USDA Role in America This report shall be a summary of the role of the United States Department of Agriculture, or USDA. The lens through which the analysis of the agency will be done is the Baldridge Criteria for Performance Excellence. To start with, there will be an organizational profile, a self-analysis and a narrative summary of recommendations that come from the profile and analysis. The seven categories that will be done as part of the Baldridge-assisted analysis are leadership, strategic planning, customer focus, measurement/analysis/knowledge management, workforce focus, operations focus and result. There will be important aspects and details that will be touched up on with each section. While some may dismiss the role of the United States Department of Agriculture as being mundane and unimportant, this could not be further from the truth.

USDA Analyzed

Organizational Profile

As explained on the United States Department of Agriculture website, the agency is one that "provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science, and effective management" (USDA, 2016). The vision statement of the United States Department of Agriculture is:

We have a vision to provide economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve our Nation's natural resources through conservation, restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands" (USDA, 2016).

The strategic plan of the organization, as will be drilled down on later, is to serve as a roadmap for the department to help ensure that the overall mission and implementation of the vision is achieved. The presiding Secretary of Agriculture is Tom Vilsack. The Deputy Secretary of the agency is currently Krysta Harden. The United States Department of Agriculture has been around for more than one hundred and fifty years. The "offerings" of the agency are support and regulation of the agricultural paradigm in the United States so that everyone is following the same rules and the farmers/consumers are assisted by the agency. The workforce profile of the USDA is pretty straight-forward. There are the high-level leaders mentioned above as well as lower departments and sub-agencies. There are facilities and resources scattered about the regional and headquarters of the USDA. The organization structure is fairly to very hierarchal in nature, especially at the top. The customers and stakeholders are basically everyone in the United States since everyone is impacted by how food gets to one's dinner table and who is involved (USDA, 2016).

Leadership

The leadership structure of the United States is not unlike what it would be for other agencies. Indeed, the secretaries of the agency are appointed by the President. These appointees typically have to be reviewed and approved by Congress. The secretaries are then subject to the laws and parameters that govern the country at large as well as the specific rules and guidelines that pertain to their agency. Just as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has a lot to do with how the Department of Health and Human Services behaves and regulates itself, the same is true for the United States Department of Agriculture and the laws that pertain to that agency, both directly and indirectly. While the rank and file of the agency are typically hired, fired, trained and so forth by the top people in the agency and are not appointed or elected, the people that are responsible for all of this answer to the President and Congress. If something goes terribly wrong, the same thing would apply. A real-world example of this would be the leader of the Veteran Affairs Administration being interrogated by Congress and/or fired (e.g. Shinseki) for the actions and non-actions that happened in relation to the people (e.g. veterans) they are supposed to be assisting and helping (OPM, 2016).

When it comes to governance, there are a few...

First, it has to be understood that one of the overarching goals of the agency is to ensure the safety of the consumers and that the trust and contract with the taxpayers is not broken. Indeed, all of the activities and behaviors of the United States Department of Agriculture are funded by the tax dollars of the public, just like any other government agency. The United States Department of Agriculture does not produce anything of value nor is there any sort of tangible return on investment from what they do. Instead, they work with farmers and developers to ensure that food is safe and that the development of our country is gone about in the right way. This ties directly into the societal responsibilities of the United States Department of Agriculture. Indeed, the agency must be accepting of innovative and new ways of doing things. At the same time, they have to be sure that these new ways and methods are safe and palatable to the public. A good example of something to be careful about is the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) when it comes to food. Many people are suspicious or outright condemning of the actions and behaviors of companies like Monsanto, just to name one. While improvements in technology and agriculture are important, it is also important to look at the long-term effects and ramifications that these changes and innovations have. The effects can be health-based, economic, development-based or something else along those lines. There has be a balance between allowing firms and private businesses being allowed to innovate and improve the industry and not allowing them to go forward with something that will be detrimental in one or more ways. It should also be noted that political power plays and lack of personal or professional ethics overall should not enter the paradigm at any point because that just makes a bad situation worse. The United States Department of Agriculture is no different than any business or other government agency in this regard (USDA, 2016).
Strategic Planning

A key part of strategic planning is that the long-term outcomes and goals should be looked at rather than looking at each action item individually. Each individual action should be part of a grander and long-term strategy to move in a certain direction. Further, that direction should be based on sound logic, reason and results-based evidence. Again, allowing political pandering and favoritism to cloud decision making and mess up the process should not be part of the paradigm. If, for example, the United States Department of Agriculture has an issue with something that is going on with a given farmer's land, that is all well and good. However, the power that the United States Department of Agriculture has should not be abused or misused. If, for example, a farmer is engaging in activities that pollute the land, that is one thing. However, just because the farmer is not completely acting like the United States Department of Agriculture wants him or her to is not a reason to seize their land or overly control what they do with the same. Once a person owns and controls the land, they should generally have the right to do what they wish. At the same time, the United States Department of Agriculture have a dialog with the farmer and/or incentivize them to take a different path. Regardless, the farmer should not be forced to do anything they do not wish to do unless safety or something else very important is of grave concern (USDA, 2016).

In keeping with the general strategy of focusing on the proper strategic objectives, the United States Department of Agriculture should ensure that they are capitalizing on their core competencies and they should make every effort to improve existing core competencies and create new ones given advances in technology, innovation or best practices. As noted before, the long-term goals should always be the main goal but there can be deviations from that as needed based on short-term events and problems that arise. For example, the long-term agricultural management plans for the greater New Orleans area should not be ignored but the ravaging effects of Hurricane Katrina surely set back the area in terms of its agriculture but this is because there were more important things to focus on. These included the reclamation of damaged fields, the rebuilding of farm structures like barns and such, accounting for the fact that a lot of people (even if temporarily) left the area and so forth. In other words, pressing on to the long-term goals is important but short-term adjustments should be made if the situation and circumstances call for it. Also, long-term plans can be paused or altered if the possibilities in play are altered by new technology, a shift in demographics or a shift in stakeholders. Indeed, the stakeholders involved in any given situation that the United States Department of Agriculture is involved have to be on board with what is going on or the results of United States Department of Agriculture efforts will be minimized or even neutralized. The…