# Executive Personnel Systems in Subnational Settings Executive Personnel Systems are the institutional arrangements through which governments select, manage, and hold accountable the senior officials who sit between elected leadership and the operational bureaucracy. Most of the literature focuses on national-level models — the U.S. SES, the UK Senior Civil Service, Chile's SADP — but subnational governments face distinct conditions: smaller talent pools, greater political-administrative proximity, and weaker institutional safeguards. This page collects cases and analysis of how states, provinces, and municipalities structure this strategic layer. --- ## Entries ### France ##### Mission Cadres Dirigeants_ (State and Ville de Paris) At the state level, France established an interministerial senior-leadership function called the _Mission Cadres Dirigeants_ (MCD), housed within the [Secrétariat général du Gouvernement (SGG)](https://www.youtube.com/@missioncadresdirigeantssgg473). The MCD's role was to implement the Prime Minister's orientations for the State's _cadres dirigeants_ — senior executives across ministries — in coordination with ministerial secretaries-general and the central HR administration, departing from the traditional career-based _grands corps_ pipelines ([example in vacancy documentation](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000042344419)). This interministerial governance function has since been succeeded by the [Délégation interministérielle à l'encadrement supérieur de l'État (DIESE)](https://www.diese.gouv.fr/), created by [decree](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000044559215) and effective 1 January 2022, with a mandate covering widened access to senior careers, identification of future senior leaders, and improved recruitment conditions ([DIESE profile on info.gouv.fr](https://www.info.gouv.fr/organisation/delegation-interministerielle-a-lencadrement-superieur-de-letat-diese)). At the subnational level, the Ville de Paris adopted a structure also named _Mission Cadres Dirigeants_, referenced in the City's [HR/mobility documentation](https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2020/07/16/0bf42bc1cfe94cf52a65953683911f1e.pdf). This makes Paris one of the few documented cases of a subnational government in a career-system country explicitly adopting open selection mechanisms for its executive layer. ### Australia #### State and Territory Senior Executive Services Australia's federal Senior Executive Service (SES) is established under the [Public Service Act 1999, s.35](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/psa1999152/s35.html), with the APSC providing [operational guidance](https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/hr-practitioners/senior-executive-service-ses). All states and territories maintain their own senior executive arrangements, though they diverge in how they handle specialist roles, middle management differentiation, and remuneration structures. For academic comparison, see Renfrow, Hede & Lamond (1998), [_A Comparative Analysis of Senior Executive Services in Australia_]([https://www.econbiz.de/Record/a-comparative-analysis-of-senior-executive-services-in-australia-renfrow-patty/10006098604](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3380546)). ##### Victoria Victoria was an early mover, establishing a subnational SES that preceded or developed alongside the federal model; its executive officer arrangements were reviewed in 2016, including the removal of performance-related incentive payments ([VPSC EO Review summary (PDF)](https://www.vpsc.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/VPSC-EO-Review-Summary-Report.pdf)). ##### New South Wales (NSW) New South Wales introduced a comprehensive executive framework under the [Government Sector Employment Act 2013](https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2013-040) with a lean, flat band structure (Bands 1–4, with Band 4 at Secretary level) designed to enable mobility across departments and agencies ([NSW PSC executive arrangements](https://www.psc.nsw.gov.au/employmentportal/executive/the-executive-employment-arrangements)). ##### Australian Capital Territory (ACT) The ACT reformed its Senior Executive Service in 2016, moving to fixed-term contractual arrangements of up to five years ([ACTPS SES Handbook 2025 (PDF)](https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2915412/Senior-Executive-Service-Handbook-2025.pdf); [PSM Amendment Bill 2016](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/bill_es/psmab2016325/psmab2016325.html)). ### USA #### California — Career Executive Assignment (CEA) California's CEA category is established in statute ([Gov. Code §19889–§19889.4](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?article=9.&chapter=2.5.&division=5.&lawCode=GOV&part=2.6.&title=2.)) and operated through the State Personnel Board (SPB) and CalHR. It is a civil service executive category that relies on competitive examinations to establish eligibility, with a delegated workflow for departments to propose and fill CEA "concepts" subject to a 30-day public review period. Eligibility is not restricted to current civil servants. Compensation is organized in three tiers (A/B/C) with published salary ranges and a "restricted zone" ceiling. CEA appointees retain reinstatement and deferred exam rights upon termination, and SPB maintains oversight through audits of delegated authority. It is the most exam-intensive subnational executive personnel system identified in this review. See also: [Gov. Code §18546 (definition of "career executive")](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=18546.), [CalHR HR Manual 1203: CEA](https://hrmanual.calhr.ca.gov/Home/ManualItem/1/1203). #### Wisconsin — Career Executive Program Wisconsin's Career Executive Program ([Wis. Stat. §230.24](https://dpm.wi.gov/Hand%20Book%20Chapters/WHRH_Ch_156.pdf)) requires that all vacancies in career executive positions be filled through an open competitive process. A distinctive feature is the two-year trial period at the start of each appointment, designed for structured performance observation. The program explicitly emphasizes inter-agency mobility: reassignment rules include advance approval requirements, written notice, limits on cross-agency moves during trial periods, and appeal pathways. The system is documented in the [Wisconsin Human Resources Handbook, Ch. 156](https://dpm.wi.gov/Hand%20Book%20Chapters/WHRH_Ch_156.pdf) and administered under ER-MRS 30. #### Washington — Washington Management Service (WMS) Washington's WMS ([WAC 357-58](https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=357-58), authorized by RCW 41.06.500) creates a managerial sub-system within the classified service. WMS employees remain classified but are governed by specialized rules. Each agency must develop and submit for central approval both a recruitment/selection policy and a salary administration policy for WMS positions. The system allows reassignment of WMS employees to meet organizational needs; if the reassignment falls within a "reasonable commute" as defined by the agency, the employee must accept. WMS is framed as a competency-based, performance management environment. #### Florida — Senior Management Service (SMS) and Selected Exempt Service Florida differentiates between career service and exempt categories through statute ([Fla. Stat. §110.402](https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0110/Sections/0110.402.html) for SMS; [§110.205](https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0110/Sections/0110.205.html) for Selected Exempt) and administrative rules ([FAC Ch. 60L-33](https://dms-media.ccplatform.net/content/download/53577/225338/file/60L-33,%20Appointments%20and%20Status,%20F.A.C.%20%5BRev%209-7-17%5D.pdf)). Both SMS and Selected Exempt employees receive "exempt status" upon original appointment. A notable operational feature is the codified use of executive search firms: if an agency's internal recruitment for an SMS position fails, it may contract multistate executive search firms meeting specific criteria — including contingency-fee constraints, demonstrated placement capacity, time-to-delivery expectations, and diversity-recruitment evidence. This makes Florida's model more market-oriented than exam-centered systems like California or Wisconsin. #### New Jersey — Senior Executive Service (SES) New Jersey's SES (NJ statute 11A:3-3) is a separate service distinct from the career service, composed of positions with managerial, policy-executing, and policy-influencing responsibilities. SES positions are designated and administered through the Civil Service Commission, which adopts rules for selection, placement, transfer, development, compensation, separation, and performance appraisal. An executive order frames the SES as created to attract, retain, and develop professional senior managers, with provisions for centralized criteria, performance-based compensation, mobility assignments, and succession planning. SES is explicitly not subject to all general civil service provisions unless specified. #### Oregon — Unclassified Executive Service and Management Service Oregon's DAS guidance divides state service into classified, unclassified (commonly "executive service"), exempt, and management service categories, each mapped to Oregon Revised Statutes (including ORS 240.205 for unclassified and ORS 240.212 for management service). Unclassified executive service positions serve "at the pleasure" of the Governor, agency director, or appointing authority, and generally lack appeal/grievance rights available to other categories. Appointments may be made by the Governor or by a department director with Governor approval, and are terminable at any time. Management service designation is determined through position description evaluation by trained analysts. See: [DAS guidance on unclassified service evaluation](https://www.oregon.gov/das/HR/Documents/Evaluating-Unclassified-Service-5-2024.pdf). #### Maryland — Executive Service, Management Service, and Special Appointments Maryland's Department of Budget and Management (DBM) defines Executive Service, Management Service, and Special Appointments as "at will" service categories that do not follow standard merit-system hiring procedures such as advertising and testing. Appointments are governed by [Md. Code §7-301](https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/state-personnel-and-pensions/division-i/title-7/subtitle-3/section-7-301/), which requires that they follow guidelines issued by the Secretary of Budget and Management and that appointees be qualified for the position. The system operates less as a statewide executive corps and more as a set of formal service categories that separate senior leadership roles from standard merit hiring while maintaining qualification standards through centralized guidance. See also: [DBM Service Categories](https://dbm.maryland.gov/jobseekers/Pages/ServiceCategories.aspx). #### Pennsylvania — Senior Management Service (SMS) Pennsylvania's SMS is defined in official civil service rules as unclassified positions with "broad policy participation and management responsibility." SMS staff — typically bureau directors, superintendents, and regional managers — serve at the pleasure of the agency head, and their compensation is governed by Executive Board rules. A central approval step requires that non-civil-service senior-level positions, including SMS, receive approval from both the Governor's Office and the Office of Administration prior to hiring, promotion, or transfer. See: [Rules of Classified Service Employment (PA Bulletin)](https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/scsc/documents/hearings-and-appeals/documents/rules%20of%20classified%20service%20employment.pdf), [Executive Guide to the Commonwealth HR Management System](https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/hrmoa/documents/hire-sep/documents/executive-manager-handbook.pdf). #### Michigan — Classified Executive Service (CES) Michigan's CES is a merit-system executive mechanism within the classified service, described in a [Michigan Attorney General opinion (No. 5663, 1981)](https://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1980s/op05663.htm) and evaluated in detail by the [Citizens Research Council of Michigan (1988)](https://crcmich.org/wp-content/uploads/rpt288.pdf). The system features two levels (State Executive I and II), limited-term appointments, competitive examinations including in-basket exercises and three-member oral panel appraisals, modified appeal rights, and performance-based compensation. The Citizens Research Council report identified concerns about a "conversion" pathway that allowed incumbents in CES-designated positions to convert without the full examination/selection process, raising questions about the program's merit integrity in practice. #### Tennessee — Executive Service Tennessee explicitly defines an "Executive Service" employment type in statute (Tenn. Code Ann. §8-30-202). Executive Service employees serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. The statute enumerates covered roles broadly: positions appointed by the Governor, deputy and assistant commissioners, heads of major organizational units, functional chiefs in areas like budget, audit, IT, and HR, confidential staff, and other defined executive-related positions. The system is determined by role characteristics rather than an exam-based membership process, making it a category-based at-will model. See: [TN HR Support — What is an Executive Service employee?](https://hrsupport.tn.gov/hc/en-us/articles/41905103382803-What-is-an-Executive-Service-employee). #### New York — Management/Confidential (M/C) Designation New York does not operate a single statewide executive corps but maintains a legally defined managerial/confidential category embedded in the Taylor Law framework ([Civil Service Law §201](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVS/201)). M/C employees are designated by the Public Employment Relations Board based on criteria related to policy formulation and direct labor-relations roles, and are excluded from collective bargaining negotiating units. The [Office of Employee Relations](https://oer.ny.gov/managementconfidential-mc-0) provides dedicated handbooks, salary schedules, and training support for this unrepresented managerial cohort. It functions more as a designation system than an executive personnel program in the traditional sense. #### Connecticut — Senior Executive Service (SES) Connecticut's SES appears in statute (Sec. 5-236) within the unclassified service appointment framework, with references to an SES board. However, primary CT-hosted statutory text could not be fully retrieved in the source review, limiting the level of detail available compared to other states. The statutory framework indicates the existence of both the SES and a governance board, but procedures, tenure/return rights, and compensation rules require further primary-source verification. #### Iowa — Public Service Leader Series Iowa's Department of Administrative Services maintains a [Public Service Leader classification series](https://das.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/hr/documents/class_and_pay/ClassSeriesGuidelines/PublicServiceLeader.pdf) that includes a Public Service Executive role defining executive-level managerial responsibilities and placement in agency leadership. Selection proceeds through the state [classification and recruitment framework](https://das.iowa.gov/state-employees/human-resources/classification-pay). However, this functions more as a job classification series than a distinct executive corps with specialized appointment, mobility, or tenure rules. A formal "SES corps" architecture with dedicated selection and management provisions was not identified in the sources reviewed.