	Purposes

This report, General Management Laws: Major Themes and Management Policy Options , is a companion to CRS Report RL30795, General Management Laws: A Compendium (pdf) (hereafter "compendium"). In combination, these reports have three main objectives:
to identify and describe the major general management laws under which the executive branch is required to operate, including their rationale, design, and scope; to assist Members of Congress and their staff in overseeing management of the executive branch; and to help Congress when considering potential changes to the management laws, as well as other legislation, including authorizing statutes and appropriations. As a complement to the compendium, this report ("companion report") focuses on major themes and possible management policy options for Congress that emerge when the general management laws are viewed together, as a whole. The companion report reflects the status of general management laws at the end of the first session of the 108 th Congress, and will be updated along with the compendium to reflect actions taken through the close of the 108 th Congress. As a companion to the compendium, this report provides historical background on the roles that Congress and the President play in managing the executive branch. Major Themes and Management Policy Options

Given the history of managing the executive branch and also the differences between management practices in the public and private sectors, the entries in the compendium of general management laws may raise public policy issues, both for the general management laws themselves and for specific agencies. Management Policy Options

In considering situations when Congress weighs whether to give discretion to an agency, and if so, to what extent, scholars have noted four general options that can be used alone or in combination by Congress to address delegation situations and help balance flexibility with accountability. Standardization vs. Customization

Should the management laws under which agencies operate be standardized, with rules that apply uniformly to many different agencies? Or should there be a mix of these two approaches? Mixed approaches can suffer from all these problems. Functional Silos vs. Challenges to Making Progress

Congress has faced major challenges in its oversight of executive branch management, especially regarding:
how to ensure executive branch agencies improve their management practices by complying with general management laws, and how (or whether) to measure agencies' progress in improving their management practices. Management Policy Options

Congress might consider further questions with regard to chief officers and interagency councils. For example, should executive branch agencies have additional chief officers, or their equivalents? How should the councils be funded?
This report is a companion to CRS Report RL30795, General Management Laws: A Compendium (pdf) (hereafter "compendium"). In combination, these reports have three main objectives: (1) to identify and describe the major management laws under which the executive branch is required to operate, including their rationale, design, and scope; (2) to assist Members of Congress and their staff in oversight of executive branch management; and (3) to help Congress when considering potential changes to the management laws, as well as other legislation, including authorization statutes and appropriations.
This report focuses on major themes—and possible policy options for Congress—that emerge when the general management laws are viewed together, as a whole. The report also describes historical context of the roles that Congress and the President play in managing the executive branch, and compares management in the public and private sectors. The themes and policy options address five topics.
Discretion for the Executive Branch: Congress frequently faces the issue of how much discretion to give the executive branch. Congress has options to address delegation situations and balance agency flexibility with accountability.
Standardization vs. Customization: Should the management laws under which agencies operate be standardized, with uniform rules? Or should some agencies have customized, agency-specific laws? Should there be a mix of the two approaches? Congress has options when confronted with these decisions.
Functional Silos vs. Integrated General Management: A functional perspective (e.g., looking at agency operations from the perspective of a budget officer or human resources officer) can boost efficiency. However, if functional orientations become inward-looking, functions can operate in isolation, resulting in coordination problems or missed opportunities. Congress has options to use an integrated general management perspective to solve agency management problems.
Making and Measuring Progress: Many executive branch agencies suffer from persistent, major management problems. Often these problems relate to areas the general management laws were intended to address. Congress has options for measuring and motivating agency progress in improving management practices.
Agency "Chief Officers" and Interagency Councils: Statutorily created "chief officers" (e.g., chief financial officers and chief acquisition officers) have increased in number in federal agencies. Congress also established interagency councils of these officers. Congress has options when considering whether additional chief officers should be established and how the councils could be more accountable.
The report reflects the status of general management laws at the end of the first session of the 108th Congress, and will be updated along with the compendium to reflect actions taken through the close of the 108th Congress.