Big Changes Start With Day-to-Day Actions

As a Clinton administration official who dealt with more than 10,000 federal and 100,000 contract employees as director of the Energy Department's Office of Management and Administration, I have some advice for incoming political appointees. Ignore the clamor for civil service reform-even if comprehensive legislation were enacted, a new system would not take effect for several years, perhaps not even before the next presidential election. Even if civil service reform took effect, it would not be a substitute for what is really needed at the Energy Department and across government-basic management improvements by senior career officials and political appointees. One of the last things on the minds of new assistant secretaries, deputy assistant secretaries and other appointees is their responsibility to manage thousands of career employees. Yet their actions in managing career staff, especially members of the Senior Executive Service, may determine whether they succeed at implementing the new administration's agenda.

Basic management problems can cripple the new administration's ability to accomplish its agenda. Consider the case of a new director at Energy, who asked for my office's help with several problem employees. These employees regularly failed to show up at work and, when they did, spent most of their time on personal phone calls or disrupting other employees' work. Previous directors had expressed the same concerns about these employees, who in turn had filed numerous grievances and equal employment opportunity complaints against the managers and other employees. While exploring how to deal with these employees, my staff examined their performance reviews. The problem employees had all earned "outstanding" or "highly successful" performance review ratings. This made it impossible to transfer the employees or take disciplinary action. Previous directors said they had given the employees high ratings because they did not want to confront the employees, and, in all likelihood, have to defend yet another grievance or EEO complaint based on a less-than-superior rating.

Another example involves a GS-15 who filed an EEO complaint against the Energy Department for its failure to open an SES position for competition because it had been filled with an acting official. A review of the organization chart for that office revealed an alarming statistic-45 of the 58 senior positions were vacant or filled on an "acting" basis, the result of downsizing and cuts in SES positions. However, managers never reorganized the office's workload in the unrealistic hope that somehow the budget for these positions would be restored. Imagine how difficult it was for the political appointees to establish any system of managerial accountability when more than 75 percent of the management structure was missing or temporary.

Similar staffing problems were evident in the lower grades at Energy as well. One office was continually losing top performers to other organizations and did not have the staff necessary to meet the demands on the office. Explanations included the lack of funds, higher level opportunities at other organizations and the difficulty in attracting qualified staff. A closer examination showed, however, that these staffing problems had existed for quite some time and had never been fully addressed. The explanations revealed symptoms of a more basic problem-the failure of senior managers to structure the jobs and manage in a way that encouraged capable and qualified employees to come to the organization and stay. As a result, the political appointee responsible for this office was under constant pressure from the Secretary and other senior officials who questioned her ability to get things done.

These basic management problems exist throughout government and will not be solved by any of the civil service reform proposals on the table. Bush administration appointees must make basic management practices a priority and recognize that the political leadership can, and should, hold senior career managers accountable. Incoming appointees may be hesitant to focus on career service issues, but unless they do, the new administration will be hindered in its ability to accomplish its objectives.

Appointees should make an early assessment of management at their organizations and look for key signs that indicatewhether senior executives are properly managing their staffs. Indications of possible problems include the following:

• When employee performance appraisals are not completed on time, and required reviews are not done at all. Good managers understand the importance of timely performance reviews and giving feedback to their employees.
• When reviews reflect grade inflation, in which unrealistic percentages of employees, including problem employees, consistently receive the highest ratings. This is an indication that managers and supervisors are not setting high standards for employee performance and do not confront problems.
• When large numbers of staff positions in certain offices are vacant, and those vacancies cannot be explained by budget or staffing limits. If an office is experiencing high turnover, new appointees need to determine whether they have enough staff to perform the work.

Appointees should begin managing their organizations as soon as they take office. Here are a few recommendations:

• Become familiar with the performance standards for SES and other senior managers. At year's end, appointees review their managers against these standards, and that should not be the first time they see them.
• Revise the standards to clarify expectations. Make it clear that senior managers are responsible for recruiting, training and maintaining a staff that is capable of performing the work.
• Get a report on the performance ratings of all employees in the organization, grouped by the managers who performed the reviews. The objective here is to look for grade inflation-high ratings for all employees in one group may be an indication that the managers are not managing.
• Review employee performance ratings at the end of the year to determine whether the rating system has credibility. If it doesn't, don't base bonuses on these ratings.
• Don't accept late or incomplete employee performance reviews. Managers who aren't serious about their responsibility to rate and evaluate their employees are not performing at their peak level.