Higher Loyalty Is No Excuse

en Larrabee is failing his employer, and maybe himself, by skimping on his obligation to bring honest effort to his job.
Having just returned from eight weeks of Harvard training funded by his agency--during which time others presumably had to pick up the slack created by his absence--Larrabee should be going out of his way to perform his duties conscientiously. Instead, he has allowed an extracurricular interest, running the Federal Accountants Society's luncheon programs, to take up official work time and to preoccupy him to the point of shifting his focus away from official responsibilities.

It's not only his boss who has noticed the decline in Larrabee's performance. Two branch chiefs have complained about his lack of attention to the office's new accounting system. In fact, as deputy chief of the division, Larrabee is visible to everyone on the staff, and his reduced effort and lackadaisical attitude are corrosive to the morale of the entire office. If the deputy chief doesn't seem interested in his work, it becomes difficult to keep his subordinates motivated.

Larrabee's claim to a higher loyalty--whether to the whole agency, the government or the accounting profession--is a red herring. He was hired by his agency to do a specific job, which has specific responsibilities. There is no justification for shirking those responsibilities in favor of an outside interest. Federal employees do sometimes face legitimate conflicts between the loyalty owed to their immediate branch or division and the broader loyalty owed to the agency, the government or the public. No such conflict of loyalties is present here. Larrabee has no higher duty that overrides his obligation to his job.

This is not to belittle participation in professional societies, which may enhance an employee's personal and career development and bring real benefits to the government as well. In this case, however, those benefits appear limited. Whatever the purported public benefits, Larrabee is in no position to decide unilaterally to put his outside activities ahead of his office responsibilities.

Still, Larrabee has been a talented and hard-working employee for many years and his desire for a more active role in the Federal Accountants Society is legitimate. How should he have approached this extracurricular interest to make sure it was consistent with his official duties? First, before undertaking outside functions, Larrabee should have made clear to his boss that it would demand his attention during regular working hours. Conceivably, they might have arrived at a schedule that could accommodate Larrabee's society activities without compromising his value to the office. Larrabee could have been encouraged to serve the society in some other, less disruptive way. Given Larrabee's outstanding career record, Powers would have had every incentive to be flexible.

Larrabee would also have been wise to talk to his agency's ethics officials to avoid potential financial conflicts. For example, if Larrabee is an officer or director of the Federal Accountant's Society, its financial interests are imputed to him. This could create a problem if the society does business with Larrabee's agency. Common sense and moral rectitude alone may not always be a reliable guide through the thicket of the government's standards of ethical conduct.

Finally, Larrabee should consider whether his declining job performance and effort have a deeper cause. He may simply be tired of his job. In that event, he should probably seek new challenges within his agency or elsewhere. Lack of attention to his existing duties can only impair Larrabee's reputation as a stellar performer and damage his career prospects.

Michael Schopf has retired from federal service after many years as deputy general counsel and associate general counsel of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.