Bump and Retreat

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.

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.

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.

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.

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