible then, leaders are accountable."

???

Vern,

Thank you for the feedback--I really appreciate it.

I've made some edits.

1. I've rewritten the intro. I am not making any argument on culture vs. strategy so I've deleted the quote. Apparently Peter Drucker, an organizational theorist coined the phrase. (One interesting, but separate line of inquiry is the question of strategy as a product of culture. I've found that culture tends to cabin available strategies. This could be a future essay topic.)

2. I will do a little more research into the nature of curiosity. I need to make a trip to the library.

3. I revised the section on the leader's role in creating culture to reflect that the leader is primarily responsible. I just don't go quite as far as you. Here's why: I think basically everybody is playing the role of leadership and staff in different scenarios. The most junior contract specialist can lead a meeting on acquisition strategy, even though the specialist isn't formally leading anyone. The most senior contracting leader is someone's staff, and will have to behave accordingly. It is a way of encouraging ownership of the work product up, down, and across the organization.

4. That was a poor transition sentence. It's been revised.

2 hours ago, formerfed said:

The 2,000 employee leader is a visionary that sets strategic plans and direction and inspires employees throughout the organization to help achieve them.. They effectively delegate to subordinates to carry out supportive actions. They monitor activities to ensure all employees feel connected to the organization..

The 20 employee leader is an effective personal communicator. That leader builds one on one relationships with employees. They are a strong mentor and coach. They can also bring employees into decision making as appropriate so the process is collaborative.

I might add it has something to do with the granularity of plans and strategies. At 20 people, you may be leading on tactical effectiveness--right contract types, right clauses, managing PALT and client expectations. Your people are doing the same or very similar things, so the plans and strategies can and should be tailored to what they are doing. You might be likely to step on to the front line in the absence of an employee or employees or to fix a critical mistake or failure.

At 2000 people you are surely overseeing many, many different functions. The plans and strategies are broader and connected to the agency or department's mission. You can't step on the front line because there are many managers between you and the front line, and you may not know how to do the task anyway. Leading is more about creating the space for empowerment while maintaining discipline and organizational culture and direction.

The most I've ever managed is 55, and even at that relatively modest level (compared to 2000), leadership felt intangible and hard to measure. Did we succeed or fail because of me or in spite of me? At 2000 people, that's got to be even more difficult.

35 minutes ago, KeithB18 said:

At 2000 people you are surely overseeing many, many different functions. The plans and strategies are broader and connected to the agency or department's mission. You can't step on the front line because there are many managers between you and the front line, and you may not know how to do the task anyway. Leading is more about creating the space for empowerment while maintaining discipline and organizational culture and direction.

One of the best comments I’ve read (can’t remember the author right now) was he judged his performance by his golf score. A low score meant he had time to play and practice because he trained his staff well, delegated successfully, and was confident they did exactly what the organization needed without his involvement.

2 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

The most I think I would say is that all leaders should have clear and appropriate principles, ideas, and plans, communicate them clearly, and act upon them as consistently as circumstances permit.

Vern, that makes a lot of sense to me. I started say something more is needed about vision and strategy but I see “ideas and plans” covers those.

1 hour ago, KeithB18 said:

One interesting, but separate line of inquiry is the question of strategy as a product of culture. I've found that culture tends to cabin available strategies. This could be a future essay topic.

See Joly, "Does Your Company's Culture Reinforce It's Strategy and Purpose?", Harvard Business Review, June 10, 2022.

https://hbr.org/2022/06/does-your-companys-culture-reinforce-its-strategy-and-purpose

See also, Nevin, The Idea of Marathon: Battle and Culture (Bloomsbury Academic, 2022).

Many, many such articles and books.

1 hour ago, KeithB18 said:

At 2000 people you are surely overseeing many, many different functions. The plans and strategies are broader and connected to the agency or department's mission. You can't step on the front line because there are many managers between you and the front line, and you may not know how to do the task anyway. Leading is more about creating the space for empowerment while maintaining discipline and organizational culture and direction...

At 20 people, you may be leading on tactical effectiveness--right contract types, right clauses, managing PALT and client expectations. Your people are doing the same or very similar things, so the plans and strategies can and should be tailored to what they are doing. You might be likely to step on to the front line in the absence of an employee or employees or to fix a critical mistake or failure.

Be careful about overly broad generalizations about the nature of leadership based on organizational size.

In today's world of business and government, new missions may require the creation of organizations with a particular culture in order to execute new strategies. On the other hand, an organization may be assigned a mission because of its culture. See Gibson, "How to Create a Culture of Strategy Execution" (2023), Harvard Business School Online, https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/creating-a-culture-of-strategy-execution.

In an organization of 20, different persons may be doing different jobs. Think of Special Forces 12-man A Teams.

https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-forces/odas/

Take your time. Don't overly generalize.

Think it through.

Get it right before you write.

In my graduate school, the professors of public administration emphasized that administrative leadership is different, a lot different, than the private sector.

To simplify, your mission and resources are mostly fixed. My contracting office's mission is to help my agency do its mission, protecting public health, and that isn't changing. Resouces - most importantly people and IT - are usually fixed. My HCA can't just simply hire who she wants. Thus, the most opportune time for public leadership are those rare times when the mission or resources are not fixed and in flux - like now.

Your room for success or failure in (most) government is (usually) much more limited compared to the private sector or military. If GSA fails, nobody is going to die, and it isn't going to declare bankruptcy. But not always. Even in contracting, poor leadership does sometimes cause failure that does mean death, or real harm,

By elimination, culture is a really one of the main tools a public leader has.

I agree with KeithB18 that individuals are important. In order to have or create an aggressive, competent, success-driven culture you have to have the right people. They have to be aggressively motivated, well-trained, inventive, and driven. They cannot be self-satisfied and resentful of change or just hanging on.

But in civilian government, leaders may not have much in the way of choice of people. They get whoever is there when they take over and some limited choices thereafter.

Consider the following description of Jim Gavin's creation of the 505th PIR at the start of WWII. That regiment was expected to produce a new kind of soldier, one that would volunteer to land by parachute in the dark of night behind enemy lines, proceed, alone if necessary, to the objective, and fight alone if necessary until until his unit could regroup. Here is a description of the selection and training of WWII airborne volunteers, from a DTIC report:

If ever a leader arrived in his unit with a clear vision, it was the soon to be Colonel "Slim Jim" Gavin, the First Colonel of the Regiment. His study, example and clairvoyance of the problems ahead were inspirational and instrumental in the molding of his revered fighting paratroopers. Colonel Gavin understood from the outset that success on airborne operations would rest foremost with the individual paratrooper. He cast aside the repetitive group drills of the past and replaced them with intense physical training, pride, and combat skills.

Initiative and imagination were encouraged from the newest private up. Without exception, every member of the Regiment participated in the strenuous physical training and field exercises. Malingerers and acts of indiscipline were simply not tolerated; after all, this was a volunteer unit. Some of the men had volunteered for parachute duty to escape previous assignments and others were coerced into joining but, once in the unit, the choice to remain was an individual one. Misfits were eliminated with daily runs and weekly twenty to thirty mile marches. A simple rule "if you fall out, you ship out" set the standard for all.

Days often began by running for an hour or more to the training area with weapons and field equipment. Then, after a full day of training, the movement back was again conducted at the double-time. Little quarter was given men who failed to stay in formation and the few leaders that fell out were gone the next day. Frequent marches of twenty plus miles were followed immediately with tactical drills. Non-stop field exercises were intentionally designed to stress paratroopers and leaders to their limits.

Physical and mental toughness established in early training was to remain an integral part of the 505 PIR macho self-image throughout the War. The rigor of parachute school had already established a commonality of high physical standards and from this base the arduous became even more demanding. Envisioning the physical demands that would soon be placed on these men as they fought for days behind enemy lines, Colonel Gavin was relentless in his pursuit of every man's prowess. He was frequently found in the lead on these grueling activities. A weak, incapable soldier in combat would require two other men to care for him. This clearly was not acceptable and leaders were ruthless in eliminating the unfit.

Airborne was (and still is) a selective voluntary service. You had to WANT it. You had to prefer death to elimination. That was the cultural foundation. See 505 Parachute Infantry Regiment (A Legacy of Lessons), DTIC ADA20962 (1989), https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA209620.

Of course, that was the military, and Gavin had freedom of choice and elimination. But we're not talking about elite military units. We're talking about civil service offices. Leaders in civilian government do not have such freedoms. So how do you motivate what may be disappointed, weary, hurt, stressed, and angry staffs—people who may not have been given quality professional education and training by their organizations? Can you do it through meetings and rah-rah talk?

This is a complicated, difficult problem, and until you have answered those questions you haven't proposed useful ideas.

8 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Of course, that was the military, and Gavin had freedom of choice and elimination. But we're not talking about elite military units. We're talking about civil service offices. Leaders in civilian government do not have such freedoms. So how do you motivate what may be disappointed, weary, hurt, stressed, and angry staffs—people who may not have been given quality professional education and training by their organizations? Can you do it through meetings and rah-rah talk?

This is a complicated, difficult problem, and until you have answered those questions you haven't proposed useful ideas.

This is the toughest situation a leader will find themselves. About 9 years ago I walked into this situation as a brand new GS-15. The staff hated their managers. They all thought everyone else wasn't pulling their weight. PALT times for the most straightforward stuff was over 300 days, which encouraged everyone on the acquisition team to sit on things. One of the other supervisors was later accused of sexual harassment and about half the staff ended up spending a day in a Merit Systems courtroom giving testimony (and before that, depositions). Here's what I did:

1. I took a full share of the workload, including 100% of the Interagency Agreements (scut work that no one wanted to do), to show I was curious about the work and serious about making sure everyone had a reasonable workload. I also used a couple of "first followers" who came in the around the same time to me to help prove that a straightforward GSA schedule services procurement did not need to take 360 days.

2. I tried to get to know people and force people to get to know me. Every Wednesday for the first several months I brought in bagels or doughnuts and put them out of offer in my office. The in my office part was important--They had to come in and talk to me in order to get one.

3. I started teaching. At first, simple stuff--the correct clauses to select in 52.212-5. How not to duplicate clauses in a GSA schedule order because many of the clauses are already in the underlying schedule (and where and how to check what was in the schedule.) I later did more formal training events on bigger issues like the changes clause. (I distinctly remember people arguing with me over changes--it couldn't possibly be as flexible as I was saying. I pointed them directly to the case law in Administration of Government Contracts.)

   Not to be too cheeky about it, but I was curious and I put the people at the center. But the ultimate outcome was that out of the 20 or so staff that I inherited, only about 5 remained when I departed 6 years later. That's part of it too--you'll have to be brave and determined about using discipline and performance to move out those who aren't on board with your program. (Man, the fights I had over rating someone "Satisfactory" after years of careless supervisors rating them "Excellent.") It can be done.

   At my next stop, I was the first hire in the contracting division. Totally different situation. Hiring in bulk can be challenging--I got a few wrong, but mostly got it right. Point is, the way you imprint your stamp on the organization is going to depend on the state of the organization.

1 hour ago, KeithB18 said:

Point is, the way you imprint your stamp on the organization is going to depend on the state of the organization.

Good point.