Former OPM chief takes a last look back
Janice R. Lachance led the Office of Personnel Management from August 1997 until the end of the Clinton administration, overseeing efforts to provide new benefits such as long-term care insurance and transit subsidies, and implementing regulatory changes, such as a new performance appraisal system for senior federal executives. GovExec.com talked with Lachance during her last week as head of OPM about the agency's accomplishments, her thoughts on Washington politics and civil service reform.
On her proudest accomplishments at OPM:
I have loved every day in this job; I have been so lucky to work here almost eight years now. Our greatest accomplishment has been our ability to make the benefits system and federal workplace more responsive to federal employees' needs. There is no doubt that getting long-term care passed was an extraordinary accomplishment, and one that I am particularly proud of, but it goes beyond that. Creating mental health parity in the FEHBP [Federal Employees Health Benefits Program], getting employees to use sick leave to care for a loved one, child care subsidies--these accomplishments are responsive to today's worker.
On her disappointments:
Several years ago when OPM first did a strategic plan, we reorganized the agency to deal with pay reform and to really take a hard look at private sector practices. We did a lot of research and spent a lot of time with stakeholders, and compensation reform had a completion date of fiscal 2002. I think my biggest disappointment is that I'm not going to be here to see it. I am going to stay involved in the issues and I'll be around, but it's hard to start that kind of major effort that is so fundamental to the federal workplace and federal employees and then not be able to finish it.
On civil service reform:
I think we have really done a good job in building on every agenda item that we had on our plate. I think what the next administration should do is keep moving ahead in those areas where we've done great work with our stakeholders. Although we are not the only group responsible for this, there's been a lot of attention focused on the civil service that wasn't there even five years ago. We have prominent members of the Senate saying they are going to make this a priority; we have the Comptroller General [David Walker] who has been such a big help in bringing attention to this issue. There are a number of foundations focusing on the civil service now. I think the time is right to take the work that we've done and take it to the next level.
On relations with labor unions:
I think that labor-management relations have really turned the corner. There's no doubt that 15 years ago, labor and management were in incredibly adversarial relationships that were expensive and that just ate up the resources of both agencies and unions. I think we have turned that corner, and partnership has made a tremendous difference. But there are still challenges left. The relationship between labor and management is uneven across government; it's very much personality-driven. If the union leader leaves, sometimes partnerships come apart. It's like a marriage; you have to work on it all the time. You can't assume it's a good partnership and just walk away from it and leave it alone. We've done surveys where the vast majority of both labor and management say they don't want to go back to the old way of doing business. That's the kind of cultural change that I'm very proud of, and I think this administration can be proud of, but the relationship needs attention.
On new employee benefits:
I think people today are making career decisions based on some of these issues. I know for a fact that people reconsidered leaving federal employment last year because they knew mental health parity was going to kick in to the FEHBP on Jan. 1. I'm sure there were people, maybe in their 30s, whose parents are growing older and who think they should consider the federal service or consider staying in the government because of access to long-term care insurance for themselves and their families.
On recruiting new employees:
First of all, I think that federal agencies have to think ahead. You really have to have a five-year plan and a 10-year plan about acquiring the skills you need to accomplish your mission and tackling the skill gap that may exist in your agency when people retire. We know what attracts employees to different employers. We know there is a segment of the population that is not motivated by money, but by doing good. We should focus on that group. We know that people want a flexible workplace, and we have all these great family-friendly programs in place, but agencies have to look at whether or not they are implementing them to the fullest extent possible.
On retaining employees:
People want a supervisor who is inspirational and who will give them challenging assignments. We have to invest in our supervisors, which I don't think we do now. We select somebody who is very good at their job and deserves more money, but we don't teach them how to work with other people, how to create teams or how to build morale. So, I think we've got to spend a lot of time training supervisors and making sure their skills stay up to date.
On new Senior Executive Service performance measures:
We've done a great job of working with stakeholders on this issue, and we actually gave the SEA [Senior Executives Association] an award for working with us so effectively on these performance measures. These are fundamental changes in how people are measured and evaluated, and there was an open-mindedness to it that that I think pleased everybody. We found that SESers were willing and confident enough to put themselves on the line the same way we would a government program or government dollars--things we track so carefully. I am so impressed with the SESers in this government, particularly their willingness to look at new ways of doing things and their eagerness to do what is best for our customers.
On her plans after Jan. 20:
I don't know yet. I'm going to take a break, and then look at the possibilities. I'm very lucky. There's been a whole range of people from one end of the spectrum to the other who have expressed an interest in having me work for them or associate with them in areas like academia, research and consulting. Before I jump into anything, I want to make sure I weigh all the options. I have spent the vast majority of my career thinking about federal employees and working families, so I want to stay very much involved, whether it's a full-time job focusing on these issues or an extracurricular activity.
On politics in Washington:
If you study our nation's history, it is clear this nation was founded on a democracy that has both a career civil service that is nonpartisan and a political system that makes policies and drives the agenda for this nation. I think the challenge is really the intersection of those two parts of our democracy. To have a healthy democracy, you have to have both pieces, and the debate has to be rigorous. I find it really stimulating to work in both of those arenas and try to get the best out of the civil service and the political parts of our system to do the best for the American people. As far as the politics go, this job is very interesting, because the people who care about this agency--the people who care about federal employees and the work that we do--cross party lines. These issues facing the federal workforce aren't Democratic issues or Republican issues; these are issues for people who care how the country is run, how we manage our resources and how we can do the work of the nation effectively. All of the initiatives we've been able to get through Congress have been done in a strong bipartisan manner with lots of support from both Democrats and Republicans.