Letters

Shared Services Struggle

I worked in an administrative office in one of the Homeland Security Department's tri-bureaus mandated to turn over programs and personnel to one of the other two bureaus for shared servicing ("Foiled by Fences," Sept. 15).

There was little logic in designating which bureau would provide the shared service. In many cases, although one might have had a more effective, efficient and economical program, it was not designated; rather, due to unequal upper management support and interest among the three, another bureau was designated.

The reassignment of personnel became a sticky affair from a numbers standpoint because of collateral duties and the distrust of the gaining bureaus, which feared they were inheriting castoffs. Arguments abounded as to the correct dollar transfers attendant to the program transfers.

Questions have been left unanswered as to whether the shared service provided by one bureau is to be performed the same as in the past, or how other bureaus want it. Also, it has not been made clear how and when rating of shared service performance is to be conducted, and whether a customer bureau can ever opt out.

There's concept and then there's reality.

Listen and Learn

I was glad to see the management article on using Special Forces-style after-action reviews to make better decisions ("When Leaders Listen," Oct. 1). I quickly sent it off to one of my friends who is CEO of an organization. Regrettably, many of us, especially men, have gotten into the self-destructive macho mentality of brushing off the constructive comments our employees make, and this we do at our peril.

I'm glad an organization like Special Forces is supporting this approach to improvement.

Not Fair

Managers are supposed to treat employees fairly ("Playing Favorites," Oct. 1). Due to personality clashes, however, managers in a section of one government agency have asked numerous high-grade level people (mostly women) to take downgrades with the threat of removal if they don't "voluntarily" step down. This technique is used because the employees wouldn't win an appeal before the Merit Systems Protection Board, and managers know that most people cannot risk removal if there is even the slightest possibility it will be upheld. With managers like these there is no hope of a fair system.

Good Point

I wanted belatedly to congratulate you on your excellent "anti" PowerPoint article. An additional problem with PowerPoint is that it interferes with communication between a speaker and an audience. If everyone is staring at the words on a PowerPoint, why not just hand out a text and avoid speaking at all?