Human Resources In Government

During my thirty-two year career in local government, elected officials would ask me why can’t the human resources management system be more like the private sector?  Generally, I would respond by gently suggesting that they had the power and authority to change the system should they have the political will to do so.  That response would bring a quick end to the conversation.

Do we really want local government to operate more like the private sector?  Are we ready to abandon a system of values including fairness, equity, due process and transparency, which have been at the core of government for many years?  The current economic crisis with the failure of some of the most progressive, well-respected companies in the world suggests to me that “being more like them” doesn’t serve the public interest.  

Ironically, as our Country works through the current economic crisis, it’s the government that has come to the aide of the private sector!  And though government intervention, some of the business practices of the private sector have come to light, particularly in the area of executive compensation.  

I hope one of the outcomes of the economic crisis is an end to the mistaken belief that government ought to operate more like a business and less like a government.  The goals and objective of government are far different; we serve a broad constituency with high expectations for services.

As Woody Allen would tell it: “Eighty percent of success is just showing up“. No need to pass the message along to the troubled financial sector apparently. In a March 2009 letter to Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and current regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, advised that the floundering mortgage companies expected to pay about $210 million in retention bonuses (aka rewards for “just showing up”) to 7,600 employees over 18 months from 2008 thru 2010. That, according to the Wall Street Journal, represents 61% of Fannie Mae and – err – about 80% of Freddie Mac’s employees. Woody Allen take a bow: turns out that life does indeed imitate art!!

Where to start? I’m not concerned here so much with the outrage factor - taxpayer funds squandered on undeserved rewards: no shortage of ink spilled there already. The issue which is receiving too little attention but should be of big concern to the HR community is the stupefying incoherence of the arguments and, by extension, professional thinking underpinning these decisions. In his letter to Grassley, Lockhart explains that “[The proposal] included a retention plan that targeted the employees most critical to keep and difficult to replace, including many hard working lower level employees who are important to the mission……..” which begs the question: who is in charge of workforce planning and management at these agencies? “Most Critical” and “Important to the Mission” are very different talent labels which should not be scrambled under any circumstances. All staff are mission important, otherwise they should not be hired or retained. Some staff, typically a small subset, are mission critical -  i.e. they constitute talent which is truly of strategic importance and thus the legitimate focus of creative (and costly) efforts – including the use of retention bonuses - to keep on board and motivate. But to argue that 80% of staff deserve retention bonuses is tantamount to stating that 80% of staff are Mission Critical” and that is just plainly nonsensical. No conceivable business model supports such a proposition.  I’ve no way of knowing if Lockhart’s arguments are sly legerdemain in the service of the indefensible or an expression of well-intentioned if misplaced paternalism. Either way they are specious as indeed is so much of the current debate about performance and rewards stirred up by the Wall Street greed unfrocking.

The city of Arusha lies in Northern Tanzania, on the edge of the Great Rift Valley, towered over by Mount Meru and in the distant shadows of Kilimanjaro.  For reasons of place and topography alone it’s a magical destination but one steeped too in recent African history.  Tanzania formally gained independence there in 1961; it will be the home of the parliament of the still nascent East African Federation and it’s where  the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda  holds court.  And so, fittingly, it’s where the new Africa Public Sector HR Network - first mooted at the joint IPMA-HR/South Africa Civil Service Commission’s 2007 Cape Town Conference - was launched in February, 2009.

The launch conference offered a fascinating glimpse into the daunting challenges facing African public sector HR management.  Perhaps worth a full article in the IPMA newsletter but for now a few impressions which still resonate:

• Talent Retention & Brain Drain: The problem of talent management dwarfs anything experienced here or in the rest of the developed world.  Inability to pay competitive salaries is universal and largely unsolvable given the emptiness of public sector coffers but it goes far beyond that.  Put simply, national talent in the poorer African nations is impervious to capture: brain drain pressures are relentless and next to impossible to combat (and that includes brain drain within the Continent itself).  And yet there were glimmers of optimism: commitment to public service is clearly a sentiment shared by many at senior echelons; they are public servants by choice, not necessity. Quite inspiring!
• Public Sector Employment in the Wider Societal Context: Many anecdotes were shared about tackling the problem of “ghost workers” and of thwarting attempts by workers to doctor personnel records – specifically official dates of birth – to cantilever employment beyond mandatory employment.  At a superficial level this amounts to combating petty corruption and points to the inadequacy of public sector pensions: all true but still only part of the picture.  It’s also necessary to appreciate public service employment in its wider societal context where individuals shoulder the burden of working to support extended families.  As Luke 12.48 intones: “to whom much is given, much is expected”.
• The Many Facets of Diversity in Africa: Happy to note that gender equality is vibrant in the African Public Service, generally.  Two of the three public service cabinet members attending the conference were impressive women; a majority of the senior civil servant leadership present was likewise female.  But the contours of diversity run deeper and more subtly .  Race is not an issue for obvious reasons but tribal affiliation is in many countries.  A complex subject capable of overwhelming a humble blog but one example by way of illustration: the violence which exploded in the wake of last year’s Kenyan Presidential Election is baffling to most of us if viewed other than through the prism of tribal politics in that country.
• Corruption: Subtext in public fora; more candidness in private discourse.  Important but perhaps left at that.
• Dependency on International Consultants: Public Sector Reform in Africa – including HR Reform - has over the years been driven by the finances and agendas of international agencies such as my former employer, the World Bank.  This in turn spawned a cottage industry of international development consulting and provided a handsome livelihood for swarms of “development consultants”.  And all the evidence is that the net result is a combination of failed reform initiatives, resentment on the part of the African “clients” and yet an ethos of dependency.  The availability of outside and externally funded assistance has paradoxically made it more difficult for African Public Sector HR Management to develop backbone or voice.  Which leads to a final observation:
• The Colonial Legacy: It came as a surprise to note how much of the malaise in Public Sector HR Management is still blamed on the Colonial past even though independence for most African countries came three or more decades ago.  Odd because the Colonial legacy is viewed in other parts of the former Empire – India & Ireland (my own home country) spring to mind – as positive in one important respect: that of bequeathing an independent, honest and rule-bound Public Sector, capable of evolving over time.

Better stop there.  The Arusha conference was inspiring; attending it was a great privilege.  Impossible not to feel humbled by the challenges facing our African Public Sector HR colleagues as they ply their craft in the words Paul Simon & Miriam Makeba sang about so beautifully back almost a quarter of a century ago: “By The stars in the Southern Hemisphere”

So have you heard about the “goverati?” The term sort of reminds me of “The Borg,” for your Trekkies out there. 

To quote Mark Drapeau, who coined the term, it describes people who are familiar with government, how it works, and understand new social technologies to foster a more transparent, participatory and collaborative government.

Whew! All that with a ‘Berry or an iPhone? My oh my…

As someone who can remember the tolling of the administrative death knell when IBM Selectrics replaced Smith-Coronas, allow me a bit of well-earned skepticism.

Sure, technology affects how we do our business, no question. But isn’t our business people, and hasn’t it always been? When the tech gets in between public HR practitioners and their clients, is that really a good thing?

Most of us have probably been exposed to government “2.0″ by now. People in meetings twittering each other. Using texts and emails to displace face-to-face meetings. Cute? Under some circumstances. Clever? Only if removing ourselves from the client is.

I’ll own being old-fashioned, but fashion doesn’t change the nature of our business. We deal in and with people. It’s messy, chaotic, often aimless. Worse still, for some, it’s charged with emotion. And no matter how connected you are, you can’t deal effectively with emotions on an iPhone.

Me, I’d just as soon throw the Blackberries out the window when it comes to public HR practice. Our clients deserve the best they can get, and I just don’t think that’s ever going to be anything digital.

We’re all getting into the social networking thing these days. It’s fun to use Facebook to reconnect with old friends. Twitter is allowing me to follow Lance Armstrong’s attempt to reach the top of the cycling world once again. But can we use this hip new technology for something as mundane as performance reviews? Jena McGregor in this week’s Business Week says it’s being done.

According to McGregor, private firms, including Accenture, have developed a Facebook-like application which allows employees to post status updates and weekly goals. Managers can pose questions and comments related to employee performance. It’s real-time feedback that today’s employees crave and this technology provides the tools–supposedly.  Accenture is hoping to sell its software to outside clients once its ready.  They say the software is more about motivating employees than about evaluating them.

But could something like this work in the public sector? Most of the performance management systems I see are form-driven events that are more painful than developmental. Managers avoid giving feedback until they have to (if at all).  Employees have learned that “no news is good news.”  Could a real-time review system using today’s web-based tools be the answer to these long-standing problems with performance evaluations in the public sector?

As a manager you’ve probably faced some tough employee situations. Many of those “tough” situations often involve an employee not doing what you expect them to do or not delivering on what they were hired to produce. These situations are tough because they require you to have a conversation to address the issue. And, in these tight economic times, you and your organization cannot afford poor performance. Yet, many managers would rather avoid the conversation, waiting to see if the issue will resolve itself. Are you one of those who avoid the tough conversations?

Lesson #1: Employee performance problems rarely, if ever, resolve themselves!

Let’s face it. Having performance-related conversations comes with the job of being a leader. If you don’t address issues that impact productivity and morale, who will? One of your many roles as a manager must be to have the “tough” conversations when necessary so that the work group and the organization can function effectively. The first step is to own this responsibility and stop putting off the hard work. Management takes courage. It takes guts.

This month you are probably setting goals for your work group, your employees and maybe for yourself. One of those personal goals might be to have the tough conversations that you’ve been putting off. Think about the impact you can have on individuals, as well as the team, if you just begin the conversation. In the months ahead, I’ll offer more ideas for having those painless performance conversations. For now, have the guts to get started.

Suddenly everybody’s a compensation expert.  All they gotta do is read about another round of AIG pay awards, hit a couple clicks on Wiki, and voila:  people talk compa ratios, wage indexes, market ratios, base, participation, points on action, and the oh-so-stupefying “retention bonuses”.

Raise your hands:  who wants to work in the AIG comp division right now?

But while we may taste a bit of sweet watching a complicated, basically uncontrolled pay plan implode, we public sector HR practitioners need to take a deep breath and admit, at least to ourselves, that we’ve done pretty much the same thing, but maybe on a lesser scale.

It’s been different jobs at different times, but we’ve chased our own dragons.  Since I got in our business, that’s included engineers, IT (the job family formerly known as data processing), and most recently, at least since 9/11,  fire and police (perhaps the subject of a future post).

Specialness is rarely more than cute, and in organizational dynamics as well as pay, it cuts both ways.  We may be doing our agencies a service each time we suggest, gently or otherwise, that the organization consists of people with equal needs, despite different contributions.

But then, that kind of view is what HR is all about, right?

It’s almost a waste of keystrokes to say these are uncertain times. We hear it everyday. No matter what level of government you serve in, you’ve probably experienced economic ups and downs lately and your employees are probably asking or at least wondering:

• Is my job safe?
• Is the agency financially sound?
• What does the future hold?

In these scary times of budget cuts and layoffs, employees look to you, the Human Resources representative, for the critical information they crave. The reality is that you may not know the answers to their questions. Still, your responses send strong emotional signals about your ability to lead under pressure. Before you quickly attempt to respond to those answerless questions remember:

• We’re all human and humans naturally have fears. Don’t be surprised or take it personally if you are met with tears, anger, or other strong emotions. Everyone reacts in their own way during times of uncertainty.
• Tell them all you know. Hiding details or facts from employees rarely benefits anyone. And, employees eventually find out the full truth (often from the media). If you haven’t been 100% up front with the details from the beginning, your lack of transparency will work against you in the future. Guaranteed.
• Admit that you don’t know. In this environment no one knows all the facts or all the possible outcomes. The best thing you can do is to admit what you don’t know and let them know when you expect to have more information.
• Create a centralized “place” for keeping employee up-to-date. We know that employee communications is a central part of our role in human resources. Still, in these times, it’s even more critical to have a central place (website, hotline, Facebook page, whatever) where employees can find the most current information. A centralized spot for information also cuts down on the potential for rumors and gossip.
• Redefine your expectations for performance. Today we are faced with an opportunity to redefine performance expectations for each job. Employees need to know what will differentiate them from others. This is the perfect time to talk about superior performance and how to achieve it. Employees need to know what it is and your organization needs it now more than ever.

Finally, approach these conversations (and these difficult times) as an opportunity to focus on your own personal growth. It’s not going to be easy. You can choose to muddle through in a reactionary way or you can choose to learn new ways to be efficient, develop new skills, and develop the confidence you’ll need to successfully navigate these tough times. Choose to grow.

Public employers understand the many angles to the healthcare question. As employers they provide benefits to employees and their dependents sometimes well into retirement. They also administer workers compensation programs and comply with health and safety regulations. As public servants, they see state and local budgets hit by the high cost of providing healthcare to the uninsured. The February 24, 2009, issue of the Washington Post has no fewer than three stories on healthcare, leading with President Barack Obama’s plan to make healthcare reform his top fiscal priority.

One of the other two articles is about an agreement between Ford Motor Co. and the UAW on how to fund retiree health benefits. Unfortunately, what’s touted as a potential model for other car companies does not translate to the public sector. The agreement, which has yet to be ratified, calls for paying part of the cost of retiree health benefits in stock rather than with cash.

The third article that caught my eye was about a program in Howard County, Md., designed to provide health insurance at a very low cost (around $50 per month) to the uninsured. The Howard County program is one of only two such programs in the country, and while it may sound like an excellent idea, there is a problem—not enough people are enrolling. There are three reasons for this low enrollment: first, there is no extra money even for the small premium payment; second, there is a belief that insurance isn’t necessary because the individual is young and healthy; and finally, people don’t know the program exists.

Public HR professionals, because of their unique position in the community, should make their voices heard on the healthcare debate. What are some problems and what are some possible solutions? What would make it possible to continue to provide some level of benefits to retirees while maintaining the fiscal soundness of state and local budgets? Is universal healthcare the answer, and if so, are there concerns unique to the public sector that we should tell lawmakers about? The IPMA-HR Healthcare Taskforce recently came up with several principles to help guide the debate. We would welcome your input as well. Click here for more information.

A second marriage, Dr. Samuel Johnson once opined, is a triumph of hope over experience. I was reminded of this well thumbed aphorism by something I read recently (inconveniently on Valentine’s Day) and it occurred to me that he could just as easily have been referring to The Annual Performance Review Process, the ultimate HRM triumph of activity over delivery.

Why is it that The Performance Review Process remains such a ubiquitous HR tool in spite of its glaring limitations, the distain it brooks with supervisors and supervised alike and in the face of the solid body of theory and serious argument hostile to it……….  See for example Jeff Pfeffer & Bob Sutton’s The Knowing-Doing Gap: which cites that oracle of quality management, W. Edwards Deming’s, description of the typical performance evaluation battle field strewn with casualties: “bitter, crushed, bruised, battered, desolate, despondent, dejected, feeling inferior, some even depressed, unfit for work for weeks after receipt of the rating, unable to comprehend why they are inferior.” Or dip into Alfie Kohn’s marvelous Punished by Rewards which, to my mind at least, convincingly torpedoes the performance reward paradigm.

Last October, an edgy article in the Wall Street Journal by Samuel Culbert of UCLA’s Anderson Business School “Get Rid of the Performance Review” received a lot of attention. “It destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that’s just for starters.” The author inveighs and, judging from the torrent of comments generated, many seem to agree with him wholeheartedly. Culbert actually wasn’t saying anything particularly new; he just seems to have struck a nerve at the right moment, for whatever reason.

So! Is Culbert sounding the death knell of the Annual Performance Review process? I somehow doubt it. Not now; not quite yet. Dubious and dysfunctional as it is, it’s not easy to extricate from entirely. For one thing, what would take its place? Those most opposed have not done a very good job of proposing  plausible or viable alternatives. And here lies the tragedy of the HRM model-in-use: lofty aspirations of change agency, impact and strategic relevance forever mired in the quotidian present.