Bring Bad News Early

Amy Winehouse drives me nuts. Winehouse is a 24 year-old singer/songwriter who recently burst onto the music scene and could garner as many as six Grammys next month. Many compare her dusky soulful voice to Sara Vaughn. Her lyrics are sharp and clever. Prince wants to sing with her. Snoop Dogg says she’s another James Brown. She is an incredibly skilled person. She is also incredibly self-destructive.

Her life is a wreck. One could blame her recently incarcerated husband or her outspoken parents or alcohol or the hounding paparazzi but habitual drug use seems to be at the center of a multitude of troubles. She’s wandered in and out of rehab, canceled tours, had run-ins with the law, and gotten booed at concerts. As quickly as she leapt on to the world stage, she seems to be sinking into ruin.

Incredible talent, going to waste.

Here’s the fascinating question: would a ‘clean’ Amy Winehouse still be Amy Winehouse? What if someone had grabbed her when she was still impressionable and sent her down a different, cleaner, path? What if we had the talent without the drugs? 

Some say we wouldn’t want that. Amy’s artistry is transcendent because of her hardships.  Her reality energizes her talent. Janis Joplin without heroin would have just been another singer.

I can’t go there. There is a general rule in performance measurement that applies here: always bring bad news early. One of the reasons EPA tries to measure things on a quarterly basis is so we can spot where problems are developing and correct them before they get big.  Sound mundane? It’s not. Folks don’t like reporting bad news. We have a natural tendency to avoid information that might make us look bad, or we ignore it once we get it or we explain it away or rely on wishful thinking.

A good management system not only forces people to consider how they are doing but rewards the early identification of problems. Bring bad news early. That means if you think your kid is using drugs the response should not be, “Well, she’ll probably grow out of it” or “At least it will improve her music.”

Regardless of what great work we may or may not enjoy because of Amy Winehouse's harsh reality, the current situation can’t be good for Amy Winehouse.

Comments

[D S]

This was the #8 headline in GovExec.com today... Let's stick to environmental issues and not be too judgmental about singers/artists we know little about (except what the media tells us).

I don't think EPA is a social services agency but I may be missing something. Maybe using different analogies to get our point across would be more appropriate (and less judgmental)?

I just want to offer another viewpoint from the previous poster. Because I was linked to this entry, I had the opportunity to read this and a few of the other entries, and I really like them. I commend you for taking a risk and saying what you think - for me, you kept my interest and made your point. Please continue.

[CV]

WOW - at first I thought I had clicked on the wrong blog. But the story peaked my interest when I realized it was our site. In response to the first email, no, we are not a social agency, but social issues impact our environment, so I liked the analogy. But I must say that just acknowledging bad news is never enough - great start - but never enough. What really matters is how you plan to change the bad behaviour.

[CV]

WOW - at first I thought I had clicked on the wrong blog. But the story peaked my interest when I realized it was our site. In response to the first email, no, we are not a social agency, but social issues impact our environment, so I liked the analogy. But I must say that just acknowledging bad news is never enough - great start - but never enough. What really matters is how you plan to change the bad behaviour.

[motherearth]

mr.peacock,
you need to re-read your job description. i'll wait. . . . . . . . finished? now, tell me - did you see anything regarding entertainment reviewer or music critic? did not think so. so now that we have that all cleared up, perhaps we can get back to some of our other issues - say, THE ENVIRONMENT

[Jason]

I like your several analogies. I agree with you completely, and folks will always find out no matter how hard one tries to hide bad news. I personally like to tell the truth, but my team tends to say "Shhhh" at all the times and wants to "improvise" somehow.

[Marcus]

Right on, CV. And the earlier you catch bad behavior the easier it is to change. For instance, I mentioned in "IT World" that we weren't able to encrypt all the agency's laptops, but the fact we found that out now means we are able to secure the 'noncompliant' computers in other ways so we avoid having an even bigger problem on our hands.

[Nam]

The first five paragraphs dealt with Mr. Peacock's psychologic opinion of Amy's behavior. Dr. Phil's evaluations of Ms. Spears was not as detailed Mr. Peacocks opinions of Amy.

The last three paragraphs dealt with the EPA. As an EPA employee, I feel that Mr. Peacock should restrict the use of a government blog to EPA matters and not psychologic opinions. Would Mr. Peacock also use the President's past drinking problems in an anology?

[Molly]

I have to say, I was intrigued by the post, but then thoroughly amused by the comments! Who knew environmentalists had such strong feelings about Amy Winehouse? But it seems some are missing the point of the post- addressing problems early on can save on a lot of "rehab" later on.

[Vinny]

Even though the post seems to be awkard for those who don't understand the point, I'm glad to see Amy has been served as analogy. The subject might not be related to environment but it was used to make a point that is related. That's what it matters. Answering the question 'will clean Amy will be the same Amy?' - Of course , drugs might enhance a talent , but does not CAUSE a talent . No drug will make you sing if you do not have a voice.

[VelRey]

As a regional Permit Management Oversight System (PMOS) and Permitting for Environmental Results (PER) contact, I absolutely and totally, loathe the reporting. However I agree that it has made our states and internal staff much more accountable and as sickening as it is to say, it's great.
I agree with some of the other comments about the shock of seeing Amy Winehouse, but it's neat to see that you're human and have an opinion.

I think this might afford a timely intro into a point on EPA's self measurement. On what would one evaluate Ms. Whitehouse? What would be on her PARS agreement? I would think that it would be her musicianship, stage presence, and the quality of her songs.

The interesting thing here is that she would be evaluated along with everyone else on the record label. Let's imagine that the label has 100 artists across various genres of music. And that the execs were quietly prevented having more than 10 top rated, outstanding artists. Each genre would put one or two artists at the top. And all of the genres could note their very top performers.

But what if, in reality, the top performers were not evenly distributed across all the genres. We just dont have many... top flamenco guitarists this year, say.

The label would now have pretty poor information on the distribution of talent...

EPA's PARS system, in its 2nd or 3rd year, has grown into something that is hurting the agency.

Although it was stated that their would be no performance quotas, that is not the way it is working. Managers are put in a position where they cannot give top marks to more than, usually, one direct report. If that, depending on the size of the office.

Results - 1) Some outstanding people get a lower rating. Bad for morale. 2) Some folks who should get Exceeds Expectations are Fully Successful. Bad for morale. 3) Some poor performers get Fully Successful ratings (too much work to have more than a few underperformers). Bad for morale - when the the folks in number 2) are given the same rating as those in 3). AND bad for the agency as it retains underperformers.

But it is more than morale. 1) EPA cannot identify highly performing offices and look into the reasons why - and the converse is also true. 2) Managers know this is going on - so they know that a staff person's rating has little meaning. They know it, because they are required to foster it. So they cant really use an employee's performance to seek good staff from other offices for internal promotion. It has to be by word of mouth.

I can see why EPA needs a way to rate employee performance. I can see wanting to make sure different managers don't use the system differently. But the system is destructive when you cant have offices that perform better, good employees are discouraged, and the ratings lose their meaning.

If Amy Whitehouse and other bad boys and girls really did consistently make better music, we would never know using PARS - because we would not see whether the Office of Drug Addled Rockers had more Outstanding evaluations than the Office of Tea Totaling Flamenco Guitarists.

If you dont know that this is happening, check with your first and second line supervisors. And take it as bad news early in the PARS implementation.

And act.

[Marcus]

VelRey, love the honesty. If you have ideas on how EPA measures can be reduced without losing the accountability, I'm all ears. For instance, are there some measures we're collecting that we don't really need/use?

The previous post was actually not a discussion of the measures used to evaluate EPA programs. It was about PARS which EPA uses to measure the performance of employees. So, have a re-read, if you would.

The root of the problem with PARS is that
supervisors are (quietly) restricted in the number of employees that they can place in each category - outstanding, exceeds expectations, fully successful etc. Staff were initially told that this would not be the case, but that is not how things evolved.

Employees should get the rating that they actually earn. Some offices will have more underperformers and some will have more outstanding staff. The reasons you would want this are listed in the previous post. And I think are pretty intuitive.

This will INCREASE accountability, morale, and fairness. So....send the word down through the ranks of management - when doing annual evaluations of staff performance, there should be no more forcing of the bell curve. Let the chips fall ...where they DO.

And in hopes that you'll take this quite seriously, I'll note that this is not sour grapes. It is an observation on how the system, works - or in this case, more accurately - does not work.

[Marcus]

My previous comment responded to VelRey whom I'm pretty sure was not referring to PARs. As for PARs, no one should be using a 'curve' or quota system. Supervisors and the folks they supervise should, together, be setting standards that are demanding but reasonable. The more explicit the better. The eventual rating should be based on the employee's performance against these expectations, unaffected by how well others may or may not have done. See my blog of October 26, 2007 for more.

Thanks for referring me back to your previous blog. I am glad that you agree there should not be quotas - and hope that you are able to do something to stop the defacto practice. Again, if you think it is not happening, find some first of second level supervisors who will speak frankly about it...

Thanks again for your reply.

[EPA employee - dedicated for 27 years]

Dear Mr. Peacock. I applaud your desire to lay it on the line. Here's something I would like to know from your perspective. Should regional employees who have been designated by a person with power in the civil rights office as having a valid disability according to the JAN and several doctors have to be abused by regional management and be denied reasonable accommodations? If the person at HQ as well as doctors say it's a valid issue, then HOW, tell me this, HOW can a region say no to something reasonable. I have two very serious conditions. I have worked my tail off and started in the govt as a GS-2 and am now a GS-12. I'm not a slacker. I was personally handed a plaque by Granta, and worked on two national initiatives, but the power in the region to ruin a persons life or cause their health to be worse just so they can get 'rid' of the low hanging fruit - those of us with health issues and are over 50, needs to be seriously looked at. When EPA managers get PhD or MD after their names then I can see it, until then, they are playing God and ruining good employees.

The point above about 'quotas' in pass, fail, etc., is also very true. Those that are pets get the pet projects or those that 'camp' with their managers and have social interactions get the higher levels, not the grunts at the bottom. Sad that EPA has turned out like this. 27 years and I've seen it come and go. But this? What a slap in the face.

Many thanks to you for allowing me to vent. I'm not sure it will be posted, but at least I gave it my best shot.

[Barbara Sloss]

Amy Winehouse may have problems, but so does our environment. Please pay attention to what scientists are saying about global warming and allow States to have laws and regulations that encourage greater efficiency and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Our country needs regulations that encourage better choices and decisions, like the ability to buy cars with higer gas mileage and reduce pollution through renewable energy instead of coal or nuclear sources. These choices are dependent on industries that make these choices available and on laws that encourage these industries to become available. We are all in this together and the EPA needs to show some leadership at this time.