Government Executive - Authors - David Hornestay

Why the Government Doesn’t Work

David Hornestay — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:00:00 -0400

We're shocked -- shocked -- to discover that government files with sensitive personal information about citizens have been hacked, or that waiting lists for medical treatment for veterans have grown, despite extra funds and doctors. Before that, we were shocked to hear of the colossal failure of the enrollment system for the biggest change in health insurance coverage in decades, and before that, flood victims left helpless and hammers that were overpriced.

Why am I not among the shocked? Because I worked in the civil service for over 30 years. I know how hard it is to get things done and get things right under the rules and restraints associated with conducting the government’s business. It’s a problem that we the taxpayers -- the employers of the civil service -- ignore at our growing peril.

To some, the civil service constitutes a faceless bureaucracy of clerks, slackers and do-gooders interfering with the productive flow of the private sector. Others see the federal workforce as a hard-pressed, underfunded corps of idealistic public servants striving to carry out the will of the people without regard to politics.

There's truth to both assessments. Civil servants have had a lot to do with reaching the moon and Mars, developing lifesaving vaccines, heading off epidemics, multiplying the productivity of agriculture, and making the deployment of armed forces possible. But some have had a lot to do with the failures of computer security and the health care enrollment system, the chicanery in hiding backlogs and delays of veterans’ health care, letting politics creep into IRS nonprofit exemption decisions, and allowing vast and habitual cost overruns on military weapons systems.

Much of the good can be attributed to highly trained and highly motivated workers. The less admirable can be attributed to poor performers and a management environment that not only tolerates inadequate performance, but hobbles the efforts of the capable and well-intentioned.

Absent scandals and conspicuous failures, the pay and working conditions of federal employees are of little concern to the political appointees and Congress members whose main motivation is building a record for election or other advancement. The guidance that flows down to the working level is more oriented to avoiding negative publicity or embarrassment than it is to high performance.

Political executives, whose tenure averages two years or less, are scarcely acquainted with their agencies' problems and prospects by the time they move on. Meanwhile, they will have attempted to make a splash with priorities and leadership methods that their successors are likely to change. Career civil servants are expected to adapt and devote voluminous hours and documentation required to shift direction.

The workforce also is hamstrung by an excess of rules and regulations -- all in the interest of avoiding embarrassment and high-profile failure. The red tape associated with applications for government services or filing claims is despised by the public. The complexities are more intense for federal workers, who hassle with justifications for action and multiple levels of approval, largely to avoid a repetition of some long-forgotten abuse or to provide cover for a new mishap.

Similarly, the effort involved in preparing and defending budget requests in front of multiple congressional committees takes a major chunk of federal managers’ time. Add to that the routine reports required by Congress, many for activities that are no longer relevant. The administrative minutia and politics are a diversion from providing direct service to the public.

Jobs and compensation also are subject to the fluctuating sentiments of political officials. Ever since President Reagan identified the government as "the problem, not the solution," the federal workforce has experienced repeated hiring and pay freezes and reduced benefits. Its size and shortcomings have provided cannon fodder for congressional hearings and campaign rhetoric.

One of government’s biggest hurdles to success is its process for dealing with inadequate performance. The long-hallowed tradition of protecting employees against politically motivated personnel actions have discouraged sensible means of dismissing employees who aren’t getting the job done. Retraining, rehabilitation and reassignment are conscientiously pursued, but when those fail, managers balk at the time-consuming procedures and litigation involved in firing poor performers.

From time to time, outside commissions have recommended sweeping changes to the civil service system, ranging from the reorganization of agencies to the structure of pay and rewards. Minor tweaks have resulted, but the basic characteristics and inefficiencies remain.

Sooner or later, probably later, the political arms of government will have to deal with the looming fiscal crisis in an insecure world -- think perpetual sequestration, Greek austerity and defending American interests with an outdated military force. A more efficient, cost-effective civil service could contribute much toward the wide-ranging and unprecedented actions required.

Absent the necessary workforce reforms, taxpayers can expect to be shocked again and again.

David Hornestay is a retired government management official and former columnist for Government Executive.

(Image via Mindscape studio/Shutterstock.com)

]]>

Sensitivity Training Can Strike a Nerve

David Hornestay — Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:00:00 -0500

Agencies are riding national demographic trends while doing their best to build a workforce that "looks more like America." Minority representation in the federal government rose from 26.7 percent in 1988 to 29.4 percent in 1998. That figure exceeded the proportion of minorities in the civilian labor force (26.4 percent), according to a recent Office of Personnel Management report on the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program.Hispanic representation is increasing but continues to lag behind that of other minority groups.

The trend is expected to continue. The Labor Department's 1999 report, "Futurework: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century," predicts that by 2050, the number of Americans will increase by 50 percent and minorities will make up nearly half the population.

Immigration will account for almost two-thirds of the nation's growth. The number of older Americans is expected to more than double. One-quarter of all Americans will be Hispanic, and about one in 10 will be Asian or Pacific Islander. More women and people with disabilities will be in the workforce.

Getting more minorities onto the payroll is just a first step. The next challenge is breaking down the cultural and communication barriers to building successful teams from this new blend of employees. Federal managers must "make diversity an organizational advantage," according the Office of Personnel Management guide, "Building and Maintaining a Diverse and High Quality Workforce." This means tapping the broader experiences and talents of people with more diverse backgrounds in solving problems and fulfilling agency missions. To ensure these capabilities are unleashed, OPM has called upon agencies to:

Train employees in intercultural communication.
Provide supervisors and managers with leadership and diversity training.
Emphasize the benefits and rewards of a diverse workforce, which helps create a supportive work environment.

This emphasis on cultural sensitivity has spawned a cottage industry of diversity trainers who are ready to help agencies eliminate barriers. Bernie Smith, a former Army EEO official who now heads the Federal Facilitators Group of Falls Church, Va., says an ounce of prevention can help organizations avoid problems rooted in cross-cultural misunderstandings. Careful attention to friction arising from increased diversity is a must, Smith says."It's not only the traditional irritations [between] black and white or male and female," he says. "We're finding problems within ethnic groups, like Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans upset with each other, or a total ignorance of Islamic customs and practices."

Essential steps, Smith says, include teaching workers about the practices and interests of diverse groups in the workforce. Two-way communications between employees also are critical. Another vital but often overlooked measure is showing no tolerance for racial slurs and ethnic jokes. "They are the cause of much bad feeling and many resulting disputes," Smith cautions. "And high officials need to step in and take visible action when managers at any level are failing to confront such expressions of this type."

Unfortunately, diversity training can sometimes produce unintended consequences. Last spring, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency announced seminars in the Washington area "to create understanding, sensitivity and awareness of diversity issues and provide a forum for exchanging information and ideas." But the agency's plan backfired. Employees complained about condescending and one-sided objectives outlined in course literature, such as teaching "whites to learn how to be better allies with people of color in creating positive change."

The EPA course drew praise from many participants, but the agency has learned that sensitivities work both ways and well-intended ventures in diversity training can have reverse effects. Mauricio Velasquez, who heads the Diversity Training Group, a Reston, Va., consulting firm, laments that too often he has to rescue organizations whose good intentions went awry. "I am hired to come in and clean up" after other diversity trainers have polarized workforces, he says.

Velasquez says old school diversity training should be abandoned in favor of non-confrontational, practical, participant- centered, positive and future-oriented programs. His approach at agencies such as NASA, the Social Security Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology features employee input, senior management participation, establishment of diversity learning and resource centers, and development of communications and sensitivity skills. Most important, he says, raising cultural awareness should be part of a holistic, organization-wide approach to making a better workforce.

Is diversity training helping or hurting? The answer is both, which should motivate agency leaders to carefully select outside help and work closely with those consultants to fit diversity training into an overall performance improvement effort.

David Hornestay, a Washington consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management. ]]>

The Perils of Poor Performance

David Hornestay — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 -0500

Clouded Picture

Varied definitions of poor performance only cloud the extent of the problem. In its January 1999 study, "Poor Performers in Government: A Quest for the True Story," the Office of Personnel Management said, "Our best estimate of the proportion of poor performers in the federal workforce is 3.7 percent," concluding that it was not "a serious performance problem." Critics pointed out that the report was based on a telephone survey of supervisors using a definition with multiple subjective elements specially created for the survey.

Regardless of their numbers, poor performers can hurt morale. "Even a small number of poor performers, if not dealt with effectively, can have a negative impact much larger than their actual numbers would suggest," the Merit Systems Protection Board said in its 1999 study, "Federal Supervisors and Poor Performers."

However, most managers, human resources practitioners and observers agree that significant numbers of employees are doing sub-par work and fail to respond to standard training and counseling remedies. In a 1996 MSPB report, 44 percent of employees surveyed believed their agencies failed to adequately correct performance, and just over half said their agencies failed to fire people who didn't improve. But MSPB noted that the lack of disciplinary action is about more than simple inattention or neglect. The human dimension makes these cases complex and emotionally draining.

In an unusually moving passage for a government report, one MSPB survey respondent told of his anguish over having to fire a family man with 20 years of satisfactory service. The employee couldn't do his current job, but seemed capable of performing adequately elsewhere in the agency, as he had done previously. The supervisor tried to make the case that the selection had been a mistake and that reassignment was appropriate, but upper-level managers refused to support such a move. The employee ultimately lost his job, but only after a prolonged adversarial process that was stressful for everyone involved.

Solving The Problem

Fortunately, several agencies have developed ways to deal with poor performers. This year, a blue ribbon interagency work group on performance management sent a report to the President's Management Council, offering this three-pronged strategy for dealing with problem employees:

Expect excellence.
Establish accountability.
Take timely action.

The work group's recommendations ranged from simplifying the process for removing poor performers to establishing early intervention practices, such as the following:

The Treasury Department's Rapid Response Team consists of high-level headquarters and legal officials who provide advice and assemble the resources supervisors need to explore their options for dealing with problem employees.
The Education Department's Informal Dispute Resolution Center provides mediation services at the informal stages of agency employee-management disputes and has worked on hundreds of cases since 1996.
The U.S. Navy's Performance Development Resources process involves a pool of people, including union representatives, who provide support for employees and managers to help diagnose problems and identify solutions such as training, new work aids or reassignment.
NASA mandates coaching sessions for managers on techniques for conducting successful performance meetings.
OPM's CD-ROM, "Addressing and Resolving Performance Problems," presents dramatizations of performance cases with accompanying guidance. OPM has also developed an online Performance Management Clearinghouse to help agencies share information about their performance management programs, processes and practices.

The key to dealing with poor performers is to start early and muster the support needed to turn them into good performers. Dismissal, although it should be the last resort, is sometimes necessary, but it should be supported by a record of constructive team effort.
]]>

Motivating a leaner, greener workforce

David Hornestay — Sat, 01 Jul 2000 00:00:00 -0400

letters@govexec.com

hat makes people exert their best efforts? As working people have advanced from the status of animated tools in the scientific management era of 100 years ago to the heady ranks of associates and partners in today's enterprises, that question has remained vital to those who pay them in settings ranging from factory floors to headquarters offices. For federal agencies, it looms again with special urgency as the aftereffects of a decade of downsizing come into focus.

The private sector, which downsized dramatically a decade before the government did, is by all accepted economic and financial measures the fittest and most productive it has ever been. The human measures, less universally accepted and far less systematic, yield a less triumphant picture. An American Management Association survey of more than 1,000 companies in the early 1990s found lower morale in surviving employees, who often feared that they would be the next to go in another round of layoffs. A more recent British study, for instance, found that survivors of downsizing were twice as likely as members of a stable employee population to take sick leave and were five times as likely to suffer back and muscle pain.

A frequent theme in human resources literature is the altered "employment contract," which replaced the employer-for-a-lifetime model with the more modest expectation that an employer merely provides workers the opportunities to develop job skills for multi-employer careers. One consequence is the common employee practice of using official time to check job openings, write and file résumés, take career skills courses and receive career counseling.

The leaner government has made its contribution to the unprecedented turnaround of federal finances from chronic deficits to tempting surpluses. But does the surviving workforce possess the skills and temperament necessary to carry out its missions? Clearly, a politically driven downsizing, accomplished with much buying out of senior talent to minimize layoffs, leaves significant skill imbalances and a loss of institutional memory that may take years to redress. Although the methods for identifying, recruiting and developing necessary competencies are fairly well established, how to deal with insecurities and battered psyches is far less understood.

The absence of surefire formulas for motivating workers is not the result of a dearth of research. Captains of industry and leaders of public enterprises have been abundantly supplied with suggestions from behavioral science research experts at least since the fabled Hawthorne, Ill., Western Electric experiments of the 1920s and 1930s. Those much-studied lighting experiments surprised many by showing that workers were more positively affected by management attention to their welfare than by the quality of lighting in their work areas.

Another classic theory, Abraham H. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, helped managers understand when to address employee survival concerns in times of real or anticipated cutbacks, and when to deal with fuller career aspirations in more secure times. A parade of scholars beginning with Douglas McGregor propounded theories about eliciting better performance by trusting, developing the potential of, and empowering workers. On a more popular level, management guru Tom Peters and others pointed the way to excellence by touting the methods of the most consistently successful organizations.

Even more directly relevant to government executives and managers are surveys of the federal workforce. The Merit Systems Protection Board is now completing its triennial Merit Principles Survey, in which it asks nearly 20,000 employees their views of their work and work environment. Results are to be released sometime next year. Past MSPB reports have shed light on sources of dissatisfaction and on the credibility of management initiatives and actions, suggesting the need for more frequent communications and clearer explanations of why actions are taken. The National Partnership for Reinventing Government found in a 1999 survey that job satisfaction is higher in agencies that emphasize reinvention activities.

The National Academy of Public Administration's Center for Human Resources Management has dealt extensively with both positive incentives and the treatment of poor performers. NAPA reports showed that burdensome paperwork discouraged supervisors from proposing employee awards and recipients' enthusiasm waned after long waits. So, the center urged the adoption of simplified, electronic-based processes. A number of agencies do exactly that, with the Commerce Department enabling managers to produce almost instant results for awards up to $1,000. At the other end of the performance spectrum, NAPA recommended alternative discipline programs, featuring efforts to reach agreement between employee and supervisor on a course of improvement with penalties held in abeyance or subsequently canceled.

Although studies have limitations, and often endorse dubious panaceas and passing fads, much of the information they contain can be helpful. Forty years after McGregor's research documented the fact, workers-especially those with alternative employment options-still respond better when they are well informed and are trusted, challenged and involved in work-related decisions. The past decade has produced specific lessons about what makes teams succeed or fail, and learning techniques and technologies constantly improve. The problem, especially for many downsizing survivors in management and in human resources offices, is keeping up with this information and finding ways to apply what may be useful to situations involving highly unpredictable human beings.

Some agencies are banding together to tap into this information base and jointly consider its applications. NAPA's Center for HRM, with the support of a consortium of more than 50 agencies, is establishing a system to enable members to access HR knowledge and experience in a timely fashion through expanded Web sites and a computer-assisted facility, which will provide an interactive computer link for sharing and critiquing ideas and, consequently, more rapid decision-making. More information is available at www.hrm.napawash.org. That sounds like an ideal way to find lots of valuable information, not the least of which is how to motivate employees.

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

Case Study: Double Vision

David Hornestay — Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0500

letters@govexec.com

ick Powers breathed a sigh of relief when Len Larrabee returned to the fold after eight weeks at the Harvard executive development program. The finance division had not been the same without Larrabee's energy, enthusiasm and unflappable responses to changing priorities. Of course, those were the very attributes that had made senior managers notice Larrabee and send him to the highly selective Leader Development Program.

But now that Larrabee has been back for almost four months, Powers has reservations about the effects of all that leadership development on his deputy and on the division. Larrabee was an excellent accountant and financial analyst, a glutton for work and a key contributor to the automated accounting system that is going online. Powers was counting on Larrabee to spearhead the implementation of the new system. But lately he has begun to wonder where Larrabee's head is sometimes.

It all began innocently enough when Larrabee revised his individual development plan. "I think the Harvard program gave me some new insights on how I can enhance my value to the agency," the deputy said when he asked his boss to approve the plan. "By getting involved in professional and community activities off the job, I can improve my organizing, communicating and problem-solving skills. I think it's a win-win at no cost to the government."

Larrabee wrote in his IDP that he could achieve some of his objectives by playing a more active role in the Federal Accountants Society. In the past, he only occasionally attended Society luncheons. Powers politely glanced at the plan and initialed the modification.

Within a month, Larrabee was put in charge of the Society's luncheon programs. And now it seems to Powers that his deputy's energy and enthusiasm are focused primarily on his extracurricular assignment to the detriment of his paying job. For one thing, the third Thursday of each month is off limits to agency business. Most of Larrabee's morning is spent on calls and e-mails about the luncheon. Then he leaves the office long before the 11:30 program begins, since he is responsible for all the arrangements. The post-mortem extends well into the afternoon.

Powers could live with the loss of one day a month, which, after all, has some professional and developmental substance. But the preoccupation with Society business is converting Larrabee into a part-time deputy, stirring uneasiness among the staff. Larrabee shows up late for meetings and is less participative and incisive in dealing with day-to-day matters. Two branch chiefs complained to Powers that the new accounting system is floundering.

Powers asked his deputy, as gently as he could, whether he was aware of the impact his Society activity was having.

"Come on, Dick, it's basically part of one day a month, with a few phone calls in between," Larrabee said. "Anyway, this is giving me management experience and that's supposed to be good for me and the agency," he said.

"I'm sure your work for the Society is enhancing your value to the agency. But your first responsibility is to the job you're getting paid for," Powers said. He told Larrabee he wasn't making the contributions he used to make at program reviews and staff meetings. And he complained that Larrabee hadn't informed him about problems with the new system.

"That was your baby," Powers said. "I was sure you'd come roaring back from Harvard determined to make it work. Doesn't this stuff interest you any more?"

"Of course it does, Dick," Larrabee responded. "But I don't see myself just as an agency accountant. I'm part of the federal accounting community." Larrabee explained that he wants to develop his potential and give what he can to the agency first but also to the other worlds he belongs to. He told Powers that the old lifetime commitment between an agency and its employees doesn't hold any more.

"Am I doing a disservice to my employer?" Larrabee said.

The deputy's last word resounded with the chief. If the finance division is the employer, the answer might be yes. But in terms of the agency, isn't Larrabee becoming better qualified for higher positions? And isn't providing dozens of accountants with a stream of informative and inspiring speakers a contribution to the government at large? But ethics rules say outside activities should not conflict with official duties and responsibilities. Aren't Larrabee's official duties taking a back seat?

Editor's Note: Government Executive asked three commentors to weigh in on Larrabee's situation. Their responses are listed in the left-hand column of this page.

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

Case Study: Sitting Duck

David Hornestay — Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:00:00 -0500

t sure was great getting together with Tucker Arnold again. After all, they'd spent 16 years in the same agency, sometimes at adjoining desks. Before Tucker retired, they had spent two years as assistant directors of the Business Support Bureau. They had weathered many reorganizations, special projects and other crises side by side.

Charlie Grimm's best memories after his move east to head up a bureau division in Washington were of skiing vacations with Tucker and his family, and hunting and fishing expeditions, just the two of them.

And now Arnold had moved on, taking an early retirement from the downsizing bureau to join the New York headquarters of Walker-Reese Enterprises as director of business analysis. Grimm missed Arnold. The latest reorganization had left him supervising the remnants of Arnold's last fiefdom in addition to his own work, and the staff didn't exactly exude camaraderie. Off the job, Grimm couldn't persuade any of his friends to join in the pleasures of rising early for a bumpy ride to stalk game.

So it was a pure delight to hear from Arnold when he called to say he was coming to Washington on business. They met for lunch and brought each other up to date on their diverging executive lives. Grimm was most interested to hear about Arnold's adjustment to New York and the demands of corporate-level management in the private sector. He was glad to learn that his friend's responsibilities would likely bring him to the nation's capital several times a year for contacts with federal agencies and trade organizations, although neither of them could envision any reason he would deal with the bureau.

It wasn't more than two weeks later that Arnold called again with really good news.

"So you thought your hunting and fishing career was over? Well, I just found out that Walker-Reese has a hunting lodge on the Eastern Shore," Arnold said. "Execs are invited for the opening of the duck season next month, and we can each bring a friend. Are you game, old buddy?"

It was too good to be true. Arnold's ethics training sent up an initial red flag about benefits from an industrial or commercial organization. But the bureau's workforce was almost exclusively civil service, the agency had no major contractors, and the few modest service contracts it had were not likely to be of interest to manufacturing and trading giant Walker-Reese. Moreover, Arnold recalled the ethics rules made allowances for benefits clearly arising from a family or personal, rather than business, relationship. His friendship with Tucker Arnold was certainly well known.

So, in no more time than it took to make that analysis and to check his calendar, Grimm enthusiastically accepted the invitation. Counting down the days, he could practically feel the chill of the duck blind. And then came the tiniest suggestion of a potential spoiler. A brief item in the business section of the newspaper said Millennium Business Systems, his organization's service contractor, was being acquired by-of all conglomerates-Walker-Reese Enterprises.

He knew Tucker Arnold well enough to be sure that his friend had nothing to do with the acquisition. He calculated the distance between the corporate director of business analysis in New York and a small subsidiary in the Washington suburbs. Then, too, Grimm was not a source selection official, but he supposed he would have something to say about the contractor's payments and contract renewals.

Everyone knew of his friendship with Arnold. But would that help or hurt? Could Arnold recuse himself from any future considerations of Millennium's services or would a suspicion of impropriety linger once he had enjoyed the hospitality of their corporate owner? Should he cancel his hunting trip? Maybe Frank Edwards, the agency ethics official, could give him a quick response.

Editor's Note: Government Executive asked three commentors whether Grimm needs the advice of the ethics officer on the impact of the Millennium acquisition on his hunting date; whether he needs to assure himself that Arnold is unconnected to the acquisition and Millennium's future success; and what he should do about future dealings with Millennium. Their responses are listed in the left-hand column of this page.

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management. He also writes for FPMI Inc.

]]>

Case Study: Slick Deal

David Hornestay — Wed, 01 Sep 1999 00:00:00 -0400

merica was facing another energy crisis. The promises of limitless supplies of foreign oil and gas and revived domestic production had proved as illusory as stability in the Persian Gulf or honesty and efficiency in the emerging Caspian Sea oil republics. As in the 1970s, Americans were suddenly confronted with rising fuel prices and threats of rationing. The fact that Matt Kennan and his colleagues had been among the Cassandras in the energy community proclaiming the inevitability of future shortages provided little comfort as the latest crisis unfolded. It was now their top priority to close the gap and make America warm and mobile again--at reasonable prices.

A career manager and executive who had been honored for his work in regulating the expanding energy sector of the economy, Kennan was the logical choice to head production oversight at the new Emergency Office of Energy Supplies. The President signaled his seriousness about the agency's mission by naming as its chief one of his favorite troubleshooters, Al Martin, his White House chief of staff and former sub-Cabinet member with excellent Capitol Hill connections.

Martin's charge to Kennan and his peers was simple and direct: "The President and my friends in Congress want to see immediate and visible progress in the flow of oil and gas. They don't want to hear about lines at gas stations or cold homes this winter. We will be as supportive and accommodating to anyone who can help as the law allows. That means creativity in sourcing, cutting red tape and expediting certifications, permits and anything else that wastes time or frustrates potential suppliers. I hope I'm clear."

So when the proposal for a pipeline from Canada to the soon-to-be-shivering northeastern states came up, Kennan and his staff sprang into action. A swift but comprehensive feasibility analysis yielded a positive recommendation, and a solicitation for bids was on the street in record time.

Martin was extremely pleased. He agreed to preside over a meeting for all potential pipeline builders to both underline the importance to the nation of a fast and successful project and to be sure that there was clear and common understanding of the requirements. He concluded the meeting by urging interested bidders to consult Kennan and his staff for any clarification or information they needed to comply with the accelerated competition timeline.

Willis Montgomery, a vice president of James Bay Pipeline, one of the leading companies in the field, took Martin's advice, requesting a meeting with Kennan prior to the bid-filing deadline. Meeting with Kennan and his deputy, Jill Foster, Montgomery and two members of his staff asked for clarification on a number of the environmental and financing factors contained in the solicitation and expressed apprehension about likely opposition from owners of property likely to be traversed by pipeline routes.

Kennan was mindful of the open and positive atmosphere that his agency wanted to foster with respect to the pipeline project and endeavored to go as far as he could in clarifying terms without offering inside information that could give James Bay Pipeline an advantage. He declined to speculate on potential opposition other than to agree that it had been common in the past.

No other companies requested meetings before the deadline to submit bids. Just as his office was about to start the bid-evaluation process, Kennan received an unsigned, typewritten note in a plain envelope:

"I guess you thought that the Canada pipeline would be another sweetheart deal," it read. "Guess again. Enclosed are copies of the notes of your private meeting with the James Bay executives at which you helped them with their bid. If you don't cancel the solicitation or disqualify James Bay by Friday night, I will give the originals of these notes to the House Energy Subcommittee."

The envelope was postmarked Washington, D.C., and there was, of course, no return address. The notes were substantially accurate, suggesting a presence or source at the meeting, but went just enough beyond Kennan's recollection of his responses to paint a picture of collusion. Had he said anything that could have been construed as the notes indicated? Should he ask Jill Foster if her memory coincided with his--or would that be taken to be coaching a potential witness? Was this a misunderstanding, or was one of Montgomery's assistants in the pay of a competitor? Had a public interest group or muckraker of some kind gotten to someone at the meeting?

Before he could possibly find the answers to all of those questions, Kennan had to deal promptly with the anonymous note. Martin would certainly not be happy about a monkey wrench in a high-visibility project so early in his tenure. And it was doubtful he would see this as an unfortunate outgrowth of the "full-speed-ahead" atmosphere he himself had created around the project. It was Thursday morning. Kennan had two work days to save the pipeline project--and vindicate himself.

Editor's Note: Government Executive asked the three commentators whether Kennan should immediately report the note to Martin or first gather information to help his boss respond to the charges; whether he went too far in his contact with James Bay; whether he should ask Jill Foster about her recollection of the meeting; and how such problems could be prevented in the future.

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

The Misfit Manager

David Hornestay — Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:00:00 -0500

s he headed for the human resources office, Stan Kelleher had his first moment of doubt about the fallout from the Income Support Bureau's restructuring. The deputy director had been exhilarated by the bureau's swift goal setting, realigning and streamlining of work under Tom Calley, a dynamic and focused new leader. And thus far, HR had softened the blow for employees with buyouts, early retirements, and career transitioning and outplacement services. But then came the case of J. Morton Schwarzkopf.

Kelleher had known Schwarzkopf by professional reputation even before he had arrived at headquarters to take the deputy position. Mort, as everyone referred to him, was as esteemed as he was popular. Beginning as a research analyst fresh out of college, Schwarzkopf had spent 28 years in the grants division, the last 10 as its chief.

That, Kelleher reflected, was in an era of seemingly limitless federal largesse, when the objective was to show grantees how to make the best use of it. Now the available resources and the consensus on how to use them had changed dramatically. Less tax money was to be spent providing income for citizens, and the Washington bureaucracy had decidedly less control over how it was to be spent. The bureau no longer needed visionary planners and advocates in the grants division. It needed some liaison representatives and a few hard-nosed auditors to make sure states and counties followed federal guidelines. That wasn't a job for the celebrated J. Morton Schwarzkopf.

Nor, Kelleher had regretfully concluded, did there seem to be any other job for Mort in the new order. The deputy director and Calley had met with the division chiefs when the bureau had gotten its reinvention marching orders. Many of the chiefs and key staffers had been willing and able to work with the states and local governments on a transition to the new system-taking their chances on how they'd fit in later. Others had opted for buyouts or early retirement or begun looking elsewhere for jobs.

But Mort had admitted he was neither philosophically compatible with the new strategy nor financially able to take advantage of the relatively generous separation benefits. Married late and with a son only in junior high, he figured he needed to maintain his current standard of living for another eight to 10 years. Meeting privately with Calley and Kelleher, he had summed up his situation poignantly: "Gentlemen, I can't see much of a need for my job or my talents in carrying out the bureau's new mission. But I've got a family to support, so I'm afraid I can't make your downsizing job any easier."

Calley had assured Schwarzkopf that they would do everything possible and had asked Kelleher to give the problem his personal attention. Kelleher, now seated opposite human resources Director Vivian Dixon, said Calley was looking for advice on how to avoid harming Schwarzkopf.

"This is where all this heady reinvention stuff starts to bite," Dixon commiserated. "I wish I could say Mort is the only star player rendered irrelevant by our passage to the brave new world. If it weren't for the buyouts and early outs, I don't know how we'd handle the fallout. The trouble is, Mort's personal circumstances don't accommodate all the usual options. Have you thought about the professional societies and advocacy groups? He's always had good connections outside."

"He mentioned those himself," Kelleher responded, "but funding in his field isn't all that robust out there, either, and their salary structures aren't too generous. Besides, he'd take a hit on the pension since he's just over 50."

"Why don't you suggest that he see one of our career counselors, Stan? The firm we hired does a very professional job, and many employees, including managers, have been pleasantly surprised at the range of ideas they stimulate. No guarantees, of course. Mort's situation is tough," Dixon said. The HR director hesitated a moment, then continued: "Here's one more incentive for us to solve this problem. The local managers association has protested to the Secretary and to the media about the reorganization's disproportionate impact on managers. They could have a field day with Mort as their poster child."

Kelleher doubted that the loyal bureau veteran would join any effort to discredit his employer, but he could become a cause celebre without his consent. But forgetting all that, what were the viable options? A reduction-in-force would probably leave the very senior Schwarzkopf in a much modified division director position, doing a job he disliked and displacing someone more likely to adapt to the new way of doing things. If he did poorly, would the bureau be prepared to take action against a longtime hero?

Kelleher needed a solution that promoted the effectiveness and efficiency of the reinvented organization without trashing the career of one of the finest contributors to its past.

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional
management.

]]>

The Human Factor

David Hornestay — Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 -0500

uman resources management is like the water system in your house: You don't notice it until it backs up or shuts down. Perhaps that's why human resources offices are becoming more visible in a growing number of federal agencies. HR officials are justifiably proud of the way they have coped with the past five years of downsizing and massive reorganization. But managers and executives outside the personnel field still criticize HR operations for failing to speed up hiring, promotions and discipline.

There is no doubt that differing expectations largely account for the divergent views. HR offices suffered painful staffing cuts under the mandates of the National Performance Review, yet successfully introduced buyouts, distance learning, automated personnel processes and labor-management partnerships to keep the civil service operating despite the loss of more than 300,000 jobs since 1993. But line managers experiencing their own cutbacks see little relief from traditional obstacles in hiring, promoting and disciplining. In addition, they must cope with an increase in administrative work migrating from shrunken HR offices.

Both groups' perceptions are right. Amidst the turbulence of reinvention and downsizing, human resources management offices are making a positive contribution to overall effectiveness in a growing number of agencies. Managers for the most part now view HR people as team members who try to help them get their jobs done. But many managers do not yet see significant added value from the HR function because understaffed--and sometimes overwhelmed--HR staffs are often unable to implement the very innovations and economies that would make them fully functioning and appreciated partners in management.

Though progress in HR management has often been painfully slow, there is evidence of positive change and streamlining among the agencies examined by the Government Performance Project. Among the more eye-catching innovations:

Formation of the Patent and Trademark Office employee university by a consortium of four colleges and universities;
The Social Security Administration's elimination of several organizational layers;
The Veterans Health Administration's Internet-based program to retrain nurses to become badly needed nurse practitioners;
A broad array of software packages to guide and assist supervisors and managers in performing HR tasks; and
The shift to simplified performance evaluation systems and the decoupling of monetary awards from appraisals.

The innovations have been forced, in many cases, by staff reductions averaging more than 20 percent in HR offices across government since 1992. Some offices have lost as much as 41 percent of their staff, according to a July General Accounting Office report (GGD-98-93). Those cutbacks have left some non-HR supervisors feeling swamped by administrative chores formerly performed by personnel offices. Indeed, the growing trend toward "shadow" human resources staffs in program organizations calls into question the net value of the HR office cuts.

Measuring HR Management

There is much disagreement about what constitutes progress and value in human resources management. One person's decentralization of authority is another's abdication of responsibility for merit principles. An increase in adverse conduct or performance actions may herald an overdue tightening of discipline or the collapse of morale and motivation.

But a consensus is developing on what makes an effective HR operation. At a conference of managers and HR specialists last year, Kay Frances Dolan, Treasury Department deputy assistant secretary for human resources, said that a good HR staff understands the organization's business, offers alternatives and customized solutions and demonstrates its usefulness by making life easier for managers and employees. Speaking for line managers at the same conference, Al Ressler, the Defense Logistics Agency's corporate administration chief, applauded the objective of relieving managers of process burdens and urged HR practitioners to become change agents.

Others emphasize human resources managers' roles in creating "learning organizations" in which the workforce is constantly adding skills and knowledge to meet new challenges. Customer satisfaction and frequent, high-quality communications are also characteristics of the new human resources model. But it is a model that lends itself more to "I'll know it if I see it" judgments than to the hard performance measures so much in demand today.

Nevertheless, analysts and practitioners are crafting measures of HR office contributions to the management of organizations. A September 1997 National Academy of Public Administration report, "Measuring Results: Successful Human Resources Management," suggests using customer-oriented surveys and balanced scorecards to align HR measures with organizational performance measures under the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act. The Transportation Department human resources office has constructed a scorecard of five measured
elements with organizational goals that allows for internal benchmarking. Other agencies are bound to follow suit as Congress intensifies its GPRA oversight activities.

Opting Out

Human resources officials, along with their observers and overseers, are sharply divided as to how much autonomy individual organizations should have in managing their people. Individual agencies, and pieces of agencies, are dropping out of some or most statutory and regulatory personnel constraints with congressional approval. The Federal Aviation Administration and IRS are only the most recent examples.

The Education Department's student loan office has won legislative exemption from most personnel and other administrative constraints as government's first official performance-based organization (PBO). In PBOs, executives are given broad exemptions from procurement and personnel rules in exchange for tough performance standards. They are expected to run their operations more like private companies.

Clearly, some issues have lent themselves and will continue to lend themselves to broad solutions. Changing demographics and economic realities in the early 1980s led Congress to create the Federal Employees Retirement System featuring a 401(k)-equivalent thrift plan and Social Security benefits for those hired after 1983. The size of the federal workforce makes possible a better deal in health benefits, as it presumably will in long-term care insurance, which the Clinton administration has proposed to provide and Congress appears likely to approve.

But on other human resources issues, the jury still is out on the most effective approach. For example, officials in almost every agency say federal pay limitations make recruitment and retention more difficult. But many HR offices have given up on the long-promised but elusive governmentwide pay comparability with the private sector and are working instead for individual agency flexibility. The broad personnel authorities granted FAA and IRS in the past three years were based in large part on their difficulties in hiring and keeping computer specialists to work on critical data and control systems.

The Clinton administration remains wary of significant pay increases. Clinton never has granted an annual increase equal to that called for by the President's pay agent under the 1990 pay reform law. An omnibus House civil service initiative in 1998 avoided major pay issues, as well. But the House civil service subcommittee expects to return to those issues in 1999.

Downsizing Drudgery

Another governmentwide human resources problem, downsizing, presents a dual challenge. On the one hand, human resources offices must try to find a humane way to downsize and retrain employees, and help them find new jobs. On the other hand, human resources offices, too, have fewer people to grapple with these new responsibilities.

Beginning in 1993, externally directed staff cuts of unparalleled size necessitated and complicated workforce planning. The governmentwide personnel reduction goal of 272,900 and its subsequent agency-by-agency distribution emerged from a political process rather than a strategic plan. That meant anticipatory turbulence and actual staff cutting began before programs, activities or workloads were reduced.

Most agencies struggled successfully to avoid large layoffs and the disruptive effects of reduction-in-force (RIF) regulations and procedures. Agencies strove to avoid chain-reaction displacements and the disproportionate impact of RIFs on junior and minority employees. With the private-sector downsizing of the 1980s in mind, Congress and the President authorized buyouts of up to $25,000 to facilitate voluntary separations. Early retirement also was offered more readily.

Agencies worked harder to ameliorate the pain of downsizing than to make sure enough of the right people remained after it was over. The majority of agencies showed "little or no regard for the long-term impact on the ability to carry out the mission considering such factors as core responsibilities and skills balance," according to an August report by the Office of Personnel Management. OPM surveyed employees and managers in 1997 and found that less than a quarter of each group considered their agencies' retraining efforts effective and only 23 percent of managers believed the right people currently were in the right jobs.

Downsizing-induced workforce planning may have been a blessing in disguise. The Social Security Administration adroitly cut several thousand jobs, reduced management layers and doubled its supervisory ratio. SSA human resources planners must now deal with new demographic realities. Eighty percent of SSA's senior executives, 70 percent of supervisors and nearly 60 percent of nonsupervisory employees will be eligible for retirement over the next five years, while the agency's workload will surge starting in 2010 as baby-boomer retirements begin.

The problems spawned by downsizing are illustrated by a Merit Systems Protection Board survey of 9,700 managers and employees in 1996. Nearly half the respondents believed their units lacked enough employees to get their job done and considered institutional memory to have been eroded. Forty percent felt organizational productivity had been impaired. Almost three-quarters of supervisors said their responsibilities had increased, but only 21 percent were aware of any new flexibility in taking personnel actions.

Hiring Headaches

The traditionally slow and cumbersome federal hiring process threatens to break down altogether under the added weight of a tight labor market and the dearth of employees with highly prized information technology skills. As they downsize, agencies also must keep hiring for those operations that are continuing and even expanding. Vigorous retraining and outplacement programs in such agencies as the Defense Department, the Patent and Trademark Office and the Veterans Health Administration aim to match downsized employees with job openings in their organizations and elsewhere.

But the technical expertise required in many occupations dictates active outside recruitment. Government salary levels are noncompetitive for such specialized jobs as electronics engineers, computer specialists and health practitioners. Personnel staffers at PTO, VHA, FAA and IRS are responding with electronic recruiting and hiring processes, financial incentives authorized by the 1990 pay reform law, and proposals for new incentives such as educational loan repayment programs.

VHA's health care staff development and retention office in New Orleans maintains centralized pools of highly qualified clinical applicants to supplement VHA facilities' staffing efforts. The office has an interactive health care recruitment World Wide Web site that offers information on vacancies by occupation and VHA facility. The site enables prospective employees to ask questions and transmit resumes electronically.

FAA's Internet distribution of vacancy announcements has reduced from three weeks to one day the time to prepare an announcement. In the first two years of operation, more than 6,000 announcements were issued online, resulting in more than 8 million Internet inquiries.

These days, few agencies can afford the luxury of individualized job analysis and evaluation. Agencies are giving managers standardized job descriptions that need just minor tinkering for use in hiring or promotions. Many agencies have installed software systems that create position descriptions, evaluation statements, staffing documents and performance plans.

The pressure to streamline hiring can sometimes go too far, in the view of John Palguta, director of policy and evaluation at MSPB. "Fast processes often cost in the long run," Palguta cautions, noting, for example, that when supervisors settle for an internal placement so they can avoid taking the time to recruit outside their agencies, they often regret it. "There should be a balance between efficiency and quality," Palguta adds, observing that streamlined and automated examining can produce candidates for selection in 24 hours. He concedes that many human resources organizations and managers are not up on the latest examining processes.

Skills Search

Budget limitations, a prosperous economy, relentlessly advancing technology and the disinclination to conduct RIFs are straining agencies' ability to attract and keep employees with needed skills. To support a strategic shift from predominantly inpatient to outpatient care, VHA began in 1997 a program to train registered nurses to become nurse practitioners. In a program created in connection with St. Louis University, nurses can hold full-time jobs while acquiring the prescribed education and training over three to four years. Another notable VHA initiative, the Student Career Experience Program, allows undergraduate and graduate students to gain valuable work experience, education and training in high-demand career fields. SCEP students can be appointed noncompetitively to VHA jobs upon graduation.

One of the lessons learned during private-sector downsizing was that employees need more skills and technology training to handle larger workloads and changes in goals and methods. Many corporations spend 3 percent to 5 percent of payroll annually on training and development programs. Judging by the GPP sample, that lesson has escaped most federal agencies. Of the agencies surveyed, only PTO, which spends nearly 6 percent of its annual budget on training, showed that level of commitment.

One of its showpieces is PTO University, a consortium of four colleges and universities near its Northern Virginia offices, which has served more than 1,000 employees and now offers undergraduate degrees and graduate certificates in a variety of subjects. The university works in tandem with PTO's Performance Learning Center, which is geared to more specific job-related training.

OPM's downsizing survey revealed that only four of 15 agencies visited indicated that training is a high priority. SSA described itself as "squeezed between conflicting goals: the desire for more and better training and development for the benefit of employees and the agency vs. the demand that costs for training and development be kept as low as possible."

Just Rewards

Age-old dissatisfaction with performance ratings is building to a crescendo as supervisors find themselves with more subordinates. In addition, the traditional five-level rating and bonus system applied by a single supervisor doesn't fit organizations increasingly made up of teams. In 1996, OPM granted broad latitude for agencies to design their own performance systems.

Several agencies opted for the ultimate simplicity of pass/fail systems in place of the traditional five levels, ranging from outstanding to unsatisfactory. But last year, the House civil service subcommittee, citing complaints from "demoralized employees" deprived of recognition, attempted to ban two-level systems.

Some agencies have adapted the private-sector practice of 360-degree, or multi-rater, performance assessments and report both cost savings and higher satisfaction among employees and supervisors. Advocates of such systems say involving subordinates and peers in ratings produces better evaluations for employees who work in teams and reduces pressure on supervisors who have many more subordinates than in the past.

No personnel problem has more staying power than the perception that government can't deal with poor performers. In a March 1998 study, "The Changing Federal Workplace: Employee Perspectives," MSPB found 62 percent of supervisors failed to take action against problem employees for fear that upper-level managers would not support them. The 1996 MSPB Merit Principles Survey cited time-consuming procedures, poor chances of success and fear of litigation as reasons for tolerating or seeking responses other than formal penalties for unsatisfactory performance or conduct.

But the relentless demand for more productivity from fewer hands is motivating many agencies to deal more promptly with performance and conduct problems. The topic is featured at conferences, seminars and "how-to" courses and in HR literature. OPM, in an example of what it does best in the face of a common need, has produced and circulated "Addressing and Resolving Poor Performance," a CD-ROM and guide for supervisors. With the help of case studies, checklists, references and answers to frequently occurring questions, supervisors are walked through the procedures for detecting problems, discussing them with employees, affording improvement opportunities and, if necessary, taking corrective action.

Union Blues

The Clinton administration mandated labor-management partnerships in 1993. Partnerships are flourishing in some agencies and have run into the hard reality of clashing interests in others. NTEU President Robert Tobias says across government, the state of partnerships ranges from "the barely breathing to robust." He believes their success coincides with management acceptance and the practice of negotiating on the basis of identified common interests.

Tobias hailed a recent experience his union had with the Customs Service, in which the agency enlisted the union's help in solving major lapses in drug interdiction. The two sides organized and empowered labor-management port councils to come up with remedies, resulting in constructive plans for heightened surveillance and staff deployment.

In 1996, the IRS determined that a RIF would be necessary to reach congressionally set staffing levels, NTEU took its opposition to Capitol Hill and won a legislative restriction on IRS layoffs. Tobias notes that the 1998 law giving IRS extraordinary hiring, pay and separation authorities specifies that the new flexibilities can be exercised only by written agreement with the union.

American Federation of Government Employees President Bobby Harnage shares Tobias' disappointment with the unwillingness of many agency managers to enter into genuine partnerships. But he, too, points to several labor-management relationships that have contributed to agency efficiency and effectiveness, including those at SSA, where time-consuming unfair labor practice complaints are down significantly.

Human resources people have become more effective partners in managing agencies. Their ability to maintain and possibly enhance this role depends to some extent on the fortunes of their respective agencies and future acts of administrations and Congress. Authorization to adopt long-standing industry practices such as pay-banding, which remain experimental in government, could help. But ultimately, their destiny also depends on their ability to think strategically, identify, cultivate or acquire needed competencies, and relentlessly pursue further efficiencies--all while making sure day-to-day personnel actions keep moving.

GPP report card

Return to GPP home

Human Resources

Management Grades
SSA	A
FDA	B
FEMA	B
FHA	B
FNS	B
HCFA	B
VHA	B
Customs	C
EPA	C
FAA	C
FSIS	C
IRS	C
OSHA	C
PTO	C
INS	D

Rating Criteria
Clear and understandable personnel policies and procedures. Workforce planning and strategic analysis of needs. Timely hiring and empowerment of managers to make hiring decisions. Maintenance of appropriate mix of skills among employees. Ability to motivate and reward employees appropriately. Ability to discipline and fire employees appropriately. Cooperative and balanced labor relations.

Best Practices
Speed up classification and hiring. FAA computerized position descriptions and posts job announcements on the Internet and makes automated rankings, ratings and referrals of candidates. Retrain current employees to meet new workforce needs. VHA trains registered nurses to become nurse practitioners through an Internet program. Reduce layers of management. SSA eliminated two to four layers in most organizations by eliminating first-line supervisors and delegating more authority to remaining managers. Involve employees in improving management. FDA encourages staff input via its intranet, town hall meetings, advisory councils, surveys and 360-degree assessments of managers. Prepare employees for new technology and reengineering. PTO University, a partnership with four higher education institutions, has provided courses in technology and other fields to more than 1,000 employees.

Best Practices

Speed up classification and hiring. FAA computerized position descriptions and posts job announcements on the Internet and makes automated rankings, ratings and referrals of candidates.

Retrain current employees to meet new workforce needs. VHA trains registered nurses to become nurse practitioners through an Internet program.

Reduce layers of management. SSA eliminated two to four layers in most organizations by eliminating first-line supervisors and delegating more authority to remaining managers.

Involve employees in improving management. FDA encourages staff input via its intranet, town hall meetings, advisory councils, surveys and 360-degree assessments of managers.

Prepare employees for new technology and reengineering. PTO University, a partnership with four higher education institutions, has provided courses in technology and other fields to more than 1,000 employees.

]]>

Perils of Privatizing

David Hornestay — Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 -0500

eremy Slater wondered whether his team would ever be willing to try a bold reinvention initiative again. He and his colleagues seemed to have gone about their experiment for the right reasons and in the right way--at least at first. But Slater, the Technical Development Administration's logistics chief, had to admit that he had begun to get bad vibes many months before. What was it about the project that made the team members keep wishing problems away until disastrous bottom-line data and inspector general inquiries had jerked them back to reality?

His spirit stirred by the evangelical National Partnership for Reinventing Government, and his mind focused on a tightened budget, Slater had challenged the annual conclave of senior logistics managers to identify a process or program likely to yield sizeable savings through reengineering or privatization. A rapid consensus had developed around contracting out property disposal, which contributed nothing to basic agency missions. The function had become labor intensive over the years as a thicket of federal regulations grew up in reaction to several well-publicized sweetheart deals. Moreover, the invariably meager financial returns from disposal passed right through the agency to the Treasury.

Slater and his colleagues had been further encouraged by the agency's recent success with the contracting out of travel services. That contract contained high service standards and a provision for rebates to the government for failing to meet those standards. So far, everyone seemed satisfied. With that in mind, two field installations had promptly volunteered to draft a request for proposals (RFP) covering property disposal.

Both efforts failed because of the workload pressure on downsized staffs. So Slater turned to the Maxwell Development Center, home to TDA's largest and most seasoned logistics group, to take a crack at it. Maxwell came up with an unassailable RFP incorporating all relevant Federal Property Management Regulations, while exposing the agency to no financial risk with fixed prices or up-front payments. Slater's team had briefed the agency IG and encountered no objection. But the RFP had drawn no bids.

"That's when I should have reconsidered the whole concept," the logistics chief said to his field supervisor, Karen Simmons. "But we figured you can't get something for nothing and we'd have to break the old cautious, tight-fisted mold and risk a little money."

The Maxwell staff redrafted the RFP. At the cost of a reasonable fixed price for services and modest, but declining, up-front money, three valid bids had been elicited. The best had come from a long-established auction company with a successful track record at a larger federal agency. Slater had heard that lower-level Maxwell specialists had ridiculed the projected savings, saying it counted too much on removing government employees from the process. But when he had asked any critics to speak up, no one spoke.

The contract had been awarded and the first two auctions had raked in an unprecedented half-million dollars--apparently vindicating the initiative. Shortly thereafter, however, a Maxwell property disposal specialist returned from a General Services Administration training course with concerns about conflicts between federal property management regulations and the way the auctions were being conducted. He told Simmons on her next visit to the installation that the contractors were fully authorizing and executing sales, apparently encroaching on a federal function. The Maxwell employee confided that he and others at the facility believed logistics managers had exaggerated savings projections in order to be assigned the initiative.

Simmons had barely returned to Washington and reported to Slater when the results of the third auction came in. No longer drawing on a backlog of big-ticket equipment, it had been a complete dud. And to complete the debacle, Slater received an inquiry from the IG based on a losing bidder's complaints about irregular practices. One complaint was accurate: The auctioneer, in line with commercial practice, had at times mixed open and closed bidding, while regulations required consistent treatment of all bids.

"How big a deal is it to let contract employees conduct the sales, Karen? It doesn't seem to get at the integrity of the process in any way, does it?" Slater asked.

"Not in my opinion," Simmons said. "Forwarding it to a government person adds a step and cuts into the savings from farming it out. We could probably have had it waived by GSA; our case would certainly have been better if we had asked in advance. I guess we should have prodded those Maxwell people some more when they raised that point."

"That leaves us with the inconsistency on open and sealed bids," Slater worried. "It could be just misunderstanding or carelessness, but it will definitely draw fire from the people who don't like privatization initiatives."

Slater wondered how much of his little team's resources and his own political capital he could expend rescuing the privatization initiative. With diminishing returns from auction sales, was it worth fighting for? Would a waiver stimulate further initiatives or innovative thinking? How good had his staff's work been on this project, and how could he avoid future problems of this kind?

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

Reversal of Fortune

David Hornestay — Thu, 01 Oct 1998 00:00:00 -0400

harlie Devine wished that he had taken the afternoon off as he had intended or, better, that he had retired last year as long planned, without acceding to his former boss' plea to take over a neglected backwater supply depot and transform it into a vital logistics center.

But wishing would not wipe away the year he had spent in unfamiliar and uncomfortable territory after what was to have been his last assignment--and a plum one at that. Nor would it wipe away what turned out to be the exhilarating experience of assembling a talented management team, recharging a demoralized workforce, and otherwise breathing new life into the renamed South Central Logistics Center. The revamped facility in Tennessee had already earned recognition for exceeding performance goals.

But most of all, wishing would not reverse the late Friday afternoon phone call from his boss, Bureau of Management Services Deputy Director Fenton Mole, who confided that the center had been placed on the agency's installation-consolidation list. Despite South Central's success, budget cuts dictated its absorption by the larger and more diversified logistics complex in Pennsylvania. Mole assured Devine that he had vigorously argued to preserve South Central, but he had the impression the decision was final and already had congressional input.

"You don't think the choice had anything to do with the fact that the President carried Pennsylvania last year and got wiped out here, do you? Or who's got two Republican Senators and who's got one?" Devine had said. Mole had ignored the thrust and said he just wanted to give Devine as much advance notice as possible, along with his condolences. "The list is embargoed until they show it around on Capitol Hill on Monday, but as I said, I think the key people up there know about it already," he said.

"I won't embarrass you by bringing up the agency strategic plan and the unique role for South Central that you pitched to me only a year ago, old friend," Devine sallied weakly.

"And I won't patronize you by reminding you that the strategic plan is a living document subject to continual adjustment," Mole said. "But don't think for one moment that I don't feel terrible about having contributed to your disappointment. I will do everything in my power to help you manage the transition--we'll have at least six months."

Devine slowly assessed his predicament. Following Mole's lead, Devine had persuaded two esteemed colleagues from the bureau and one from a Defense agency to interrupt their flourishing careers to help him make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. And together they had done it:

A buildup in 120 days from 350 employees to more than 1,000, with an energetic nationwide recruitment campaign.
An automated inventory and dispatching system that was the envy of the bureau, if not the entire agency.
An agreement with the employee union with features such as group awards that led to rising productivity.

Of course, these were whitewater times for senior managers. Every agency was on notice that executive and legislative branch officials were looking for savings and efficiencies while providing a revenue stream for new priorities. And every year, each installation was required to justify its continued existence.

It couldn't have been more than a month since Mole had signed that report to Washington. How could anyone have read what South Central was doing and concluded that those things could be done just as well by the Pennsylvania bunch with help from a mere fraction of the workforce? Most of Devine's people wouldn't transfer because there wouldn't be enough jobs for all, and people with local and regional ties were unlikely to relocate. Most important perhaps, the hard-charging South Central professionals would probably turn up their noses at the prospect of joining the less progressive management up north.

Was there any wiggle room for a reversal of the consolidation decision? Devine believed that Mole had argued the case, but wouldn't the bureau director or even the Secretary consider an appeal in the case of an installation with such extraordinary performance of a new mission? Didn't he owe that to his team? And wouldn't congressional and industry supporters want to lobby to save the center? That would entail going out of channels and raised trickier questions.

What if none of that could help? How could he keep the department's decision from thoroughly demoralizing a workforce that deserved rewards for its achievements rather than termination? How could he galvanize his management team, especially the longtime associates he had personally recruited, to supervise a transition to oblivion? Could he even psyche himself up?

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

Cracking the Whip

David Hornestay — Sat, 01 Aug 1998 00:00:00 -0400

armon Davidson stared dejectedly at the departing figure of his management survey team leader. Their meeting had not gone well. Davidson had relayed to Al Pitcher complaints about his handling of the survey. Pitcher had responded with adamant denial and unveiled scorn.

Davidson, director of headquarters management, was prepared to discount some of the criticism as resentment of outsiders meddling with "the way we've always done business," exacerbated by the turbulence of continual reorganization. But Davidson could hardly ignore the sheer volume of complaints or his high regard for some of their sources.

"Was I missing danger signals about Pitcher from the start?" Davidson asked himself. "Or was I just giving a guy I didn't know a fair chance with an inherently controversial assignment?"

With his division decimated in the latest round of downsizing at the Department of Technical Services earlier that year, Davidson had been asked to return to the headquarters management office after a five-year hiatus. The director, Walton Drummond, had abruptly taken early retirement.

One of the first things Davidson had learned about his new job was that he would be responsible for a comprehensive six-month survey of the headquarters management structure and processes. The DTS Secretary had promised the survey to the White House as a prelude to the agency's next phase of management reform. Drummond had already picked the five-person survey team consisting of two experienced management analysts, a promising younger staff member, an intern and Pitcher, the team leader. Pitcher was fresh from the Treasury Department, where he had participated in a similar survey. But having gone off after retirement for an extended mountain-climbing expedition in Asia, Drummond was unavailable to explain his survey plans or any understandings he had reached with Pitcher.

Davidson had been impressed with Pitcher's energy and motivation. He worked long hours, wrote voluminously if awkwardly and was brimming with the latest organizational theory. Pitcher had other characteristics, however, that were disquieting. He seemed uninterested in DTS' history and culture and was paternalistic toward top managers, assuming they were unsophisticated and unconcerned about modern management.

A series of pre-survey informational briefings for headquarters office heads conducted by Davidson and Pitcher seemed to go swimmingly. Pitcher deferred to his chief on matters of philosophy and confined his remarks to schedule and procedures. He closed his segment on a friendly note, saying, "If we do find opportunities for improvement, we'll try to have recommendations for you."

But the survey was barely a week old when the director of management received his first call from an outraged customer. It was the assistant secretary for public affairs, Erin Dove, and she was not speaking in her usual upbeat tones. "Your folks have managed to upset my whole supervisory staff with their comments about how we'll have to change our organization and methods," she said. "I thought you were going through a fact-finding study. This guy Pitcher sounds like he wants to remake DTS headquarters overnight. Who does he think he is?"

When Davidson asked him about the encounter with public affairs, Pitcher expressed puzzlement that a few summary observations shared with supervisors in the interest of "prompt informal feedback" had been interpreted as such disturbing conclusions. "I told them we'll tell them how to fix it," he reassured his supervisor.

"Listen, Al," Davidson remonstrated gently, "these are very accomplished managers who aren't used to being told they have to fix anything. This agency's been on a roll for years, and the need for reinvention isn't resonating all that well yet. We've got to collect and analyze the information and assemble a convincing case for change, or we'll be spinning our wheels. Let's hold off the feedback until you and I have reviewed it together."

But two weeks later, technology development director Phil Canseco, an old and treasured colleague, was on Davidson's doorstep looking as unhappy as Erin Dove had sounded on the phone. "Harmon, buddy, I think you have to rein in this survey team a bit," he said. "Several managers who were scheduled for survey interviews were working on a 24-hour turnaround to give a revised project budget to the Appropriations subcommittee that day. My deputy says Pitcher looked all put out about postponing interviews and grumbled about whether we understood the new priorities. Is he living in the real world?"

Canseco's comments prompted Davidson to call a few of his respected peers who had dealt with the survey team. With varying degrees of reluctance, they all criticized the team leader and, in some cases, team members, as abrasive and uninterested in the rationales offered for existing structure and processes.

And so Davidson had marshaled all of his tact for a review with the survey team leader. But Pitcher was in no mood for either introspection or reconsideration. He took the view that he had been brought in to spearhead a White House-inspired management improvement initiative in a glamour agency that had never had to think much about efficiency. He reminded Davidson that even he had conceded that managers were due some hard lessons on this score. Pitcher didn't see any way to meet his deadline except by adhering to a rigorous schedule, since he was working with managers disinclined to cooperate with an outsider pushing an unpopular exercise. He felt Davidson's role was to hold the line against unwarranted criticisms from prima donnas trying to discredit the survey.

Many questions arose in Davidson's mind about the survey plan and his division's capacity to carry it out. Had they taken on too much with too little? Had the right people been picked for the survey team? Had managers and executives, and even the team, been properly prepared for the survey?

But the most immediate question was whether Al Pitcher could help him with these problems.

See the left-hand column for experts' responses to the case study. If you would like to respond, send an e-mail to letters@govexec.com. We will post your response here on GovExec.com.

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

Whistle Not, Want Not

David Hornestay — Mon, 01 Jun 1998 00:00:00 -0400

o this is what they were talking about in that executive training course. As a career manager you are free to marshal facts, provide analysis, cite precedents, discuss and persuade when you disagree with your political boss's interpretation of a mandate. But when the debate is over and you see imminent harm to the organization or a waste of its resources, do you go over your boss's head, blow the whistle or look for another job? There's no schoolbook answer to turn to-only your conscience.

Just three months into Pat Johnson's appointment as director of program evaluation, a new political team arrived at the Community Development Administration. Johnson was apprehensive, but quickly became comfortable with his new boss, Ben Cavendish. The assistant administrator was a dynamic and articulate corporate project manager. Cavendish not only picked Johnson's brain for information, but also solicited his advice and gave him broad latitude in operating his division.

Perhaps most reassuring was the assistant administrator's focus on the President's mandate to expand successful community development initiatives while eliminating dollar-draining activities. Cavendish and his management team quickly launched efforts to streamline, consolidate and move functions to the private sector. Although the new administration faced opposition from Congress, both branches were turning away from budget-eating construction programs and emphasizing rehabilitation of existing buildings.

The old mainstay, federal loan guarantees, would be needed to stimulate purchases or refinancing of properties, but neither the President nor Congress was inclined to spare the agency from personnel cuts. So legislation calling for private institutions to administer loans, with the federal government as coinsurer, was passed. The logic was that private lenders, underwriters and insurers could do the work more swiftly and cheaply than a lumbering government workforce could. The new program would spare the federal Treasury costly construction and the expense of supporting a finance and insurance bureaucracy. A federal audit and evaluation staff would have to be maintained, but fewer people would be needed.

Johnson, engrossed in the day-to-day management of his division, had not kept close tabs on the coinsurance initiative. However, his three-year stint in construction finance had left him with a number of contacts in that organization. He knew some of the old hands were uneasy about the new program's vulnerability to laxness, fraud and exploding costs. But it wasn't until the proposed guidelines arrived on Johnson's desk for review that the dangers really leapt out at him.

"Ben, I don't see how we can concur with the coinsurance instructions," he began the next morning's session with his boss.

"What do you mean, Pat?" Cavendish said with surprise. "Are there technical problems? I think the basic design fits the principles we've all agreed on. Or am I wrong?"

Johnson said he feared the details could undermine what started out as a good idea. He ticked off his concerns:

The lack of standard capitalization and other qualification requirements for organizations seeking to participate in the program.
The rich fee structure provided for those organizations.
Vague procedures for review and audit.

Johnson said he might worry less if the program were to be run by the traditional lending institutions and monitored by the full complement of reviewers the agency used to have.

"The instructions leave it open to fly-by-nighters," Johnson said. "And we've got barely half the audit and review staff of a year ago." Some folks without a track record would be able to commit the full faith and credit of the United States while passing ultimate responsibility for 90 percent of each loan to the government, Johnson concluded.

"Aren't you exaggerating, Pat?" Cavendish said, adding that the initiative was designed to save billions in construction and overhead. "If we want to reduce the federal role and federal dollars, we have to take some risks. You're assuming private institutions are thieves and we're incompetent."

Johnson's recitation of past financial debacles in the wake of loosely designed programs had only slightly ruffled Cavendish. The bottom line, he said, is that the administration and Congress had chosen to break with old thinking to save worthwhile programs and reduce the burden on taxpayers. "It's our job to make their idea work," he told Johnson. "I'm counting on you to help."

Johnson hadn't quite been ordered to concur, but neither had he been left any room for debate. He could put his objections in writing, but what would that accomplish other than covering his posterior and antagonizing his superiors?

Were his former colleagues in construction finance willing to stick their necks out for him? Would anyone higher up in the political echelon be impressed with misgivings about the capability and integrity of the private sector or a reduced federal presence? Would anyone on the Hill want to hear that their fuzzy legislative language might empower unqualified financiers to raid the Treasury?

The answers he came up with were not encouraging.

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

Critical Condition

David Hornestay — Sun, 01 Mar 1998 00:00:00 -0500

he news about the boss was profoundly disturbing to Kenneth Madsen, chief of administration at Federal Hospital. Apparently, the director's return to work after his surgery was premature.

"Dr. A. just about fell over at his desk this morning," personnel director Hedy Ellsworth said. "The doctors say not to expect him back for at least three months... if at all." Madsen winced. Alton Ackerbein, the legendary founding director of the sprawling, dynamic hospital in which he now lay seriously ill, was the glue that had held the place together for 26 years. His prestige and credibility in the health community and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue had shielded the facility from cutbacks and consolidation. And his engaging personality had kept the high-powered, fractious medical staff united and reasonably content. Madsen wondered how long it would last without Dr. A.

To make matters worse, Dr. A. had governed without a deputy for more than a year, resisting pressure from the hospital's parent organization, the U.S. Health Agency, and the White House to hire candidates he considered less than outstanding. When Ackerbein had entered the hospital for surgery less than a month earlier, he had appointed Madsen acting director, primarily because Dr. Ellen Ross, the chief of staff, had been overseas at a conference.

Madsen had no problems with the ceremonial and routine duties of the director's position, but his presence commanded nothing more than amiable acknowledgment from the medical power figures. Anyway, Dr. Ross was back, and the hospital faced a challenging and unprecedented situation.

"That stalemate on the deputy position may be coming home to roost, Hedy," Madsen worried aloud. He knew the hospital would need more than a caretaker acting director in the next few months, especially with budget hearings and the agency strategic planning review. "Dr. A. ate that stuff up," he said. "but I don't remember Ellen getting much involved."

"But she seemed really interested in management and planning issues at our executive development seminar last fall," Ellsworth replied. "She asked excellent questions and joined in the evening bull sessions." Ross even had recommended that more executives be exposed to those issues earlier in their careers, the personnel chief added.

Madsen was encouraged. However, two weeks of executive training hardly equipped Ross to take on the agency, with the Office of Management and Budget and Congress eyeing the hospital's budget and strategic plan. But it was a start, and what alternatives did they have? Madsen's brief experience as acting director hardly had prepared him to take the helm, either.

For now, some immediate action was needed in the wake of the director's relapse. First, the Health Agency administrator had to be informed. He probably would ask for recommendations on interim management of the hospital and for statements to the press and staff. This was the time to go talk to Ross about administrative imperatives.

The chief of staff welcomed Madsen's visit. At the suggestion of Ackerbein's secretary, she already had informed the Health Agency administrator of the situation. The administrator had asked Ross to act as director for the time being and to provide a draft press statement within the hour.

Ross often had reminded Madsen that Dr. A. had designated her as his backup. Dr. A. had spent a good deal of time with Ross discussing his management priorities and sent her to executive training. The director wanted Ross to shadow him at key meetings and conferences but had been reluctant to publicize her understudy role. He feared it would resurrect the deputy issue with his agency superiors and the White House.

However, Ross confided: "I'm a novice when it comes to budgets, strategic plans and organization. I can manage the medical side of the house, but I'll have to lean on you heavily for administration-more heavily than Dr. A. does." Ross said she could show up at budget hearings and read a statement, but she'd have to defer to Madsen and his staff on most questions.

Madsen, recalling the combative Ackerbein's spellbinding appearances at budget hearings and his enthusiasm for the give-and-take of the budget and management review processes, had a sinking feeling. We're going to get chewed up in this environment of scarce resources, he thought, if Ellen and I are deferring to each other where Ackerbein used to project assurance and urgency.

And what did the Health Agency administrator mean by asking Ellen to be acting director for the time being? Was he talking a few days, while he lined up an interim director from outside, perhaps from his own staff?

What, Madsen wondered, can the two of us do to provide continuity in the management of the hospital? Should we say we're confident that we can take over quickly and keep the place running as effectively as ever? That would be something of a risk. For one thing, Ellen would have to rapidly develop some of Ackerbein's qualities to protect the hospital and make it thrive. Conversely, should we ask the administrator to help find outside talent? Or is there a middle ground?

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

Desktop Revolution

David Hornestay — Mon, 01 Dec 1997 00:00:00 -0500

Rawley, the chief information officer at the Technology Transfer Administration, was well aware that his TTA colleagues, like many other federal managers, had been skeptical about the installation of departmental-level CIOs by legislative fiat. As leaders of a decentralized agency with highly autonomous field installations, TTA officials had been reflexively wary about the creation of any new headquarters bureaucracy.

But Rawley had been careful to operate with a light but steady hand, concentrating on a few widely recognized opportunities to improve efficiency and save money. He avoided issuing new directives and reporting requirements. Only after gaining wide credibility with his information technology colleagues and agency executives did he embark on an agencywide personal computer outsourcing procurement.

Rawley lobbied for the concept for months, both one-on-one with top agency officials and at technical and management gatherings, before making it clear at TTA's annual IT conference that such an initiative would be one of his top priorities for the coming year. With the governmentwide push for increased outsourcing, he argued, it was both inevitable and potentially beneficial to contract out a major IT program.

"I know that the computing requirements of the area offices are highly disparate because of the different technical specialties we pursue," he acknowledged, "but there's got to be substantial commonality in PCs and local area networks. If we do a solid procurement and save the agency a bundle, we're going to make everyone in TTA look good at the White House and on the Hill. And we can be a benchmark, doing it our way, not waiting for someone else to create the model."

By the end of the IT conference, Rawley had enlisted enough support to form an agencywide project team. He persuaded the Denver office to lend him ace project manager, Pat Vasquez, as team leader. She enlisted deputy team leaders from Seattle and Atlanta, areas with large, diverse desktop and network investments,and celebrated independent instincts. They defined the scope of the procurement and fashioned a request for proposals to issue to contractors.

The RFP attempted to standardize requirements sufficiently to achieve economies of scale and to specify levels of both PC and local area network service that contractors would be asked to meet with machines, software and labor. TTA organizations would stop buying individually what TTA as a whole could purchase for less.

The widely varying,and sometimes conflicting,needs of the field organizations several times threatened the effort. While project team members worked harmoniously, some of the areas they represented had from the outset feared the loss of services and periodically proposed calling off the whole thing. But Vasquez' group had received strong backing from a resolute Rawley, who repeatedly assured skeptical field executives that their needs were being accommodated.

Vasquez had circulated the draft RFP to the area offices for comment, along with a request for estimates of the types and amounts of service they anticipated under the agencywide buy. The recommended RFP revisions gave Vasquez no cause for concern, but she was staggered by the levels of service called for in the requested estimates. Suddenly, she was faced with being swamped by blue sky wish lists and swollen costs.

"I don't know if this is deliberate or misguided," she had complained to the CIO. "But some of these service levels are way beyond what our people have now. Like, I can understand some need for same-day turnaround, but they're trying to make it routine in some of the area offices. And that's just an example. Look at these submissions."

A cursory examination by Rawley showed that indeed area offices had projected service levels that would result in budget-busting bids from contractors. Without serious adjustments, the RFP might have to be scrapped or extensively revised. The better part of a year's effort would be wasted, and the causes of both outsourcing and better IT resources management would be set back considerably. Rawley almost had to chuckle at how initial reluctance within TTA to undertake outsourcing had been converted into a rush for previously unanticipated goodies. Or was it a less than subtle attempt to sabotage it at this late date?

Rawley wondered if he could identify and work with allies and opponents without upsetting the delicate balance he had achieved. Could he save IT outsourcing by moving ahead, or should he step back for a time?

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

The People Problem

David Hornestay — Sat, 01 Nov 1997 00:00:00 -0500

t's been a rough decade for federal human resources managers. They have been targeted for substantial cutbacks by the Clinton administration's National Performance Review at the same time their area of specialization, the federal workforce, is undergoing unprecedented changes. In the era of reinvention and reengineering, those responsible for overseeing the creaky civil service system have come to be seen as the manager's enemy, rather than a partner in change efforts.

"Personnelists as we have known them are becoming obsolete," Sally Marshall, a longtime federal personnel manager who is now a private consultant, wrote in a recent issue of The Public Manager. "Their roles are changing and their numbers are shrinking. There is an almost overwhelming perception among federal managers and employees that the personnel office and its occupants are overspecialized, unresponsive, and/or inefficient."

Marshall's article, based on a 1996 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report, said today's HR professionals must play five roles: business partner, leader, change agent, advocate and HR expert. And they must play those roles in a personnel system that seems impervious to comprehensive reform.

HR practitioners have been calling for significant changes in the federal personnel system ever since the early promise of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act faded. While that law solved some problems of the 1970s, such as the lack of monetary recognition for performance and the confused role of the central personnel management agency, it failed to meet the far different human resources challenges of the 1980s. In a national-in fact, international-environment of deregulation, governmentwide statutory and regulatory prescriptions severely restrict agencies' ability to manage and deploy their employees.

Both Democratic and Republican Congresses have been willing to delegate limited personnel flexibilities to agencies in specific areas such as bonuses and allowances. Congress also has allowed individual agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, to make systemwide changes. But despite decades of chipping away at the coverage of the regular competitive service (now only a little more than half of federal employment) and the 1949 Classification Act (which has become riddled with exceptions, special pay rates and, more recently, locality pay), Congress has balked at proposals to grant government-wide authority to develop alternative personnel and pay systems.

Frank Cipolla, a former director of civilian personnel for the Defense Department who now heads the Center for Human Resources Management at NAPA, sees no near-term prospects for general legislative reform of HR systems. "There is no consensus among the major players on the content of needed reforms, there is no real champion in the administration or Congress for system reform, and the interests of the few in those circles for reform seem to be narrowly limited to benefit programs and other potential cost-cutting initiatives," Cipolla says.

As a result, HR people have turned their attention to finding the best ways to perform their functions within the current statutory framework. Last fall, a consortium of 53 agencies asked NAPA to identify non-legislative barriers to innovation and flexibility in three specific areas:

Organizing and aligning work around mission needs.
Finding the right person for the right job at the right time.
Improved approaches to making employee performance count.

The resulting NAPA report, "Innovations and Flexibilities: Overcoming HR System Barriers," was published in August. It shows that in the areas of pay, hiring and performance management, personnel managers are making the existing civil service structure work for them and their agencies.

Broad-Banding

Blizzards of paper and fires of controversy have long dogged the statutory process for describing, evaluating and grading federal white-collar jobs. Employees, managers, and position classifiers have spent unconscionable amounts of time documenting and debating the placement of sets of duties and responsibilities for jobs in more than 450 occupations and 15 grades.

Because these decisions determine what employees will be paid, they are bitterly contested by upward-striving workers, attrition-conscious managers and the guardians of the government's mandate of equal pay for equal work.

When the work of government was founded largely on hierarchical chains of command, with a broad base of workers performing routine, repetitive operations, one could justify considerable costs in time, paper and morale for a seemingly objective, analytical process that matched work to occupational and grade specifications. But today much routine work has been absorbed by computers. Mid-level and even higher work is often done by self-directed, fluid or interdisciplinary work teams reporting to different leaders for different tasks. The traditional detailed, labor- and paper-intensive classification process can neither keep up with the pace of change nor capture the nature of work as organizations do it now.

"The classification system just doesn't fit anymore," says Cipolla.

Most of the efforts to modernize that system have centered around the concept of broad-banding (also known as pay banding), which substitutes a few wide pay bands for many salary grades, allowing career progression, reassignment and management recognition of contributions without frequently resorting to detailed documentation and outside review of proposed personnel changes (see "Eyes on the Prize," September) .

The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act authorized agency experiments to test personnel system innovations that would require legislative changes. Most of the demonstration projects actually carried out, beginning with the Navy's ongoing China Lake experiment, have tried out various forms of broad-banding, to the general satisfaction of management and employees. Congress has waived the statutory five-year limit on some of these projects and ultimately made them permanent for the test sites. But it has declined to change the law to authorize broad-banding for all agencies, despite recommendations to that effect from the National Performance Review and NAPA and a legislative proposal drafted by the Office of Personnel Management in 1995.

Taking the view that congressional action could be years away, NAPA in its new report describes how agencies can develop interim broad-banding systems of their own within the confines of current law. First, NAPA says, the agency should define broad groups of occupations based on similarities in career progression, basic competencies or performance management. Then they should aggregate General Schedule grades within those groups into two to five pay bands based on agency-determined criteria. Bands may be defined, for example, by level of competence (such as developmental, full performance and expert), and also could account for such factors as whether an employee works in headquarters or a field office.

The NAPA broad-band system, designed by former classifier and long-time independent consultant Helene Liebman, contains several streamlining features. Among them are:

One position description containing a set of duties for each grade in the band.
Delegation of authority to HR offices to classify positions to a band.
Delegation of authority to managers to classify and promote within bands and, under certain conditions, to move an employee to the next band.

But Liebman cautions that in her view, "80 percent or more of agencies aren't ready for innovative compensation systems. There's a lot of work to be done in eliminating industrial work models, establishing relevant performance measures and getting solid management backing for system changes."

Other Innovations

Broad-banding isn't the only cutting-edge personnel initiative. Two years ago, the Veterans Affairs Department's New York City regional office, which uses a team-based management system, adopted the idea of skills-based pay. The office created five categories comprising 26 different "skill blocks," and GS grades were defined as collections of several different skill blocks. At least every six months, the coach of each team discusses progress with each employee and, where appropriate, begins a process of certification for the next pay level based on skills acquired and used.

The system's link to the GS grades keeps it within the bounds of the Classification Act. However, with OPM approval, the VA's New York office has recently embarked on a demonstration project requiring waiver of statutory restrictions.

In addition to pay system changes, Liebman says, agencies are making advances in standardizing and automating personnel procedures. "Agencies can save a tremendous amount of time in this area," she says.

The Education Department, for example, has set up a position description library on the agency's internal network. Managers can select from among standard job descriptions, add any necessary unique elements, and obtain a quick review and action by a classifier. Education officials report that the library is now used for a majority of classification actions and saves at least half the time previously required for processing. But Veronica Trietsch, the department's HR director, cautions that "customer input had to be sought and used and the library had to be marketed" before it took hold.

Two automated classification tools, the Defense Department's COREDOC and the commercial product COHO, are in use at several agencies. COREDOC produces classification descriptions and evaluations and then turns out lists of knowledge areas, skills and abilities and portions of performance plans. COHO does that and adds a vacancy announcement, a plan for rating candidates, a structured interview guide, and performance and training plans.

Helen Gough, executive assistant for base operations at Fort Riley, Kan., says COREDOC's speed helps compensate for the loss of classifiers and other administrative personnel who reviewed job descriptions before recent staff cuts at the base. "It's a very good tool for the heavily populated occupations already covered," she says. "Some of my colleagues think it's wonderful. We wish more jobs were covered."

Shelah Portoukalian, a veteran classifier in the Environmental Protection Agency's Atlanta regional office, calls COHO "a delightful system. It meets a great need because of reduced resources in government. Managers and supervisors love it because it takes the mystery out of classification and it can turn out a useable position description in five minutes."

Changes like these, says Harry Felsen, director of fleet maintenance management support for the Naval Sea Systems Command, mean that "the whole process of getting a PD accepted so you can hire or promote someone has gotten much faster and easier in the last few years." But even more importantly, he says, personnel managers "don't fight you anymore. They work with you now. That's the biggest change."

Making Hiring Easier

Nevertheless, actually hiring someone for a federal job can still be a daunting process. Managers and human resources officials remain handcuffed by rules and procedures focused on preventing political or personal favoritism or improper discrimination in appointments.

"Finding the right person for the right job at the right time" should be the paramount objective today, NAPA concluded in its report. Even in an era of widespread downsizing-and perhaps even more so because of the unprecedented demands it places on agencies-timely hiring of quality candidates remains vital.

Cipolla sees "a welcome trend" in the approach of both OPM and individual agencies to innovation and flexibility in staffing operations. "A great deal of delegation [by OPM to agencies] has already taken place and is continuing," he notes, "much more so than in classification and pay." But many agencies still find OPM requirements for entry-level hiring, delegated competitive examining, and merit promotion processes time-consuming and labor-intensive.

For the last two years, a group of OPM representatives and staffing officials from 18 agencies has met frequently to exchange information and advice on regulatory and legislative issues related to hiring. The effort has already led to the clarification and liberalization of the OPM handbook on delegations, says Candy Irwin, the NASA member of the group.

Irwin's experience in negotiating a NASA agreement for delegated examining and hiring authority from OPM highlights both the recent gains and remaining difficulties in changing the process. NASA considered several provisions of the standard OPM agreement overly restrictive, including requirements to publish announcements for five days and to accept applications postmarked as late as the closing date.

"When you're in a hurry to fill a clerical opening in the Washington area, you don't really need five days to collect all the applications you need," says Irwin. "And in the era of faxes, e-mail and applying online, why should you have to check your mail after your closing date for applications with a timely postmark?"

Since these provisions, though standard, are not required by law or regulation, Irwin succeeded in negotiating them out of NASA's delegation agreement. In addition, she won agreement to language specifying that the contents of OPM's huge examining manual are guidance, not requirements. Until now, OPM's enforcement arm has criticized agency violations of manual guidance as if it were binding. In the bureaucratic world, there are few deterrents to innovation as powerful as the fear of criticism by reviewing authorities.

The Federal Communications Commission has negotiated similar modifications in its agreement with OPM. Other agency managers who feel hampered by particular OPM procedures would be well-advised to learn whether they are in fact legally binding.

Many agencies have only "spotty knowledge of existing flexibilities" in personnel regulations, says David Mischel, principal author of the NAPA report's chapter on staffing. "Even when they are aware of them, they're often reluctant to use them because of the threat of litigation by people not selected for a job."

Mischel, who has extensive staffing experience at both OPM and in agency HR operations, says there's still plenty of room for improvement in regulatory flexibility. The OPM merit promotion process, he notes, has been criticized for years as overly restrictive in regard to temporary promotions, rating and ranking procedures, and exemptions. Revisions have been promised several times but are not yet in sight.

Another area of growing interest is term appointments, currently authorized for work assignments of one to four years. A brisk demand for longer terms has developed because of the unpredictability of programs and budgets and because of potential employees' preference for particular assignments rather than long-term careers in government. Much time and paperwork would be saved, Mischel argues, if agencies had the authority to exceed the four-year limit.

Managing Performance

Lack of flexibility and the dead hand of past practice also seriously handicap efforts to streamline and improve the management of employee and organizational performance. But even more than with hiring, the guiding principles have not been modified to fit the emergence of a corps of knowledge workers who are, in the words of the NAPA report, "expected to make recommendations for improving work processes, function as a team and serve as generalists rather than specialists."

In the course of research for NAPA, Robin Van Mechelen, a former agency personnel director, found that the typical federal performance appraisal system contains numerous time- and paper-consuming features required by neither law nor regulation,including:

Different performance elements
for each employee.
Descriptions of at least three
performance levels.
Performance ratings upon transfer
or detail.
Multiple-page, multiple-copy forms.
Five-point rating scales.
Extensive supporting narrative for ratings.

While one may debate the wisdom or efficacy of any of these features, Van Mechelen discovered that they often were practiced only because OPM once required them or an agency had always used them.

OPM ushered in a new period of innovation in 1995 by officially relaxing performance management system requirements. Several agencies responded by implementing two popular private-sector practices: pass/fail systems and multi-rater, or 360-degree, programs (see "The Ratings Whirl", February).

The pass/fail system saves time and paper, and it eliminates complaints and grievances arising from the previous gradations of successful performance and their consequences.

The 360-degree concept, under which employees are rated not only by their managers but by their co-workers as well, has proved useful in organizations that have adopted team-based management.

The Education Department, plagued by severe employee discontent with the established performance appraisal system, worked with the American Federation of Government Employees to devise a system combining pass/fail and 360-degree ratings features. After a year, department HR officials believe that painstaking preparation and constant monitoring are producing an effective system.

"There seems to be a high level of satisfaction pretty much across the board," says John Allen, the department's director of personnel policy. "Raters are pleased that it takes only a few minutes to do the ratings with the help of the software they were trained to use. But we have to be sure that standards and criteria are understood by all. For instance, if we see inconsistencies between scores and comments, we go back and question the raters," he cautions.

Recognition and awards systems are vital to effective performance management. With that in mind, many agencies are turning increasingly to cash and nonmonetary awards. The General Services Administration, for example, has developed the Fast Track system, which enables authorized
supervisors to order awards up to $2,500 with one phone call. Fast Track is available to all agencies using the GSA payroll and HR information system.

Another important component of performance management is a system for dealing with employees who do not perform adequately. The standard disciplinary process is notoriously unwieldy. In recent years, much progress has been made with alternative discipline programs, particularly in the Defense Department. The new approach, Van Mechelen says, "tries to change behavior, rather than punish wayward children."

Alternative discipline programs generally involve an employee acknowledgment of error or wrongdoing, a joint employee-manager plan for improvement, and a deferral of penalty conditioned on improved performance. The Naval Surface Warfare Center in Port Hueneme, Calif., which has had an alternative discipline program since 1988, reports that grievances have declined by 50 percent in that period.

A looming challenge for performance management, Cipolla says, is linking employee performance to the requirements of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act, which requires agencies to develop and implement strategic plans to measure the success or failure of their programs. Only a few agencies have begun to make that connection.

In the areas of classification, pay, hiring and performance management, many federal human resources professionals are experimenting with innovative approaches. Others, though, are laboring along with less than full knowledge of what is being tried and what works. They risk coming out on the losing end of the struggle for the future of their profession.

David Hornestay, a veteran of more than 20 years in federal personnel work, was a senior consultant to the National Academy of Public Administration on its report on overcoming human resources barriers.

]]>

Filling Executive Shoes

David Hornestay — Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:00:00 -0400

ancy Hammond reveled in the good-humored hum as her colleagues returned from a lunch break for the final session of the Economic Coordination Administration's senior staff meeting. The deputy administrator had long recognized the need for succession planning as retirement eligibility approached for a generation of senior ECA executives. But her persistent advocacy of systematic agencywide efforts to identify and develop replacements had won few converts.

Frankly, the power wielders at the national and regional levels were comfortable with their own ability to spot and nurture leadership talent.

Hammond had gambled that the fabled Professor Jackson Kanner, who had spoken at the morning session in favor of succession planning, would succeed where she and others had failed. On the surface, it looked as though Kanner had at least established a foothold. Witty and armed with extensive empirical and anecdotal material, Kanner had stimulated a constructive give-and-take discussion with the dozen bureau and regional directors. At past staff meetings, Hammond recalled, they had never gotten beyond grunting or twiddling their thumbs whenever the subject had come up.

True, some had expressed skepticism and questioned the ultimate payoff for the considerable investment of time, effort and money. But most of the questions focused on how ECA could learn from other organizations that were choosing and developing their future leaders.

At lunch, Kanner had been the center of a spontaneous and friendly continuation of the morning session. To Hammond, it was a sign that her famously analytical colleagues were being won over. If the debate was shifting from whether to do succession planning to how to do it, she would be satisfied. Now all Hammond had to do was build on Kanner's momentum.

She opened the afternoon session with some optimistic bridging remarks. Hammond then summarized her meetings with each bureau and regional director over the last year. At those meetings, the directors identified people in their organizations with the most leadership potential and positions for which they might eventually qualify.

Hammond reminded her colleagues that Larry Denapolos, the ECA human resources development chief, had attended those meetings and had taken notes. "Larry has organized that information by individual, organization and potential position," she told the group.

"It's time to review this information and share our views about these people. Then we can prepare for the administrator a consolidated picture of future executive staffing. On the basis of this morning's session with Professor Kanner, I believe most of us are ready for this."

Hammond noticed a faint stirring among her listeners, but she proceeded as planned: "Larry, let's start with the list of high-potential prospects."

"Excuse me, Nancy," Dave Tremaine, the Economic Analysis Bureau director, cut in. "I never understood that those confidential discussions would lead to a public display of my people's names. I'd like to ask my colleagues if I'm the only one who has a problem with that."

Three or four vigorous nods supported Tremaine, and none of the directors indicated they felt otherwise. Hammond searched the other faces and thought she read confusion. Or was it relief that someone else had spoken up against an intrusion into the way business was done at ECA? She had to make a stab at retrieving the earlier forward movement.

"I'm sorry if there's a misunderstanding, Dave," she began in an even tone. "I didn't consider a presentation to the administrator's 13 principal associates as a public display. And I did include in the meeting notice that we would be reviewing the results of those individual meetings, didn't I?"

"Let's be realistic, Nancy," Tremaine responded, "there would be copies of any list and it's bound to get out. I'm not casting aspersions on Larry's staff, but human nature being what it is, nothing will get around this agency faster than who is and is not on a hot-shot list," he warned. "Who's going to handle that fallout?"

Midwest Region Director John Koltmyer, rarely an ally of Tremaine's, was less concerned about confidentiality than about the group's readiness for the exercise.

"I thought discussing the results of the private meetings meant aggregate numbers and occupational and geographic distribution," Koltmyer said.

"I'm not ready to talk about individuals. Hell, I don't know more than a handful of folks outside my region and my bureau, so what's the point?" he challenged.

"That is the point," Hammond mused to herself. But she felt the cold water on her face and her post-Kanner euphoria was gone. She needed a way to avoid being driven back to square one.

How could meaningful succession planning take hold without discussing individual cases? Was Hammond's credibility, and thus her effectiveness, now in question? If so, what could she do to repair the damage?

"Let's take a break," she responded.

What would you recommend? Let us know at letters@govexec.com. Read the experts' suggestions in the left-hand column.

]]>

Bump and Retreat

David Hornestay — Tue, 01 Jul 1997 00:00:00 -0400

hat you're telling me is I'll end up with senior managers doing technical work and my up-and-coming people out on the street?" Don Silver, director of the Federal Research Agency, asked in disbelief. For the first time, the agency had been directed to make serious cuts in management, supervisory and headquarters positions, and the reduction-in-force plan presented by human resources chief, Ann Vickers, was grim.

"Now you know why agencies avoid RIFs," said Vickers. "A limited buyout helps mitigate the effects, but we've got to assume most of our folks jumped at last year's opportunity. There are other options, but they carry risks."

Silver, now in his third year as director, had signed on with an executive branch team committed to making government smaller and more economical. He believed his private sector background would help him recognize opportunities to slash bloated staffs and bureaucratic processes. The President had made it plain that he favored moving work out of Washington, and Silver was comfortable with this objective because of his long familiarity with the celebrated FRA laboratories.

Silver was confident he had succeeded in getting more bang out of his agency's constrained budget than his predecessors had. But nothing in nearly three decades in research and development had prepared Silver for the havoc wrought by the "bumps" and "retreats" of the federal RIF system.

Nor was it particularly comforting to know that most agencies were experiencing the same pressures. Silver could envision the steady erosion of the program gains-as well as equal opportunity progress in hiring and placement-of the last three years as a demoralized and displaced workforce struggled through downsizing. It would certainly be worthwhile to look at all options.

"This may be a naive question, Ann, but if we've sent a bunch of work out to the field, can't I send a bunch of high-graded managers out with it? And wouldn't that relieve some of the pressure on our middle and lower ranks?" Silver asked.

"I'm afraid the answers aren't as simple as the questions, but that gets to one alternative that carries risks," Vickers replied.

Silver tried out his idea on a few close colleagues. He was quickly disabused of the hope that it would be an easy sell. Both lab directors he consulted wondered what they would do with Washington
"paper pushers" who had lost their touch with field research and engineering. A headquarters official he approached was more amenable, smiling as he said, "Sure, as long as I get to pick who goes and who stays," leaving Silver less than at ease.

At a senior staff meeting later that week, Vickers laid out the rationale for moving a significant number of managers to the field offices while raising several major pitfalls. She noted that for more than three years, program authority and funding had been delegated downward, and that a few headquarters managers had voluntarily migrated to the labs "to be where the action was." The directives for reducing management positions, and Washington positions in general, could be accommodated by accelerating the transfer of more managers to where they were needed.

On the negative side, Vickers pointed out that several previous FRA mobility programs, all of which had been voluntary, had only limited success. People settled in Washington, especially with families, rarely were willing to relocate before retirement, especially given the high grades of headquarters jobs.

Even when some in headquarters could be convinced it was in their career interest to get field experience, Vickers said, lab officials were reluctant to choose managers "contaminated" by Washington service. Previous delegations of authority to the field had provided promotion and advancement opportunities for lab personnel. It was now a bit late to be sending the labs what would amount to surplus managers. In any event, forced placements rarely created fruitful collaborations.

Still, Vickers insisted, these objections could be addressed. Carrots like relocation assistance, continuing education, grade preservation and challenging work at the labs could be offered to headquarters managers. Surely those would be more appealing than the dismal economic and career prospects of unprecedented downsizing at the upper levels. Vickers was unwilling to accept that lab directors could not find needed talent in successful program managers, many of whom had field experience, as well as administrative managers who could help the labs with transitions to larger responsibilities.

Top officials could make both lab directors and headquarters managers put aside their reservations and strive to find good job matches, Vickers concluded.

"Nice pitch, Ann, but I think you're dreaming," said Al Williams, the veteran associate director for field operations.

Silver wasn't so sure she was.

FRANK P. CIPPOLA:
MAKE REDEPLOYMENT MEANINGFUL

Frank P. Cippola is director of the Center for Human Resources Management at the National Academy of Public Administration. His federal career of more than 30 years, including overseas, field and headquarters assignments, culminated with his service as director of personnel management for DoD. He is a member of the board of directors of the Public Employees Roundtable.

heoretically, this kind of redeployment would benefit both the individuals making the moves as well as the receiving organizations. But the moves have to be seen as an opportunity rather than an expedient (i.e., something being done just to bring the numbers down). Taking these actions can't be seen as a goal in itself. They must be related to a larger objective for the organization. Too many downsizings fail to reduce costs or increase productivity because the context and overall purpose haven't been clearly established or defined. It isn't enough for senior managers to say "we're being directed by higher headquarters, even the White House, to do this" or, "we've looked at this from every angle and have decided that this is the best course of action." If this is how the process started, it won't sell!

Redeployments such as those being contemplated in this case can be effective alternatives to RIF. "Redeployment" has become a term of art in the restructuring and downsizing milieu of the 1980s and 1990s. When used most effectively, it has been part of an overall plan for strategic change in the organization's mission and structure. Individuals are offered opportunities to move to different positions which may be vacant elsewhere in the existing organization or which may be new jobs resulting from restructuring of duties and functions. Selections for such reassignments may be voluntary and even viewed as competitive developmental opportunities. Or, selection may be involuntary, based solely on management's decision on how best to dispose of "surplus" employees. In this case, it's not clear which approach management will take, although the true-to-life assumption is that the transfers will likely be involuntary actions. At least that's how they will be perceived.

Our studies at NAPA of downsizing practices and lessons learned have consistently indicated that actions like the ones under consideration can only be sold if some key factors are included in the planning process. These keys are:

Strategic focus. The actions must be mission-focused-aimed at how to get the job done better. In other words, a delayering plan should be linked to an overall work restructuring plan for improved mission accomplishment. If the restructuring is meaningful-actually reframing the work and not just moving blocks-then reassignments can be viewed positively.
Communication. Affected employees should be involved-early and frequently. What do the employees think? What alternatives do they suggest? If they are challenged with finding solutions, chances are they will. They know the work best. If they are involved in the planning, there may well be more volunteers for reassignment.

The fundamental obstacle in this kind of initiative is the negative perception of being designated "surplus." Employees designated for the transfers see themselves as being "farmed out" just because the agency has to meet some prescribed downsizing objectives. They will never buy in unless efforts are made to stress the positive aspects of a mid- or late-career move. They should know that there are numerical objectives which will have to be met but these shouldn't be the basis for the whole scenario. A counseling process should emphasize developmental objectives, improving specific competencies, training and retraining opportunities. Another critical ingredient is an effort to communicate to employees their value to the agency and that management is willing to continue investing in them. This kind of a process obviously takes time, and it takes the full commitment of the agency's leadership.

JOEL P. BENNETT:
BE CAREFUL OF DISCRIMINATION

Joel P. Bennett is an attorney practicing in Washington. He specializes in federal employment law and is a member of the Public Administration Forum.

anagers should always consult the agency attorneys before taking personnel actions. Encouraging retirement raises issues of possible age discrimination. The use of the phrase "up-and-coming middle managers" can be a pretext for age discrimination.

The comment on layoffs wiping out equal employment opportunity progress on hiring and placement could support claims of reverse discrimination by white males. Such cases could be costly to the agency. The 1991 Civil Rights Act states that agencies can be liable for up to $300,000 in compensatory damages for intentional discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin or disability. Both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and juries in federal courts have awarded substantial amounts in compensatory damages against federal agencies under the law.

Directed reassignments are possible, but could be attacked as discriminatory if the affected employee could show that management knew such a reassignment would result in a resignation or retirement.

The bottom line is management cannot avoid EEO or Merit Systems Protection Board complaints completely, no matter how well-intentioned its actions. However, such complaints can be minimized by good communication with employees, individual counseling by supervisors and a sincere attempt to balance the agency's need to downsize with fair treatment of employees. Higher management at headquarters needs to persuade field management that headquarters employees would be valuable additions. The agency should also look at the composition of the affected group of employees to be sure the statistics do not indicate an adverse impact on any particular race, gender or age range. Management should also offer assistance such as outplacement and training.

DONNA M. WILLIAMS:
EMPHASIZE TEAMWORK

Donna M. Williams is director of human resources for the Chicago Region of the Social Security Administration. Her three decades of service, which began in Washington, have been primarily at field installations.

he "we" versus "they" attitude of field and headquarters employees is a common phenomenon in organizations with this structure. Generally, the field employees believe headquarters employees are out of touch with the "real work" of the organization. Headquarters employees, on the other hand, believe the organization needs their breadth of organizational understanding and that field employees can see only their parochial needs. There is, of course, truth in both positions. This dichotomy of views will need to be addressed if Silver's plan to move surplus headquarters managers to the field labs can have any hope of success.

First, Silver should pull together a group of employees to help solve the problem. These individuals should have varying organizational backgrounds (field/headquarters, technical/non-technical, management/non-management). The mix of employees should produce an abundance of ideas and solutions. The team must have a representative from human resources, either as a member or as a consultant, to advise them on the pertinent regulations. This person should be willing to assist the team on working creatively with a system that is not particularly "creative friendly." Silver should arrange for the group to be trained in problem-solving techniques.

Silver should have Vickers lay out the rationale for moving managers to the field offices, and point out the pitfalls and failed efforts noted in her earlier presentation. He should discuss with the group his vision of saving as many jobs as possible and avoiding the drastic measures associated with a RIF. Silver should emphasize his desire to keep seasoned employees as well as those recently hired, who will be the lifeblood of the organization's future. The group should be handed the following issues to sort out, and encouraged to add any they determine are appropriate:

What work can be moved from headquarters to field?
What skills will be needed to accomplish the work?
Who has the skills that will be needed to accomplish the work?
How should the people and work be moved to the field?
What incentives can be offered-saved grade and pay, selection of location, assistance with finding work for spouses, etc.?

Silver should indicate to the team that this task is extremely important. If the group's solutions do not work, the organization will have to take drastic measures to downsize.

This is one in a series of case studies in which Government Executive examines workplace dilemmas that often confront federal managers. Each is presented to a panel of experts for their reactions. Join our discussion of this case in the Forum section of our Web site. Or send your own reaction by e-mail to govexec@govexec.com or by fax to (202) 739-8511.

David Hornestay, a Washington-area consultant, served in government for more than 30 years, primarily in human resources and institutional management.

]]>

The Mother Load

David Hornestay — Thu, 01 May 1997 00:00:00 -0400

onnie Christopher hears the front door of the house slam as she eases into the car at 6:40 a.m. to begin her 50-minute commute. "OK, Fred, I got the message-again," she thinks. It is the morning after another argument about how she and her husband, Fred, both career professionals, should share child care and household responsibilities.

True, she could trust Fred to see to it that their 7-year-old twins, Kate and Nate, ate the cereal she left in bowls on the kitchen table. She knew he'd make sure they got to the bus stop on time, and he'd pick them up from after-school care at 5 o'clock on the way home from his nearby office. But Bonnie, as usual, had prepared last night's dinner, checked homework, and gotten the kids to bed before tackling an hour of chores, including packing the next day's lunches.

Bonnie fumes behind the wheel. Was it really so outrageous to ask Fred to prepare supper this evening? She has to attend a late management council meeting in the wake of the downsizing announcement at the Social Services Department. As chief of financial management for the North Central Region, she has a key role in formulating the office's plan. And while her boss, Director Haruo Nomo, has shown extraordinary understanding of her occasional unavailability because of the children, today is not the day to test that good will. In fact, the next few weeks at the office will be more pressing than usual, perhaps demanding a temporary shift of Bonnie's carefully balanced home versus office schedule. That happens sometimes, and the price paid is lost time with the family.

Bonnie's demands at the office call for some extraordinary understanding from Fred, who is palpably uncomfortable with violations of the traditional model of the male breadwinner and female homemaker. The one immovable anchor of his routine is having Bonnie fix dinner. "If I didn't insist on that," he had said during the previous night's argument, "you'd never get home from the office before the kids were ready for bed. I'm trying to keep us a family."

In a final, telling thrust, Fred had snarled, "With all your Saturday catch-up sessions lately, you're not exactly 'Soccer Mom,' either. Most of the kids on the team have both parents at the games, even if they're divorced. Have you noticed who's been going to all the games-alone?"

Bonnie has noticed, and she feels guilty about it. But during months of unrelenting budget cuts and attrition, she and her colleagues have been scrambling to shore up their programs with administrative and logistical support. The heavier workload just doesn't fit into her regular 9- to 10-hour day, and she has slid almost unaware into a routine trip to the office on Saturdays. The "couple of hours to catch up" has crept close to a full day, part of which is spent worrying about what the kids are doing.

A traffic bottleneck has given Bonnie time to think. Perhaps Fred is so reluctant to yield on his family "principles" because he is feeling powerless in other areas of his life. Fred, a one-time hot shot, was recently relegated to a dead-end position, and Bonnie's career and income have eclipsed his. Maybe he needs more sensitivity from her on that score. Or maybe Bonnie's dedication to her job really is disrupting the family.

Reaching her desk, Bonnie begins to regroup for a 9 a.m. meeting with Nomo. "I hate to lay an extra burden on him, especially at a time like this," she thinks, "but I have a lot of questions about how my balancing act is working from his point of view. Maybe he feels he's been compromising, too." Everyone in the office had noted how considerate Nomo had been about Bob Sheffield's schedule during his wife's serious illness. Now Bonnie wonders if he has been accommodating her in the expectation that she'd eventually be as available as her peers. All of them are male and always accessible, barring emergencies.

As she walks through Nomo's doorway, Bonnie is encouraged by his characteristic smile. But he has noticed stress creeping into her sunny personality. Nomo has tapped the grapevine to learn of the domestic pressures on her schedule, and he is ready to talk to her about it.

"Has my stress affected my performance?" Bonnie thinks. "And what about the future? Can I even think about becoming chief financial officer for the department? Can any mother of young children seriously pursue the most senior positions?"

SUSAN CRITES PRICE:
COMPROMISE AT HOME

Freelance writer Susan Crites Price is co-author of The Working Parents Help Book (Peterson's 1994, rev. ed. 1996) with her husband, Tom Price. The Prices also write The Working Parents Lifeline, a weekly Cox News Service column that appears in more than 40 newspapers. The Prices live in Washington with their 11-year-old daughter.

he morning after a blowup with her husband probably is the worst time for Bonnie Christopher to tell her boss about her family-job conflicts. If Nomo raises the issue, Bonnie should suggest they schedule an appointment at another time to discuss her job performance.

The delay will give her time to have a heart-to-heart talk with her husband. Her job pressures should be addressed as a family problem to work on together. Presumably they have a common goal-spending more time with their kids and each other.

First, they can tackle the immediate issues. If her long hours truly are a short-term condition that should get better later, then the couple can brainstorm on some temporary measures to get by. Everyone will have to make compromises.

Seven-year-olds are capable of getting their own bowls of cereal and helping pack their lunches. Bonnie's husband will have to take on more of the domestic chores, just as she would if he were going through a hectic time at work. They also could pay for some domestic help, such as a cleaning service.

Bonnie also should consider whether part of her husband's resistance to doing more chores stems from her micromanaging when he does. She should relax and let him do things his way if she expects him to assume more responsibility at home.

If Fred agrees to do more, his wife should meet him half way. When she must go to the office on Saturday, she could wait until after the kids' soccer games. She also could set a time limit on how long she'll be gone.

Fred's refusal to make dinner apparently is a ploy to get Bonnie to come home on time. He might be more willing to relent if she agrees to make more effort to avoid missing dinner and to give him advance notice, if possible, when she must be late.

This family also should look at the big picture. Part of Fred's resistance is because of his own work situation. If his career has been sidetracked, his self-esteem may be low. Housework could seem like another threat to his masculinity. His wife could encourage him to make a career change and support him in the process.

Bonnie needs to do some soul-searching about the sacrifices she's willing to make to reach her goal of department chief financial officer. Since she's apparently juggled family and job successfully while climbing the career ladder, there's no reason to assume she can't continue moving up. But the decision to go for it is not one she can make in a vacuum. She needs to consider how much support she'll have from her family and how much she is willing to compromise.

Once she and her husband have reached short-term fixes and long-term goals, Bonnie is ready to talk to her boss. That discussion should focus on her job performance during this overload period and how she can best meet her department's needs without sacrificing her personal life. This is a reasonable position for any employee, not just a parent of young children.

Her boss may be unaware of how much Bonnie is working. Her Saturday visits to the office, especially when they stretch to several hours, should not be necessary except on an infrequent basis. Instead, she should offer her boss ideas for how the department's workload could be completed more efficiently. Maybe some projects could be delegated to less senior workers or to other departments. Some projects probably could be eliminated, and so could time-wasters such as lengthy meetings.

During the discussion with her boss, she should make clear her dedication to the department's mission. If Bonnie wants to keep advancing, her boss needs to hear that, too. Otherwise he may assume that her family obligations supersede that desire. If she's a valued employee, it's in her boss's self-interest to make it possible for her to advance.

SARA PRATT:
HIRE HELP

Sara Pratt, a lawyer, has been director of the Office of Investigations for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the Housing and Urban Development Department for three years. She is married to a music teacher and musician and has a 4-year-old daughter.

ven "wonder women" can't do it all. At least not without help. Bonnie Christopher is in the classic dilemma of trying to be all things to all people, and she can't do it.

She needs to negotiate for help at home and help at the office. Whether it's her husband or a part-time helper or other arrangement which could take care of the supper preparation, a high-level manager just can't do all of the routine functions at home and do her job well. At the same time, Bonnie can't let her job take away the important family time either. Extra help at the office, or allocation of responsibilities to others, especially on weekends and evenings, is part of the process of acknowledging that employment has to be a team effort.

Bonnie should set rules about what time she will leave the office and, except in an emergency, she should leave then. She should routinely avoid working on weekends. She might choose to go to soccer games, but not because her husband makes her feel guilty about missing them. She might prefer to spend time on her own for at least part of the weekend, and she shouldn't feel guilty about that either. Bonnie's schedule is too burdensome for anyone, male or female, with children or without. The question isn't whether she needs special treatment because of her family situation, the point is that she, like any other employee, needs a reasonable work schedule.

The negotiations with family and work to accomplish this should be discussed first with Nomo, because he's ready to talk about them. To the extent he can work with Bonnie to support her setting limits at work, she will need to leave every day by 6 p.m., unless there's an emergency. She will need staff assistance to ensure that weekend work is a rare exception. These are reasonable requests. Bonnie may need to be flexible in other areas, by letting go some area of responsibility, or by not being perfect in every aspect of her performance, but the employer has an obligation to respect every employee's need not to have to work excessive hours to accomplish the work.

The family situation will be eased by getting help with supper. Bonnie could suggest late afternoon help at home to fix supper, or make arrangements with any of the many services which provide meals to working families. If she doesn't press Fred on this one, and gets home earlier for family quality time, a compromise could be developed.

Employers don't need to know all the gory details about the home situation, and they really shouldn't get them. A problem-solving approach by Bonnie which identifies the major problems of a heavy workload requiring evening and weekend hours routinely, her goal of not working evenings or weekends except in emergencies, and her proposals to resolve those issues is enough for an employer to recognize the problem and deal with solutions.

DIANA J. VEILLEUX:
SET PRIORITIES

Diana J. Veilleux, a partner at Shaw, Bransford & O'Rourke of Washington, specializes in labor and employment law and litigation. She also is a host of FED-Talk, the firm's weekly radio show. She was an attorney with the U.S. Postal Service in its Office of Labor Law for five years. Veilleux, 38, is married to an attorney and has an 8-month-old son.

onnie Christopher's life is a perfect example of the difficulties faced by working women with families today. They have been told they can "have it all"-both a fulfilling personal and family life and a dynamic and demanding career. What they haven't been told is that having it all comes with a price that includes making difficult decisions about priorities. It also means having to face feelings about not giving 100 percent all the time-at home or in the workplace.

Many working mothers feel home life is the most important priority, though a career is still important to them. Some therefore choose to work part time. Others decide to work full time, either out of economic necessity or because they enjoy professional life and want to continue their careers. In either case, a working mother will undoubtedly feel guilt that some aspect of her life is not receiving enough attention, or that the balance she's chosen is not the "right" one. The "right" mix is up to the individual, based on her circumstances. This is the crossroads Bonnie has reached.

Whether Bonnie can "do justice" to both home and work, depends on what "doing justice" means to her. It is certainly possible to have a fulfilling home life and career. However, doing so requires recognition that sometimes either work or home life will take precedence over the other. If Bonnie wants to keep her job and maintain her family responsibilities, she needs to deal with the guilt she is feeling by accepting that she may not be the superstar at work she is used to being, and she probably won't be "Super Mom" either. But she must accept that having a career and a family does not mean she is an inadequate mother or worker.

Bonnie should not try to match a work schedule set by others, especially those who do not have the same family obligations. She also should not take a position with less responsibility because she feels others are outstripping her in terms of hours worked. It is not clear whether Bonnie's co-workers are doing a better job than she is, although she may feel that they are. Indeed, studies have shown that people who spend less time in the office may actually be more productive because they log in less down-time.

This is where Bonnie's supervisor can provide some insight. As long as Nomo is satisfied with Bonnie's performance, she should not worry about what her male co-workers are doing.

If Bonnie wants to scale back her work life, she should seek a less responsible position. However, she should only do this if she is sure it is right for her (taking into account her family's feelings, etc.) because the decision is probably irrevocable. If Bonnie takes a demotion because of pressure from home without exploring her alternatives, her personal situation could get worse, not better.

The rules for working couples are changing as traditional roles for men and women evolve. However, this does not mean modern couples accept such changes readily. Willingness to take on nontraditional roles is shaped by many things, such as the role model provided by one's own parents. It appears that Fred is more comfortable with the traditional role of himself as head of the household and breadwinner, and Bonnie as wife and caretaker. He is resentful that these roles appear to be eroding because of Bonnie's career. Fred's feelings may be amplified by his own flagging career. Fred should be flexible about his expectations that Bonnie exclusively perform domestic tasks such as making dinner every day, and Bonnie should not allow work routinely to interfere with family weekend activities.

Bonnie and Fred must communicate about home expectations and child-care responsibilities and must attempt to compromise. They may need professional help before resentment on both sides becomes an insurmountable barrier to communications.

Whether Bonnie needs to clarify her relationship with her husband prior to discussing her work performance with her boss depends on what she is seeking to accomplish through the latter discussion. For example, if Bonnie seeks an accommodated schedule so she can spend less time at the office and more time at home, she will have a more productive discussion with her boss if she knows what exactly is expected of her at home. If Bonnie's angst is over whether she is meeting her boss' expectations and she simply seeks reassurances from Nomo, it may not be necessary for her to resolve her family issues with Fred first. The bottom line, however, is that Bonnie needs to talk to both her boss and her husband to get herself back on track.

Nomo is obviously sympathetic to Bonnie. However, he should not encourage Bonnie to unburden herself about the details of her personal life, especially since her personal problems do not appear to be interfering with anything other than her disposition. He should be open about whether he thinks Bonnie is meeting his performance expectations. Nomo should also assure Bonnie that if she is having personal difficulties which need accommodation, he is open to providing assistance. If Nomo feels Bonnie needs professional assistance with her personal problems, he can and should refer her to the agency employee assistance program.

Supervisors must walk a fine line between serving the interests of their employer and maintaining good personal relationships with their subordinates. If Nomo is too involved in the details of Bonnie's personal life, it may become difficult for him to objectively assess her situation if an issue arises later regarding Bonnie's performance or attendance. Nomo can be a sympathetic friend to a degree, but he must maintain some distance to be an effective supervisor.

Bonnie's situation is occurring every day with working mothers all over the country. However, the solution for each individual depends upon her circumstances and the choices she makes about the appropriate balance between work and home. Bonnie needs to set her personal priorities before she can determine whether her home-work balance should be retooled.

This is a series of case studies in which Government Executive examines workplace dilemmas that often confront federal managers. Each is presented to a panel of experts for their reactions. Join our discussion of this case in our Web site Forum. Or send your own reaction by e-mail to govexec@govexec.com or by fax to (202) 739-8511.

]]>

The Mother Load

David Hornestay — Thu, 01 May 1997 00:00:00 -0400

SUSAN CRITES PRICE:
COMPROMISE AT HOME

SARA PRATT:
HIRE HELP

ven "wonder women" can't do it all. At least not without help. Bonnie Christopher is in the classic dilemma of trying to be all things to all people, and she can't do it.

DIANA J. VEILLEUX:
SET PRIORITIES

This is where Bonnie's supervisor can provide some insight. As long as Nomo is satisfied with Bonnie's performance, she should not worry about what her male co-workers are doing.

This is a series of case studies in which Government Executive examines workplace dilemmas that often confront federal managers. Each is presented to a panel of experts for their reactions.

]]>

Been There, Done That

David Hornestay — Sat, 01 Feb 1997 00:00:00 -0500

ud Young liked what he heard from the new administrator of the Infrastructure Modernization Agency. Ed Alvarez sounded sharp, focused, motivated and down to earth. He seemed to have more than a superficial familiarity with half a dozen issues confronting the agency. Indeed, once again, IMA had been blessed with a presidential appointee who had some technical background relevant to the agency's mission.

It was the last issue the new administrator brought up at a get-acquainted meeting that gave Bud Young, IMA's veteran career deputy, his only trace of heartburn.

"The President told me I have a free hand on organizing the agency, but stressed that he has found decentralization to be most helpful in making operations more effective and economical," Alvarez told his deputy. The Vice President had reinforced the subtle guidance with glowing success stories about agency decentralizations, and the White House chief of staff had practically convinced Alvarez he would be graded on doing the same at IMA.

"What kind of potential for decentralization do you think we have here, Bud?" Alvarez said. Young almost blurted out, "About the same as we had in 1990, 1981 and 1973, when we tried it to our ultimate grief," but the question was a sincere one from a responsible official who had, for all intents and purposes, been given a mandate.

"You can always do a little more to assure that your capable people in the field have the authority they need to get their job done, Ed," the deputy said. "But we've spent a lot of time over the 26 years I've been here trying to achieve the ideal balance between field operations and Washington." The deputy said he would get Alvarez more information on past organizational changes before they started down that road again.

"And there's no doubt we'll be going down that road again," Young thought to himself as their meeting broke up. Decentralization is the wave of the present. People are more motivated when they feel largely responsible for what they produce, and work gets done faster and cheaper with less staff when it doesn't get hung up in the chain of command. But Congress and the White House, not to mention the press and public, hold the agency leaders in Washington accountable for progress and problems. And the operating level, no matter how competent, benefits from information and guidance from interagency, national and international connections. You can't get that with nothing more than a few note-takers in Washington.

Young hadn't always felt this way. As a young engineer, even as a mid-level manager in the field, he had chafed under headquarters guidelines and waited impatiently for the central office to make decisions. But once in Washington, he understood the need for central coordination of a large organization whose elements had limited knowledge of each other's requirements and problems.

Nevertheless, Young still favored delegation of authority to the operating level. As deputy administrator, he had been a leading advocate of the 1990 streamlining which had, among other innovations, eliminated routine headquarters review of certain projects. Tragically, one of those projects ended barely a year later when three employees were killed during a pilot test. A congressional investigation and an independent panel both cited "inadequate headquarters oversight" as a contributing factor and recommended corrective action. The 1992 reorganization addressed the apparent management weakness with more central controls.

Armed with 20 years worth of organization charts and documentation, Young gave Alvarez a briefing the next day. When he finished, the administrator leaned back and said, "We both know there are pluses and minuses with any organizational mode, Bud. But loosening central controls is the name of the game now, and I won't have any credibility with the White House or the Hill if I don't move in that direction." He told Young to use his institutional smarts to identify which powers could be safely delegated and report back in 10 days with a plan.

"You're trusted by the workforce to do what's right for the agency," Alvarez said. "I'll give you the people and resources you need to get it done right."

If there was a way to get it done right, Young reflected, the agency would have done it in 1990 or 1981 or whenever. But he had a new opportunity and he started to think.

DONALD KETTL:
Don't Look Back
Professor Donald F. Kettl is director of the Robert M. LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is a Nonresident Senior Fellow in the Brookings Institution's Center for Public Management in Washington, and author of and contributor to works including Civil Service Reform: Building a Government that Works; Inside the Reinvention Machine: Appraising the National Performance Review; Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets; and Deficit Politics.

f course there is no way to do it right. There is never an ideal balance between centralization and decentralization, and no balance that is stable for long.

Even though IMA has found a comfort level after its recent bouts of reorganization, there is no reason to presume this level is the best balance for the agency. Still, the three previous decentralization battles, and the loss of three lives, have cast a long shadow over both IMA's structure and Young's thinking. Problems, like the three tragic deaths and the other problems surrounding the earlier "reforms," teach that the only good answer to new pressures is to snug in the reins tightly enough to prevent bad things from recurring and to insulate the agency from new threats and instability.

These hard lessons will surely tempt Young to play out just enough decentralization to satisfy outside forces without doing anything real. If the agency's workforce trusts him, it is because workers count on him not to put them at risk. IMA has already suffered the twin risks of reorganization-induced instability and political attack. Young knows enough to produce the right paper trail to protect his colleagues from new risks while satisfying Ed Alvarez and other reform-minded political forces-at least long enough to allow the press of new business to make them forget their reform enthusiasm.

That, however, would be doubly irresponsible. Young has a clear and inescapable mandate to carry out the policies that Alvarez frames. Moreover, there is an even bigger risk in digging in to protect the routine: able performance of suboptimal work. The biggest threat in American bureaucracy today is not substandard performance, bureaucratic laziness or outright intransigence. It is, rather, merely competent work through routines designed to protect government workers from outside threats and pressures. Too often, the work gets done, but not well enough, quickly enough or cheaply enough to satisfy either political realities or the new challenges of society's complexity. The best way to ensure a new and greater disaster is for Young to set his course by looking over his shoulder at the last three reorganizations instead of into the future at problems IMA will have to solve.

So what should Young do? The key to satisfying Alvarez, defending his colleagues, serving the IMA mission and keeping the agency on the cutting edge is to avoid jumping one more time onto the centralization/decentralization pendulum. Young should launch a careful study that looks at how best to do what IMA needs to do. Any such study will reveal some tasks (say, policy planning and financial management) that can be best done at headquarters. The performance of other tasks might be improved by delegating more responsibility to field offices where employees know more about program management than headquarters staff.

Young, furthermore, ought to ask anyone pressing the case for centralized tasks to explain why the jobs could not be better done in the field. Even more important, as decisions are pushed into the field, Young ought to insist on a balance of accountability: more discretion in exchange for far better reporting of results. Improved performance, not reorganization, ought to drive the effort; improved reporting of outputs and outcomes, not shifting the boxes, ought to be the mechanism of reform.

Neither centralization nor decentralization ought to be ends in themselves. The key is to match the approach to the job, and then to ensure that the job is done well. Such an approach might come hard to a manager like Young whose 26 years of experience argues that no new reform will ever solve the problem but will surely create many new ones. To approach Alvarez' request this way, though, risks plunging his agency into mediocrity. Charting his way past this trap, around the political risks facing his agency and through the unpredictable complexities, is the challenge Young and thousands of top managers like him must learn anew to conquer.

ALAN DEAN and
DWIGHT INK:
Bottom-Up Review
Alan Dean was the Transportation Department's first assistant secretary for administration. He has also been associate administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and vice president for administration of the U.S. Railway Association. As a deputy assistant director of the Office of Management and Budget, he was coordinator of President Nixon's Departmental Reorganization Program.

Dwight Ink served in federal policy positions under seven presidents. While in the Executive Office of the President, he was responsible for governmentwide management and organization reform, including the plans that established the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget, and that made the U.S. Postal Service a government corporation. Ink designed and coordinated the massive decentralization of the domestic agencies in the 1970s, called the New Federalism.

mproved service to the public, reduced administrative costs, smaller staff requirements and faster action often result from delegating many of an agency's activities to field offices. Delegation also frees headquarters from the burden of day-to-day operations and enables it to concentrate on necessary headquarters functions such as policy formulation and oversight of operations. However, it is important that decentralization be designed and managed to produce the maximum benefit for the people and institutions served by the agency. Otherwise, the effort will fail, and may produce the "ultimate grief" experienced by the IMA.

Before proceeding with decentralization, Young must determine which activities can be advantageously decentralized, and which cannot. Policy determination is clearly a headquarters function. So are resource allocation, White House and congressional negotiations, monitoring and evaluation of field operations, and the operations most effectively carried out in a single unit (e.g. payroll preparation, assembly of agencywide statistical data).

In the Federal Aviation Administration's highly successful decentralization, every activity was examined and the authority to administer policies was delegated to the regional directors, except when convincing evidence showed a function could best be performed at headquarters.

Delegation of authority must be clear-cut, with operational accountability spelled out. Authority should not be delegated to the field, however, until there are policies and standards to guide those actions. In fact, a new statute may require centralized administration for a short time until the agency has developed and communicated implementation policies, standards and regulations. Failure to provide such guidance can result in serious missteps by field officials and inequitable treatment of an agency's clients.

Successful decentralization depends on qualified staff and facilities. There must be enough people in the field, and they must have sufficient training and high enough grade levels to exercise the new responsibilities. Field officials must have the rank and status needed to hold their own with headquarters officials and to be effective in working with agency clients such as state and local officials and business leaders. Because decentralization generally cuts red tape, it often permits a staffing reduction.

A senior official should lead the design and implementation of the decentralization. Career leaders must be enlisted for key roles. The hard work of career personnel years ago in closing down the government's anti-poverty agency, the Office of Economic Opportunity-an action they all opposed-shows most career personnel can be counted on to carry out the policies of the president and an agency head they respect, regardless of their personal views.

The change leader must have a support staff-an existing organization, an ad hoc group established only for the project, or a combination of the two. Task forces with members from both headquarters and the field should include employees from parts of the agency that would be most affected by the changes, and should not be limited to the highest grades. A management analysis unit can support the task forces.

The task force or staff report should include pros and cons. It should also indicate likely costs and organizational and staff changes. Schedules for implementation should be included. The report should be internally reviewed before being presented to top managers.

Useful as these temporary mechanisms are, they are not a substitute for a permanent office which provides ongoing leadership in initiating and sustaining reforms. This role used to be carried out in most departments by the assistant secretary for administration and by similar officials in most large agencies. With the weakening of these offices in recent years and the fragmentation of agency management responsibilities, it is difficult to find a suitable champion of reforms other than the deputy head of an agency.

Whatever the mechanism, the process produces internal and external repercussions. Employees, unions, interest groups, the Office of Management and Budget and congressional committees need to be informed and consulted to maximize support and minimize opposition.

The agency head remains accountable for field performance. Therefore, he or she must assure that any deficiencies are promptly identified through field visits, systematic audits, installation of information systems designed to disclose emerging problems, and regular evaluations of field operations. Headquarters must be able to quickly correct problems before they grow into public issues or scandals.

No reform is successful without the intensive involvement of agency leaders and sustained staff support. An examination of the earlier unsuccessful IMA attempts would almost certainly reveal that one or more of the above requirements for decentralization had been overlooked or badly handled.

FRANK L. DAVIS:
Consult Employees
Frank Davis is director of the HUD Field Reorganization Task Force. He is a career senior executive with 29 years of experience at HUD and GSA in a broad range of professional and managerial positions, including personnel management, labor relations, training, community planning and development, and field/regional management.

he trend to reverse the growth and authority of the federal government has been evident since the election of President Nixon and has continued through the Clinton Administration. The difference in the current movement to "right-size" the federal government is the extraordinary degree of career civil service and customer involvement in the reinvention process. The result has been a request for more and better customer service, including decision-making at the lowest possible and practicable level in the agency.

There are two conundrums which figure prominently in the organizational change process, particularly with respect to decentralized authority. First, there is an almost irresistible urge at the middle and top headquarters management levels to aggregate and maintain authority at that level. Headquarters managers feel that to decentralize strips away some aspect of a personal power preserve. Second, when forced to decentralize, these headquarters managers have an eerie sense of being programmed for the failure of the recipients of delegated authority. This "sense" manifests itself either in a paucity of training and guidance on how to exercise the new authority or in the "you had better not do anything until you clear it with me" attitude which gets conveyed with the empowerment.

Finally, sometimes one gets the feeling that organizational change initiatives have a half-life of 24 months, which is about the average tenure of political appointees. Subconsciously, career staff sometimes govern their energies and enthusiasm to last just about that long. Thereafter, the project or effort falls into disrepute and is disregarded.

The flip side of this cynicism occurs when people are convinced there is a legitimate and compelling business need to change; that noncareer and career executives are equally committed; and that there will be sincere and real opportunities for employees to provide input and to be informed and involved in both the planning and implementation processes.

Senior career managers, such as Bud Young, can and should be responsible for planning and managing the decentralization process. But all employees should be informed of the decentralization study and encouraged to offer suggestions and recommendations. A core management group, consisting of representatives from headquarters and the field, as well as union officials, should develop a charter for the organizational change study and plan. The charter should be a document which can be openly discussed internally and externally. A clearly defined communications strategy must be established, with people designated to address the inevitable inquiries.

Further, the charter should specify the goals, objectives, tasks and milestones of the study. There should be a clear process for participants to review and comment on the study, as well as the decision-making and implementation.

Technology is hardly mentioned in Bud Young's dilemma, and our experience with transformation indicates that the location of our work-particularly delivery of programs and services-is becoming less important. Streamlining, downsizing and consolidating may actually result in both decentralizing authority from Washington as well as centralizing authority in several major field office locations, which will become centers of customer service.

]]>

Squeeze Play

David Hornestay — Fri, 01 Nov 1996 00:00:00 -0500

he appropriation for the Federal Atmospheric Research Service (FARS) was going to be late, as usual. Also, for the third straight year it would be lower than the year before. House Appropriations subcommittee staff already had served notice that FARS could expect "closer surveillance of unnecessarily wide-ranging programs" and further cuts in the future.

Even so, FARS Comptroller Elizabeth Cranford wasn't worried. The agency's senior management could deal with all of this, she believed. They'd already been through a trial by fire during last summer's budgeting exercise, arguing about priorities, yet eventually emerging with consensus. Most management team members felt the priorities they set would enable the agency to absorb the modest cut they expected from Congress.

Then a phone call from House Appropriations subcommittee staff director Mark Abbott shattered Cranford's sanguine outlook. Abbott's mes- sage was phrased as a question-but it amounted to another cut of $50 million in the agency's budget. "How do you propose to offset your $50 million contribution to the international atmospheric research effort the President is announcing today?" asked Abbott. "The White House wants it included in the current appropriation and we want to cooperate. But since we're locked into a total figure for the agency, we need some offsetting cuts. How soon can you give us your input?"

Cranford dimly remembered a brief reference to the international atmospheric negotiations during agency budget sessions. But there hadn't been any suggestion that FARS would have to devote current resources to the global pollution monitoring program. The talks had dragged on inconclusively for well over a year with nobody anticipating any agreement soon.

Still, Cranford didn't betray her astonishment. "I think we'll have it pretty much worked out by morning, Mark," she responded as casually as possible. "Is that timing satisfactory?"

"The sooner the better," urged Abbott. "Other than that, you know, the appropriation's ready to go to the full committee."

Cranford called FARS Director Bill Runnells, only to find he had been unexpectedly summoned to the White House for "some kind of program announcement," according to his secretary.

The secretary didn't know much more. But special assistant Sally Harris offered a little informed speculation. "The President apparently got some heat at last week's economic summit about not living up to his environmental image," Harris told Cranford. "So when he got back, he asked his science adviser if there were any initiatives ready for approval. There weren't, but this task force at least had a draft plan. So the President told them to come to an agreement and put a ballpark dollar estimate on it. It comes to $150 million, and our share is one-third. I guess political necessity is the mother of a lot of program acceleration."

Fifty million equals the cost of several of our most important projects, thought Cranford, not to mention the cost of some of the highly recommended projects we had to leave on the cutting room floor.

"How long have you known about this, Sally?" she asked.

"Nobody knew it was going to be announced until Bill got the call today," Harris replied. "Our people in Pollutant Monitoring had heard about the science adviser's hurry-up order, but I guess they didn't alert you. Anyway, this looks like a command performance with a presidential commitment and international ramifications, so we'll have to come up with the money. Anything I can do to help with the division directors, Elizabeth?"

Cranford shuddered at the prospect of going back to her colleagues for "emergency contributions." The agency's delicate budget balance had been achieved through long hours of debate. Now a costly initiative with more political than scientific merit threatened that balance.

She asked herself why FARS, with 1,100 employees and a budget now well under $1 billion, should have to kick in just as much money as its larger partners on the interagency task force. Couldn't the Office of Management and Budget or the White House spread the burden further? Couldn't FARS supporters in Congress be prevailed upon to deflect a threat to their favored projects by tapping other sources? Or was this just wishful thinking, to be discarded in favor of the real task-finding the cuts to offset the $50 million that seemed on its way out the door of FARS?

Gary Allison:
Spread the Pain
Gary Allison retired in 1993 as acting chief financial officer of NASA after 25 years in resources management with the agency. For the last three years, he has consulted independently with clients in the private sector.

bsorbing an additional $50 million program requirement within the current budget on short notice could be extremely complicated. Because of probable complications, a commitment to a deadline of less than 24 hours should never have been offered, and Cranford should seek an extension so that decisions can be thought out rationally.

She must first decide who should be involved in formulating a recommendation. At a minimum, the comptroller, the comptroller's analyst for Pollutant Monitoring, the director of Pollutant Monitoring, the FARS director and OMB's branch chief responsible for FARS should be included.

The comptroller's analyst and the director of Pollutant Monitoring should review the international program plan to determine how it fits with the current FARS program, identifying common goals and objectives, program funding profiles and any overlap. There is a possibility that, since pollution monitoring is usually a long-term effort, the $50 million may be identified as a multiyear requirement, reducing the annual funding requirement.

In the meantime, the comptroller should contact OMB to determine what latitude she might have in meeting the requirement and whether OMB will help. She should meet with the FARS director immediately on his return from the White House to compare notes and outline a plan.

I would identify programs already in the budget that meet the objectives of the international program and might be counted against the $50 million assessment. This search should not be confined to the FARS program, since several agencies do atmospheric research and the new program is a $150 million national commitment.

This approach might require some modification to current program objectives, but should be undertaken as quickly as possible. OMB could be of great help in this effort by identifying projects in other agencies that would fit within the new international program's objectives.

Concurrently, Cranford should get in touch with the staff of the full Appropriations Committee to appeal for additional funding. The subcommittee at this stage undoubtedly has fully distributed its allocation, but the full committee probably has some level of reserves and the staff and Members might be willing to add to the subcommittee's allocation.

After these efforts are complete, the unfunded requirement, if any, should be determined. There is very little choice from this point but to go back to the senior managers with a proposed distribution of the funding requirement.

The FARS director will have to agree and participate in the discussion, which is apt to be quite emotional, although the managers' resentment should be moderated by the evidence of advance analytical work to minimize the financial burden. One of the most useful tools at this point would be an agreed-to FARS program priority list. If a list doesn't exist, it would be a worthwhile initiative to undertake in the formulation of future budgets.

No matter how FARS absorbs the $50 million cut, the agency will need OMB's agreement and support. The solution should be followed with a formal transmission to Congress amending the President's budget. While this type of problem is not unusual, it is one of the most frustrating situations faced by an agency, its comptroller and senior managers of resources.

Albert J. Kliman:
It Pays To Communicate
Albert J. Kliman was budget officer for the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 15 years. He has worked for the last five years as a consultant in government management, organization and budgeting, and is a former president of the American Association for Budget and Program Analysis.

$50 million hit could be a minor irritating flea bite or a very serious problem, depending on the makeup of the budget. The availability of significant amounts of research grant money would help to absorb the blow.

In any event, I'd begin with some basic questions for OMB and agency legal counsel. Is there a budget amendment going up to Capitol Hill? Is the offset really necessary in our appropriation? Aren't there other lower priority places around government to take an offset? Can the $50 million really be charged to our accounts? Can it even be appropriated without special legislation or point-of-order language?

Then, of course, I'd get the guys from Pollutant Monitoring, who knew about this in advance, into my office ASAP to find out every possible detail. If I did not have the internal political clout to haul them in, I would get the director's special assistant, Sally Harris, to pull them together for me. I also would notify my immediate political superior of what was going on. If the answer to this problem would be likely to involve hard decisions in my superior's area, then that person, or a representative, would be in on the discussions.

A big part of what I need to know is what is the budget for the Pollutant Monitoring group and how does this special initiative complement or conflict with what they are doing? One immediate possibility for handling this matter is an instant revision in the budget for that particular component but that would depend on the answers to these questions as well as the predilections of the director.

Once I had all the facts in hand and whatever internal support I needed, I could go to the director with some options. The ideas could range from a recommendation to ask the President to direct an offset elsewhere to a series of specific offsets in the FARS budget.

Quite frankly, unless the director insisted, I would want to stay away from going back to the senior managers for contributions. They would probably be very angry and insist that someone be hung out to dry. My inclination-if the internal politics and the facts at hand allowed it-would be to make the head of Pollutant Monitoring suffer the most. There is nothing better to aid in facilitating future communications on serious budget issues, than to hold up for all to see the unfavorable results of a lack of proper communication.

I would certainly make use of any White House connections to work quietly for the reduction or complete elimination of this sudden new requirement.

Emerson Markham:
Have Options Ready
Emerson Markham is Financial Management Project director with the National Academy of Public Administration. A former budget director for both the Veterans Affairs Department and ACTION/Peace Corps, he holds national and local professional society offices and teaches a graduate course at George Washington University.

ranford probably has in mind some reductions that could be made to meet a portion of the deficit. However, the budget cut is probably too large to accommodate without actions which will be drastic for some in the agency.

I would review with my key staff the previous summer's budget sessions updated by the intervening events-there are likely to be several important ones in a one-year period. Then I would go to the director with a tentative list of alternative reductions in my hip pocket and then incorporate the director's advice into my options. The point of this interchange would be to decide how many of the agency senior managers would have to be involved in deciding what to cut from the budget.

In helping agency management reach a decision some of my major considerations would be:

Can we keep long-range disruption to a minimum, using temporary hiring freezes rather than reductions in force, for example?
Which reductions could be most easily restored via a subsequent supplemental appropriation (particularly if program postponements are possible)?
Are there one or two fairly big programs which could take the brunt or will everyone have to be nibbled around the edges?
Is this the time to get rid of a few "sacred cows?"
Is there any portion of the present program which could logically be shifted into the new $150 million effort? Considering the larger program instead of the agency's $50 million share may make it easier to find logical contributions.
Can we identify reductions for the Appropriations subcommittee in order to preserve maximum flexibility for the agency by minimizing the specific language they would have to use?

My prediction would be that a combination of several of these approaches will be the final solution.

This kind of action is going to occur from time to time in any budget director's career. The best preparation is to have a budget staff that stays up-to-date on its programs and can help the director quickly put together options for agency management.

Of course early warning helps. In this case, the Pollutant Monitoring organization and the front office should be reminded in a nice way that early warning would have been helpful to give officials more time to think through and assemble options.

There are other options that I suspect would be less effective.

The agency could protest their share of the cut. Not only is this unlikely to work, but it will engender longer range resentment from the other actors, one of whom, at least, is probably connected with the White House.

The agency could propose to eliminate some favorites of individual Congress Members. That is also not likely to work. It's too obvious and has the big disadvantage of engendering Congressional opposition to the President's initiative.

]]>

Noble Experiments

David Hornestay — Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 -0400

ong before anyone talked of reinventing government, many people had come to regard the federal personnel system as antiquated, rigid and unresponsive. Responsible managers believed that the rules severely restricted their ability to offer the incentives and awards necessary to attract and retain the highest quality workforce possible. So, nearly two decades ago, some analysts conceived the idea of improving personnel management through a program of small-scale "live" experiments, with successful innovations to be applied governmentwide. To the surprise of many, personnel officials managed to incorporate this concept, albeit with significant limitations, into a major piece of personnel legislation. Although sparingly used, the program has directly affected thousands of employees, has indirectly influenced the employment conditions of many thousands more and has once again become the subject of serious legislative debate.

The experiments-or demonstration projects, as they are designated in the statute-have been valuable, says Carol Okin, the Office of Personnel Management's associate director for merit systems oversight and effectiveness. "They stimulated a new way of thinking about human resources management and provided a channel for creativity in solving problems." Okin identifies several demonstration projects in the 1980s as "precursors" to the bonus and allowance features of the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA). She also points out that other agencies have adapted the Navy's pioneering demonstration of pay-banding as an alternative to the traditional grade structure. OPM initiated changes in the law governing demonstration projects that would stimulate more and larger experiments and make successful changes permanent.

But the idea of using small tests to find the one best way to fix a problem governmentwide needs adjusting itself, according to Ronald Sanders, director of Syracuse University's Maxwell Center for Advanced Public Management and former Defense Department civilian personnel director. Agency problems differ so much and environments change so rapidly that agencies "need the ability to test and prototype for themselves or perhaps a few similar organizations," he says. "To do this effectively, they need more flexibility than the current demonstration project requirements of grand scientific design, second-guessing and extended evaluation allow." Sanders' vision of alternative agency personnel systems within a broad framework of fundamental governmentwide principles is explained in a recent Brookings Institution study, "Civil Service Reform: Building a Government That Works," which he co-authored.

The Carter Administration's version of civil service reform was the original vehicle for demonstration projects. A 1977 task force helping to lay the groundwork noted-in language equally applicable today-that far-reaching changes "involve high risk and will generate opposition from special interest groups." Anticipating the president and Congress would balk in the face of such opposition, the task force suggested "experimentation is more likely to be acceptable. It provides opportunity to time-test new concepts, modify them, and, as their feasibility is demonstrated, extend them incrementally throughout the federal establishment."

Buying into this approach, the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act gave the Office of Personnel Management authority to conduct or supervise projects "to determine whether a specified change in personnel management policies or procedures would result in improved federal personnel management." OPM could exempt agencies from most laws and regulations, except those applying to leave, benefits, merit principles, equal opportunity and limitations on political activity. Employee unions were given negotiation and consultation rights on matters affecting their bargaining units. Demonstration projects were limited to 5 years and 5,000 employees, and no more than 10 were to be active at one time.

Let the Projects Begin

Navy installations at China Lake and San Diego, Calif., were authorized in 1980 to conduct the first demonstration project. In a drive to improve recruitment and retention of high quality employees and enhance the powers of managers, the project simplified the job classification system (via pay-banding, or broad-banding, as it is also known), tied pay to performance, and increased flexibility for starting salaries. Nancy Crawford, a Navy psychologist who has worked on the project since 1983 and has been its coordinator since 1988, thinks the experiment is a success. "Local management has provided strong support and OPM evaluators have been excellent and cooperative. They have shown willingness to work around regulatory barriers when necessary."

But Crawford says the project pointed to flaws in the CSRA provisions: The five-year limit may be insufficient for completing and evaluating the demonstration, and no means short of legislation exists for making some personnel changes permanent. "You're left with the question of what to do at the end of five years if you want to continue what you're demonstrating. In our case, it took a great deal of work through the legislative process to get our extensions and, since we're still a demonstration project after 16 years, our status remains somewhat unclear," Crawford says. After twice granting the Navy project 5-year extensions and lifting the 5,000-employee limit to its current 12,000-plus, Congress authorized an indefinite extension in 1994.

The Navy's experimentation with pay-banding and other pay flexibilities was adapted in demonstration projects conducted by the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Air Logistics Center at McClellan Air Force Base, Calif. Closely followed by the personnel community, the progress of the pioneering work by these agencies led several other departments to embark on such demonstrations, and ultimately influenced the drafting of the recruitment, retention, and relocation bonus and allowance features of the 1990 FEPCA. Pay-banding, adopted in June 1989 under separate legislative authority by the General Accounting Office and now fairly widespread in the private sector, is frequently recommended by study groups as a solution to bureaucratic impediments to better human resource management.

Government experiments and other studies, however, have been unable to demonstrate that pay-banding can be instituted without cost escalation, although agency project staffs and OPM evaluators differ on the significance of the data. The budget-pressed Congress is unlikely to broadly approve pay-banding as long as it's associated with cost increases.

The NIST demonstration at headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., and the laboratories there and in Boulder, Colo., offers an example of another type congressional involvement. A blue-ribbon panel headed by former Deputy Defense Secretary and Silicon Valley pioneer David Packard had studied federal laboratories in the early 1980s and recommended a new and more flexible personnel system for their employees. When the idea failed to make headway governmentwide, an appropriations bill was used as a vehicle for legislating such a system for only NIST, formerly the National Bureau of Standards. The House Post Office and Civil Service Committee modified the legislation to instead direct a demonstration project in cooperation with OPM, and the experiment began in 1988.

The demonstration used a simplified and delegated classification and pay system to address hiring, classification and compensation problems, but it also broke new ground with a pay-for-performance system which uses only critical performance elements and restricts pay increases to those scoring above a stipulated level on a 100-point scale. The experiment first employed five performance levels, but was modified to two levels in 1990. While the system has the overwhelming approval of supervisors and employees, who are surveyed every two years, the mid-course change points to an unresolved issue. More scientifically inclined observers believe conditions should be kept constant throughout the term of a demonstration project to assure the validity of results. Others say time is needlessly wasted when elements in need of refinement are left unchanged and useable results are unnecessarily delayed.

Allen Cassady, chief of NIST's Demonstration Project Office, recalls much debate on "tinkering" during a demonstration. But he believes the process has worked well. OPM facilitated exemptions that were needed, and the personnel system changes overall have had "a very positive impact on NIST personnel," Cassady says. He, too, laments the lack of a mechanism for making successful changes permanent, noting that Congress had to step in and extend the NIST project indefinitely in March.

Has any project ended when its five years were up? In 1993, 15 years after permission for demonstration projects was granted, the McClellan Air Force Base project known as Pacer/Share finished on schedule despite a major reorganization which brought the Defense Logistics Agency in as a co-sponsor of the project. Pacer/Share tested gainsharing, based on organizationwide quality and productivity measurements which replaced individual ratings. Employees earned productivity payments of $1,924 per employee based on cost savings during the project.

However, organizational performance did not improve significantly and the personnel system changes produced mixed results. Nevertheless, some successful aspects of the experiment might be adopted at McClellan, and cooperation between management and employee organizations improved dramatically after their close partnership in designing and coordinating the project.

The first project to terminate, albeit after an OPM-granted extension for evaluation, was a Federal Aviation Administration test of a recruitment method for restaffing after the 1981 air traffic controllers strike. The agency developed a four-year airway science curriculum in cooperation with a university association, but it produced only 41 hires after seven years and was shut down.

Evaluating the Process

A December 1992 Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report and an OPM "Retrospective" the following year reviewed demonstration authority. Both found positive results, with MSPB asserting the experiments "have helped lead to beneficial changes in federal personnel management," and OPM saying they "have had a significant impact." But with only a half dozen projects launched since 1978, both reports concluded that OPM needed a stronger leadership role in identifying concepts appropriate for testing, soliciting sponsors and streamlining the cumbersome design and approval process. Both reports said OPM should encourage replication of demonstrations in several agencies to better determine validity for the general government population.

Another common recommendation was that statutory limits, such as the 5,000-employee ceiling and the prohibition on demonstrations involving benefits and leave, should be lifted. Interestingly, the House civil service subcommittee's 1996 civil service reform bill originally contained language modifying both provisions, but the ban on benefits experiments was reinstated after employee organizations complained. An authorization of up to 15 demonstrations, with no more than five covering more than 5,000 employees each, remained in the bill, which was passed by the House on July 25.

The reports differed on the best means for changing personnel rules. MSPB recommended OPM vigorously pursue appropriations for agencies willing to sponsor demonstrations, but OPM favored developing other vehicles to promote permanent flexibility and delegation of authorities. One such mechanism, authorizing OPM to waive regulations and approve "alternative systems" for selected agencies, was included in the Clinton Administration's human resources reform legislation submitted last year, but ran into opposition in the House.

A significantly larger role for OPM seems unrealistic in light of staffing pressures on the agency. Barbara Swanson heads a six-person demonstration projects team within Okin's organization. As recently as a year ago, 11 employees comprised the project development and evaluation teams.

Other Roads

There is ample evidence of other methods of testing rule changes. The FBI was authorized by legislation to conduct and evaluate a demonstration of the effects of retention allowances and relocation bonuses on severe staffing problems in its New York office between 1988 and 1993. OPM and the FBI jointly submitted the required annual reports to Congress, which concluded that the major objectives had been met.

More recently, the fiscal 1996 Transportation Department appropriation gave the FAA permission to create a new personnel system, as well as acquisition reforms. Agency task forces went to work streamlining hiring and promotion procedures, standardizing job descriptions, structuring gainsharing programs, and revising grievance, awards, downsizing and other processes.

In fact, the individual agency legislative route may become common under the "performance-based organization (PBO)" concept advocated by the National Performance Review. The PBO approach urges agencies to seek congressional relief from legislative, regulatory and systemic constraints in return for more precise accountability for performance and program results.

Demonstration projects remain the appropriate mechanism for PBOs and for other agencies who need exemptions from personnel regulations. Okin, mindful of the strain of downsizing and tight budgets, says her staff is committed to "help agencies make innovations outside the formalities of the demonstration project process whenever possible." In addition to providing consulting services, her staff has published a "Template of Personnel Flexibilities for Use by Agencies Selected for Conversion to Performance-Based Organizations."

Agencies struggling to remake themselves in the turbulent 1990s often find themselves handicapped by personnel system restrictions. For them, a liberalized demonstration project process may be a tool worth considering.

]]>

The Demonstration Projects

David Hornestay — Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00:00 -0400

NAVY

Sites: Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif.; Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, San Diego.

Participants: 12,300 GS and GM employees.

Features: Broad pay bands for GS grades; performance-based pay for all white-collar employees; increased flexibility for starting salaries.

Dates: 1980 and extended indefinitely.

Evaluation: Successful in improving personnel management. Cited good results in recruitment and turnover, and increased supervisory and employee satisfaction but noted a 2 percent increase in average salaries.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

Sites: Gaithersburg, Md., and Boulder, Colo.

Participants: 3,150 GS/GM employees.

Features: Broader pay bands for GS grades; white-collar pay for performance; expanded direct hire and delegated examination authority; total compensation comparability (dropped in 1992); supervisory pay differentials; recruitment and retention bonuses; flexible probationary periods.

Dates: 1988 and extended indefinitely.

Evaluation: Supervisors more satisfied with classification and pay authority and processes. Starting salary flexibility useful as a recruiting tool. Average salaries up 4 percent. Employees more satisfied with performance management system and 67 percent favor the project.

PACER/SHARE

Sites: Air Force Sacramento Air Logistics Center and Defense Logistics Agency, Sacramento Specialized Distribution Site; McClellan Air Force Base, Calif.

Participants: 1,400 GS/GM and Wage Grade employees.

Features: Broad pay bands; consolidated job series; revised supervisory grading criteria; single pay system for GS/GM and Wage Grade supervisors; individual performance ratings replaced by organization-wide quality/productivity measurement; modified on-call employment program. Project also featured productivity gainsharing, total quality management, and labor-management cooperation, which did not require waivers.

Dates: February 1988 to February 1993.

Evaluation: Fell short of expectations for improved organizational performance. Personnel system changes produced mixed results. Labor-management partnership resulted in improved cooperation.

FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION

Sites: Air traffic control facilities in Chicago, New York, Oakland, Calif., and Los Angeles areas.

Participants: 2,200 GS/GM employees in air traffic control and other safety-related positions.

Features: Retention allowances of up to 20 percent paid quarterly to attract and retain well-qualified employees in hard-to-staff areas.

Dates: June 1989 to June 1994.

Evaluation: Temporarily improved or prevented further deterioration of staffing. Costs high. Specific suggestions were included for more permanent solution.

FAA AIRWAY SCIENCE

CURRICULUM

Sites: Nationwide

Participants: Up to 5,000 General Schedule employees.

Features: Alternative recruitment method for five major occupations through a four-year university program.

Dates: October 1983 to March 1991

Evaluation: Insufficient hiring.

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

Sites: Randomly selected Forest Service and Agricultural Research Service units.

Participants: Up to 5,000 GS, GM, and Wage Grade new hires.

Features: Decentralized determination of job category shortages; streamlined hiring process using broader quality groupings in place of stricter numerical ratings; recruitment bonuses and relocation expenses; extended probationary period for research scientists.

Dates: July 1990 and extended to June 1998.

Evaluation: More candidates, faster hiring and greater satisfaction with process. No adverse impact on hiring of women, minorities or the disabled. More veterans hired than at comparison sites. Some concerns about low or imprecise qualification requirements.

]]>

Downsizing Dilemma

David Hornestay — Thu, 01 Aug 1996 00:00:00 -0400

ook, Allison, I sympathize completely with our employees' need to locate new jobs. But the department isn't going out of business and I've got a program to run. So you'll understand if I can't have my employees reading want ads and sitting in career planning workshops on the clock," snapped Graham Johnson, director of the Bureau of Community Services.

"I thought we had taken all your concerns into account when we did our downsizing plan," responded Allison Locano, the deputy assistant secretary for administration. "But, of course, we knew we'd have to make tough decisions to keep the interests of employees and our ongoing programs in balance." Locano was meeting with the director and the personnel chief to figure out how their organization could accommodate displaced employees without damaging the program's continuity.

So the inevitable conflict Locano had dreaded was upon them. The Administration's streamlining initiative had required her department to cut 2,000 positions from its workforce of 26,000 without much specific guidance. Planning for this painful adjustment was well under way when a congressional budget cut had necessitated even larger staff reductions and had targeted specific programs. The Bureau of Community Services was the hardest hit, with some programs facing funding cuts and others being eliminated entirely.

Having experienced downsizing agonies at her previous agency, Locano swung into action as soon as Congress' intentions became clear. She asked the Secretary to establish a departmentwide Workforce Readjustment Planning Task Force, consisting of all the bureau directors and heads of major offices. They were to develop a plan for realigning staff and to work up buyout and early retirement options to avoid a reduction in force (RIF).

Locano insisted a key portion of the plan should be a concentrated effort to help targeted employees prepare for new jobs and for job searching. Director of Personnel Dorine Kingman was put in charge of this effort, which Locano had made a top priority. Kingman's package included career planning workshops, individual counseling, resume preparation assistance and online job information at work sites and personnel offices. All her major recommendations had been approved by the task force.

Locano was particularly gratified when the Secretary, in announcing the workforce readjustment plan, gave special emphasis to job placement help and pledged that the workforce "could count on the support of top management in a time of need just as top management had always been able to count on our staff." But she was also well aware that plans and sincere endorsements were no guarantee of faithful execution. A number of officials-Johnson among them-expressed reservations about the time and resources diverted to assisting employees with job searches while line managers struggled to fulfill program commitments with sharply reduced staffs and funds. "It would be a lot easier if we could just buy out enough people to satisfy the cut," Johnson said at one task force meeting.

Two months into the readjustment program, a small but growing number of employees had already jumped ship. The specter of a RIF had not entirely vanished. One afternoon, a visibly agitated Kingman reported to Johnson that two Community Services employees had complained of being prevented from attending career planning workshops and another confided to a job counselor that her supervisor wouldn't let her view the online job information "when there's work to be done." One of them had already taken up the matter with the union local, whose president, a member of the task force, had reminded Kingman of the Secretary's "solemn commitment."

Kingman's visit to Johnson evoked a bitter and emotional response, leaving the problem in Locano's lap. Locano wondered how many other employees had been restrained from exercising their rights. What is it doing to morale? How many programs are suffering from de facto part-time employment as apprehensive employees devote major efforts to salvaging their careers? What is happening to the balance between employee and program interests that management needs to maintain?

RICHARD J. WISNIEWSKI:

BE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE

Richard J. Wisniewski is deputy associate administrator of the Office of Space Flight at NASA. Educated as a physicist, he has worked in aeronautics, space research and management for more than four decades. He has led a number of downsizing activities.

The situation faced by Allison Locano was born in the process that developed the Workforce Readjustment Planning Task Force downsizing plan. It is not obvious that employees were actually involved in any meaningful manner in the downsizing and restructuring. Few, if any, directors assume responsibility for helping employees find new jobs. The directors are more focused on and responsive to fulfilling program commitments. The fact that the Secretary had been prevailed upon to establish the task force hints at a lack of understanding of the importance and urgency of a humane downsizing plan. The Secretary's announcement and endorsement of the workforce readjustment plan is not necessarily an indication the line management team will be held accountable. Downsizing tends to result in top management selecting the proper consoling words while delegating to a staff organization responsibility for specific actions and plans.

Realizing management's lack of real commitment, Locano needs to clearly establish with the Secretary the extent to which Johnson and other bureau directors will be held accountable for helping their employees. If the Secretary is holding directors accountable for an orderly and successful downsizing, Locano's strategy can be direct and to the point: "Mr. Johnson, you and your line managers' performance and monetary awards are affected by what you do to support outplacement activities and how you do it. Now, let's discuss your execution of the downsizing program and how we will measure your performance and that of your management team." If the department chief is not holding his bureau directors accountable, Locano should ask the Secretary to meet with his bureau directors to clarify what he expects of them under the readjustment plan. This buys a show of support.

Once responsibilities are clarified, Locano still faces a situation unlikely to significantly improve unless she also overcomes the basic cause of resistance. The resistance is centered primarily on satisfying program commitments with a smaller staff providing fewer direct labor hours per day because they are investing more time in career planning. She must propose a workforce utilization option that also will meet program requirements. Locano must demonstrate to bureau directors that supporting outplacement activities is in the best interest of their programs. Her downsizing experience at her last agency provides a level of expertise that the line managers are unlikely to possess.

Locano should assess and describe the possible impact of nonsupport on directors' programs. For example, if employees are prevented from spending time on outplacement activities, they may become preoccupied with anxiety about job loss and productivity still will suffer. Locano needs to hit hard on the fact that managers face a situation in which it is difficult to retain their best people. Managers who are not committed to helping people in a downsizing situation are not generally perceived as trustworthy to the most talented people.

Since a RIF also is a likely outcome if the readjustment plan is not supported by managers, Locano should include its impact. First, she should inform them that a RIF will require significant management involvement and lost time on their part. Second, the cost of a RIF is likely to exceed the salary savings, and the offset will have to come from program funds. Locano should provide managers with a likely range of costs they will have to absorb. She should point out that employee involvement in restructuring has generally been a very effective mechanism to offset employee anxiety and help rebuild morale in organizations. Survey data supports this claim.

At this point the managers should be weighing the situation in favor of supporting the readjustment plan as the lesser of two evils. This should set the stage for negotiating with the bureaus an appropriate level of outplacement activities to minimize program impact. Sometimes the threat of implementing a RIF is sufficient to gain management's support for a series of practical outplacement activities, because they recognize how difficult it is to control the outcome of layoffs.

BRYON S. BEREANO:

ADDRESS WORKERS' CONCERNS

Bryon S. Bereano is staff director of the Federal Employment and Retirement Monitor Inc., a nonprofit clearinghouse for information and legislation affecting federal employees, military personnel and retirees.

The problem Allison Locano is facing is encountered daily by managers and supervisors in today's federal workplace. Sympathetic Members of Congress are attempting to provide them with tools to promote voluntary attrition rather than large-scale RIFs. Agency officials responsible for downsizing and career transition assistance need to keep up with these efforts and make sure their employees are able to take advantage of them.

For example, bills waiving the onerous 2 percent per year penalty for retirement before age 55 have been introduced by Reps. Albert Wynn, D-Md., and Constance Morella, R-Md. A bill put forward by Rep. James Moran, D-Va., would protect from inflation the deferred annuities of those leaving the civil service before they are retirement-eligible. Moran would base their pensions on pay rates in effect when they reach age 62. Both measures would be attractive to employees considering voluntary separation, but it is unlikely that the budget-conscious Congress will pass either one because of potentially high costs to the Civil Service Retirement Fund.

As for buyouts, the mood of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee early this summer was not to grant governmentwide authority. The committee will consider buyouts for agencies facing significant downsizing because of a change in mission or other budget or congressional actions. In dealing with Graham Johnson and other executives, Locano can revisit the prospects for an agency-specific buyout based on the combination of staff cuts resulting from Administration and congressional initiatives. Legislative approval of a buyout would remove the pressure and distraction of job-hunting from much of the workforce.

However, Locano needs to know that she will probably not be able to rely on congressional help to provide her and her agency with the necessary tools to make this downsizing as painless as possible. Of course, the objective is to conduct as few RIFs as are necessary. Locano needs to work with Johnson and all the line managers, department heads, task force members and union leaders to develop the most rational agency staffing plan and a career transition services plan in which all offices participate.

An agencywide job placement program would help workers find jobs sooner, translating into less work time spent looking though want ads. Just as important is the morale of the workers left behind. A RIF can be as devastating to the workers who remain as it is to those who lose their jobs.

Remaining workers live in constant fear that they might be the next to go. If workers see that upper management did not do a good job with their colleagues who were RIF'd, then they will have trouble performing their jobs to the best of their capabilities. This is a serious problem, since RIFs increase individual workload and limit the outlook for enhanced pay and career advancement.

Locano needs to advise upper management that workers are naturally worried about their futures, and a worried worker is an unproductive worker. Managers need to give workers an acceptable amount of time to take advantage of career planning workshops and on-line job services. If employees are assured that their concerns are being addressed, they will more effectively work on the agency's projects.

RICHARD KOONCE:

COMMUNICATE WITH EMPLOYEES

Richard Koonce is a consultant, speaker and the author of Career Power! 12 Winning Habits to Get You From Where You Are to Where You Want to Be.

Locano did the right thing in prevailing upon the Secretary to form the departmentwide Workforce Readjustment Planning Task Force. However, the task force doesn't have an adequate communication plan in place with which to inform employees about the status of downsizing efforts. Indeed, managers who are responsible for administering downsizing programs usually make the mistake of not communicating enough with people, even though they think they are "over-communicating" with them about what's going on.

Perhaps there isn't sufficient unanimity among task force members to ensure that the task force's plans are administered with consistency by all managers across the agency.

Both these factors may be causing the employee rumor mill to kick in, undoing much of the task force's good work.

Task force members could probably use some outside assistance through training or orientation about how to deal with organizational survival issues, even as they are deciding who leaves and who stays. Because downsizing and RIF activities inject new anxieties and "people issues" into the workplace, direct line managers and supervisors can benefit from training that deals with how to handle employees' reactions to change which can range from anger, denial, resentment or other emotional reactions such as crying to workplace sabotage. Managers can also benefit from training on team building, workplace communications, coping with change, stress management, and effectively coaching and mentoring subordinates in a changing work environment.

In times of downsizing and staff realignment, management must pursue a careful and painstaking balancing act. On the one hand, the agency's work must continue, so at least some employees must be assured that for the foreseeable future, their jobs are not at risk. On the other hand, it is important to tell those who are likely to be declared surplus about job placement services-career transition workshops, individual counseling and so forth-as soon as possible, to speed their transition to new jobs within the agency or in other agencies. During this limited transitional phase, managers must anticipate that those in transition will spend most of their time looking for jobs, and not attending to the agency's work.

To prolong the transition of RIF'd employees to new jobs also prevents an organization from moving forward, creating teams, rebuilding morale and effectively managing change.

Unfortunately, what senior management sometimes expects in these situations is to have it both ways: to be able to announce downsizing and restructuring plans without seeing employee productivity dip, and without encountering the inevitable "people issues" that arise in times of transition.

Prior to her meeting with Johnson, Locano would do well to discuss with other line managers how they are dealing with the loss of employee time to job preparation activities. This may give her ideas about recommendations to make to Johnson. She should also touch base informally with at least a few of her fellow task force members, both to bolster her arguments with Johnson and to ensure that she will have broad-based backing for any recommendations she makes to Johnson. Working with the task force will also help ensure that any changes to policy or programs are administered effectively and consistently agencywide.

It appears from this account that Locano may have the unenviable task of having to disabuse the bureau director of his naivete about what really motivates people to work and commit themselves to an organization in transition. If he believes people should be grateful to have jobs, no matter what's happening to their co-workers, he doesn't understand human motivation.

One critical argument Locano needs to use in stressing the importance of providing transition services (as promised) is this: The way those employees not likely to be targeted for RIFs perceive the organization to be treating those who are vulnerable has a large impact on the morale and productivity of those who remain. Employees view downsizing activities as a moment of truth during which an organization reveals its true colors.

A second item Locano needs to discuss with Johnson is reframing people's expectations about how RIFs and staff realignments will be handled in the future, and the nature of the new "employment contract."

There is a very good opportunity to discuss the transition in positive ways with employees. For example, Johnson and others could communicate that although there will not be the kind of job security there was in the past, the agency will make it a policy to provide people with challenging work assignments and development opportunities. The experience would be of value to employees, should they need to find employment elsewhere.

]]>