Teamwork on the Field and in the Office

By Ev Chasen

Football season is about to begin again, and pigskin prognosticators are hard at work trying to interpret who will survive the long, grueling season, who will face each other in the playoffs, and finally who will emerge as this year’s Super Bowl Champion.  Good pundits know that it’s not necessarily the number of stars on a team that determines how well it will perform, but how well the team plays together.  In other words, teamwork.

Vince Lombardi, perhaps the greatest football coach of all time, once said: “Individual commitment to a group effort- that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.”  It’s important for every manager to take this to heart in evaluating how his or her staff works together.

Does your staff trust each other?  Are their goals the same?  Do they collaborate and use their talents, and their experience, to contribute to overall organizational success?  Do they try to be honest, respectful, and listen to every person’s point of view?  Are they all “blocking in the same direction?”  If the answer to these questions is “yes,” your organization is in a position to benefit from the synergy that results from a group of diverse individuals functioning as a team.  If the answer is “no,” here are a few ideas to help the process along.

First, every manager should emphasize teamwork, in their formal meetings, in their “one on one” discussions with staff, and whenever a new task needs to be accomplished.  It is important to remind employees of the benefits of teamwork, and the improvements in individual performances that result when people work well together.  At the highest levels of football, the best coaches set a culture of selfless commitment to the team, and they part ways with players who won’t buy-in.

Second, focus on organizational goals not just individual goals. Emphasize what your company or agency is trying to accomplish in your discussions with staff, not what any individual is doing. This will create a common focus and encourage groups to work together towards accomplishing the goals your organization had set.  In football, this means aiming for the Super Bowl instead of focusing on individual statistics.

Third, design well-balanced teams by having members complement each other; one’s strength should counter-balance another’s weakness.  Creating diversified teams will encourage people to work closely with one another to off-set their own weaknesses and capitalize on strengths.  Champions are never the team with five awesome quarterbacks and not a single decent lineman.

Fourth, if you’re going to talk the talk; then make sure you walk the walk. Staff will not work as a team if their manager is not part of that team.  Don’t give up on the team concept even when things are going badly; stay with it. Be honest, open and loyal to your staff, and they will respond in kind.

And finally, make sure the whole team is involved and agrees with important decisions. Every team member should hold themselves accountable for each decision, solution, or idea the team makes together. The more team members feel involved in the team’s decision making, the more likely they will commit to being an effective team member.

Henry Ford once said: “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.”  In football, business, and society teamwork is the key to success.  And, if you’re interested in my own choice for this year’s Super Bowl Champion, here it is: I’m picking the Jets!

Getting the Most Out of Your Mentor

By Stan Sinclair, Managing Member

In his August 5 Washington Post blog post, The Federal Coach, Tom Fox of the Partnership for Public Service answered a question from a reader who asked what young federal leaders can do to continue developing their skills after completing a formal leadership training program.  (You can read the entire column here.)  Tom offered his correspondent three good ideas:

•  Phone a friend: that is, use your fellow program members as an informal network for advice and counsel in future situations.

•   Find a mentor: Look for experienced, high-performing leaders who are willing to help you navigate the ins and outs of leadership in your agency.

•  Look for learning opportunities all around you: Read professional journals, follow leadership experts on twitter, and take notes on how exceptional leaders go about their business.

Our company is deeply involved in all three of these areas of leadership development.  In our leadership development courses, we encourage students to follow each of these paths to self-improvement, and we hope that this blog is a learning opportunity for many of our readers.  As many of our Associates are retired Federal executives, mentoring is a logical area in which we can add value to Government agency operation, and we are proud to provide that service to our customers.

Whether or not you are using a mentor or coach provided by SAG, nearly all young leaders can benefit from having a mentor.  Whether you’ve chosen your own mentor, or had one assigned to you, here are some tips to get the most out of your mentor/mentee relationship:

First, be clear about what you’re looking for.  It’s difficult, if not impossible, for a mentor to guess the areas in which you’d like to be counseled in without your help.  Be prepared when you walk into a session or meeting with your mentor. It’s a good idea to bring one or two questions with you. Make sure these questions are clear, to the point, and honest about your situation. 

Second, be careful with your mentor’s time.  This is especially true, of course, if he or she is helping you out as an unpaid service.  If time is short, look for opportunities to share a cab, grab a cup of coffee, or exchange contact information to speak at a more convenient time.

Third, be prepared for your sessions.  Bring a laptop, or a pad and paper—and take good notes that you can read, transcribe and understand.  Keep them in a safe place where you can refer to them, and take action based on them.

Fourth, keep your mentor informed.  Let them know what actions you have taken, or plan to take, based on their efforts. 

Fifth, be appreciative of your mentor’s help.  Be enthusiastic about mentor’s good ideas and be responsive to them.  Don’t forget that they are also human beings, and like pats on the back and good feedback as much as anyone else.  Remember their birthdays and career milestones.  Don’t postpone mentoring sessions unless you really have to.

SAG is proud that our Associates have mentored hundreds, perhaps thousands, of our nation’s finest young leaders.  Like Mr. Fox, we enthusiastically recommend mentoring as a low-cost leadership development tool that pays off—in spades.  

Providing Your Customers With Consistent Information

by Chris Domergue, Director of Client Services

As I discussed in my May 26 post , President Obama’s April 27, 2011 executive order, titled “Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service,” requires Federal agencies to quickly come up with ways to use technology to improve their service to their customers. 

In my post, I recommended four principles that, if followed, will result in a successful customer service strategy: defining the customer experience; focusing on consistent information; leveraging today’s technology and data; and making customer experience one of your core functions.  Today, I‘d like to discuss the second principle – focusing on consistent information.

There are many ways in which customers interact with government agencies today.  Citizens can be serviced in person, via the phone, or by utilizing the latest technologies on the web, in social media, and on mobile applications.  If organizations truly want to provide their customers with the best possible experience, the old cliché rings true – everyone needs to be singing off the same sheet of music. 

Each employee involved with customer service must be saying the same things, in the same ways, to everyone with whom they come in contact.  Without that consistency, most customers feel confused, frustrated, and puzzled by the complexity of what should be a common set of services.

I worked with one large government agency that allowed citizens to apply, receive, and repay federal student loans.  This agency had a significant problem in the way this process was implemented as related to providing customer service.  Each phase of the process was owned by a different organization and in turn processed by a different contractor. 

You could apply online for a loan: however, when you were approved for the loan and it was processed, a different company (with only phone capabilities) originated your loan and paid your school directly.  Finally, once you finished school and your loans were due for repayment, a completely different organization handled the repayment process.  In this scenario, a student was provided very different information across different channels at different points in the process. 

Imagine trying to start the first day of school away from home only to be removed from class to deal with some financial issues with the registrar.  Then, imagine spending three days talking to multiple groups to sort out what happened – a very real scenario I encountered.

Inherently, there is nothing wrong with having different owners and organizations maintain discreet components of the process.  However, if these different players do not provide consistent information across similar channels, it causes an incredibly exasperating experience for your audience. 

Quite simply, if this is the situation, and your customers have options, they will choose to leave your service.  With the Federal government, however, many agencies have a captive audience without the ability to be serviced elsewhere.  Still, as President Obama’s order emphasizes, that is not an excuse to offer subpar service.

Consistent information is not only providing the same answer to one question across multiple channels, but also understanding a customer’s history.  Customers want any service department to know of their past transactions with that organization.  Additionally, they expect that if they are transferred from one part of the company to another, they won’t have to repeat their entire story every time they speak with something new.  Today’s technologies can make that possible, but even with the best technology it is still inherent on the organization to ensure that each customer facing component has access to the same information.

Meeting those expectations is not a simple matter for most federal agencies, especially large ones.  That’s because these distinctive areas have different people responsible for managing them—individual “owners,” if you will.  However, each owner must make sure that information they have is correct in the entire customer facing ecosystem.  If that information is inaccurate or does not exist in some of the access points, then it will cause unnecessary confusion for your customers.

Just like this blog, it might be filled with some good insights, but if nobody is reading it…is the information getting through? 

The problem of customer service silos is everywhere, but especially prevalent in government agencies.  Those silos don’t go away easily, or quickly, but it can be done.  By following my recommended process, in which you start by defining your desired customer experience and then focus on providing consistent information to your constituents, you will be on the road to transforming into a world-class service provider.

And to the readers that do follow our blog… THANKS!  (And feel free to forward, tweet, or ‘Like’ it on Facebook too)

How Federal Mangers Can Meet the New Budget Challenges

by Timothy Shea, Associate

Once again, cooler heads have prevailed, and the United States will not default on its debt—at least not now. Federal agencies will once again be asked to do more with less, as they have so many times before--and Congress will continue to expect the highest possible level of performance from the Federal government despite these new spending cuts.  They will also not hesitate to hold senior Federal officials accountable if things go wrong… especially if they occur in an individual Member’s district. 

Throughout the government, federal managers are desperately figuring out how to cut costs while minimizing the effects those costs will have on key programs.  It is clear, however, that even more fundamental changes will need to take place to help resolve our current debt crisis.  Solving the crisis will take better financial data gathering from multiple sources, extensive analysis, and a systematic approach to optimize agency spending.  Here are a few ideas senior managers can use:

First, Federal managers need to take a hard look at their budgeting information.  Large cabinet agencies are multi-billion dollar operations and it can often be difficult to get a handle on how all that money is really spent… but it is not impossible. 

Key leaders need complete and detailed information about how their money is being allocated and used on a regular basis.  Employee input is also a very valuable tool in deciding what to cut and where.  The workforce that is engaged day to day in these projects can help provide a true understanding of the impact of a proposed budget cuts and propose where true waste can be eliminated.  Although leadership will make the ultimate decisions, it is the responsibility of every government employee to ensure that public funding is being spent appropriately.

Second, financial data and analysis needs to be useful to decision makers.  Many managers shy away from budget management because the information and regulations can be intimidating.  Those who work directly with an organization’s finances need to provide an easy to understand analysis, not in ‘accounting-ese’, so management can take the appropriate actions where necessary.  Then, even managers who have been traditionally ‘budget-averse’ can insist on regular financial information and briefings to use as an integral part of their decision-making processes.

Finally, each agency needs to adopt a systematic approach to aligning their budget to their Strategic Plan.  In the 1970s, the Federal Government used what was called a “zero-based” approach to budgeting. Missions agencies planned or hoped to accomplish were broken down, evaluated, and ranked against each other.  As a result, agency managers were able to look at everything their organization did or might do, and make good decisions on which projects should continue and which should not. 

This “Zero-based budgeting” process allowed decision makers to look at the consequences of not spending money on a project or activity.  It was a great way to take a fresh look at programs that have been funded year in and year out, but may have outlived their usefulness.  Managers in agencies dealing with budget cuts might consider this process as a way to review financial and performance data continuously. 

Our recent debt crisis is not a “one-time” issue.  The size of America’s debt, and the recent revision of our credit rating, means that we are going to be in an era of prolonged fiscal austerity in Government.  The only way in which most agencies will meet the demands that will be placed upon them is with a comprehensive overhaul.

The government will not fix the long term issue by lopping off a program or two.  Each agency will need to improve their financial data gathering and analysis and institute a systematic process to constantly review the quality of each program they are financing.  In the event the benefits of a given program are not realized, issues need to be immediately recognized and actions should be changed.

It can be done—but it won’t be easy!

 

Putting Stakeholder's Interests First

by Seth Sinclair, Member

Recently, author and consultant Jack Springman wrote a blog post for the Harvard Business Review’s website entitled “Implementing a Stakeholder Strategy.” (You can read it here.)  Mr. Springman began his argument by summarizing the work of a previous poster named Nathan Washburn, who stated: “Making the bottom line your top priority may not be the best way to improve profitability.  Recent research shows that CEOs who put stakeholders’ interests ahead of profit generate greater workforce engagement—and thus deliver the superior financial results that they have made a secondary goal.

Mr. Springman offered a number of steps for companies who are interested in following this revolutionary guidance:

·      Identify your company’s stakeholder groups.

·      Create a value proposition for each stakeholder group

·      Determine what you are seeking from each group

·      Compare the capabilities you need with those you already have

·      Create a profit model to manage the trade-offs among your stakeholder groups

·      Determine a set of key performance indicators.

We apply a similar philosophy in our strategic planning work with our federal clients.  Federal agencies, of course, are not driven by the need to make a profit for the benefit of shareholders.  However, in place of shareholders, we encourage our federal clients to focus strategy development around the needs of customers. 

We believe that all government entities have customers, and that their expectations should heavily factor into any strategic planning effort.  This approach is in contrast to traditional planning methods that focus exclusively on meeting regulatory and budgetary requirements.   Take the example of an internal management office responsible for supporting finance, HR, and IT services within an organization.  If the primary goal of the office is to be efficient in operations, success will be measured in terms of cost effectiveness, possibly at the expense of customers. 

In contrast, if the stated goal of the office is excellence in customer service, the office staff will design its processes and success factors around responsive and timely service to the agency’s employees.  This may ultimately enable greater efficiency and savings throughout the entire organization.

In this time of budget cuts and increased scrutiny of government expenditures, we believe strongly that federal agencies must not cut back on, or abandon, their customer service efforts.  Such cutbacks may appear to save a few dollars in the short run—but in the long run, they are likely to cost the organizations far more, in both actual dollars and in the damage to their reputations that will inevitably occur.