Holding Federal Employees Accountable

by Ev Chasen

On July 16, USA Today reporter Dennis Cauchon wrote a story that cited government statistics showing that workers in many Federal agencies are more likely to die of natural causes than to get laid off or fired.  (You can read the article here.) 

In Fiscal Year 2010, according to the article, the Federal government fired 0.55% of its workers—compared to the private sector’s 3% average annual firing rate.  The government also laid off 385 people in reorganizations that year—a 0.02% rate, or one in every 6,000 employees.  USA Today was unable to find a comparable private sector layoff rate.  (They did not count seasonal workers in the Federal rate.)

Two of the agencies studied, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, laid off or fired no one.  Overwhelmingly, those who were laid off or fired were “blue-collar” workers: federal employees earning more than $100,000 per year had a 99.82% job security rate.

I do not believe many people with significant experience as a Federal Government manager would agree with Department of Housing and Urban Development spokesperson Jerry Brown, who told Mr. Cauchon that HUD’s low dismissal rate demonstrates the skills and commitment of the Department’s workforce.  Rather, I think, most would agree with Associate Gary Rossio’s June 2 blog post, which stated that “too often in the past, I have felt that senior HR employees believed their role was to “protect” their directors and other supervisors from unions and lawsuits and difficult situations—leading to inaction by supervisors and management.”

Gary’s post stated that good HR departments should be able to provide sound advice, technical support, and the ability to spot, hire, and help retrain good employees.  Exceptional leadership in HR would certainly help managers make the tough decisions needed to fire poor performers, but there is another factor involved.

Creating a committed organizational workforce also depends on managers themselves applying management systems in a fair and equitable manner “so everyone recognizes that high performers will be consistently rewarded and poor employees will be consistently dealt with in an appropriate manner.”

In order to recognize top performers in a fair and equitable manner, managers should initially explain to employees what is expected of them—not only what minimum performance expectations are, but also what employees need to do to receive awards.   They should also give them frequent feedback so employees know how they are doing. Those who meet the standards needed to excel must be rewarded, and, conversely, action must be taken if employees do not meet the performance or conduct standards of their position.  

The overwhelming majority of government employees do not want to work hard and then see others who are not pulling their weight slide by.  Managers must deal with problem employees, so that everyone gets the message—and they should not be afraid to lose an occasional case. 

Federal managers should not have to shy away from disciplining problem employees because they fear the difficulties of the removal process.  If the bottom 10% of federal employees do not improve their performance, they must be removed.  The status quo, for them, is not acceptable.  Neither is the state of affairs USA Today described: federal government managers simply must develop a culture of performance, not tolerance, or they will never be able meet the expectations other Americans have for them.

How to Conduct Successful Negotiations

by Seth Sinclair, Member
Right now, much of our nation's senior leadership is fully engaged in serious, drawn-out negotiations on extending America's debt limit. While no one who is not there fully understands what's going on, the news media is full of stories about heated debate, participants walking out, and the progress or lack of same that's being made. Sinclair Advisory Group teaches negotiations as part of our Leadership curriculum, and since every organization and leader participates in high-stakes negotiations (even if the stakes are not as high as the credit of the United States,) this is a good opportunity to review some basic negotiation rules that will help ensure you and your organization gets the best possible deal.

First, preparation is absolutely essential. Before you enter a negotiation, consider such logistical details as timing and location. Seek a time and place that enhances (or at least does not diminish) your negotiating position.

Next, prepare your negotiation strategy. What is your ideal outcome? What is your bottom line in a minimally acceptable deal? Do you understand your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), which defines your course of action should an agreement not be reached? What tone and tactics will you use in the negotiation session?

While preparing your own position is essential, it is just as important to anticipate the needs and actions of your counterpart. Research their priorities, separating their needs from their wants as much as possible. What tactics do you think they will use? How will you react? Try to visualize several possible scenarios and solutions that will result in an acceptable deal for both parties.

One negotiation begins, there are many techniques you can use to facilitate a successful and agreeable outcome. One is to never make clear to the other side that there's something you cannot live without. If you do, there's no doubt they'll find a way to take advantage of your need. "I can take it or leave it," is the right attitude to display-even if you really can't walk away. President Obama has made it clear in the current negotiations that we simply must have a budget deal by August 2, or the economy of the United States is at risk. Whether they actually believe it or not, Republicans have injected some ambiguity into that deadline: maybe the sky really won't fall, they say, if there isn't a final deal by that time.

Another is: don't make concessions without getting something in return. Unilateral concessions are often made in hopes of getting a quicker deal-and are just as often regarded with suspicion by the other side. I think both sides in the budget dispute are aware of this rule, and are driving hard bargains for every change in position they are willing to consider.

Yet another, which neither side appears willing to consider, is don't fight over the small stuff. If you've reached agreement on what you consider important in a negotiation, don't haggle too much over the nagging details that always accompany any large-scale process. In any negotiation, time is the enemy. The longer a negotiation takes, the better the chance the other side reconsiders their position, finds another company to negotiate with, or just plain decides they don't like you and don't want to work with you. When you've got what you really want (and I don't think that stage has been reached in the budget discussions), be very flexible about everything else.

There are many other useful techniques we can discuss further in our future blog entries. However, preparation is more important than any single tactic. Get ready by understanding what you want, knowing your counterpart, and entering with a plan. If you need help, seek support from an experienced negotiator and find opportunities to train and practice. This will put you in the best possible decision to reach a desirable outcome.