Greenversations

About the author: Marcus Peacock is EPA’s Deputy Administrator.

I went to a baseball game last night. The Washington Nationals put on the worst performance I have ever witnessed by a Major League Baseball team. The Washington Post noted the final score, 12 – 2, while suggesting a “rare brand of unwatchable baseball” scarcely articulated how the Nationals “failed to perform in almost any capacity.”

What made it so bad? It was not errors. The Nats only made one error. The problem was an almost palpable lack of attention to detail – a lack of caring about the small things. I saw it the moment I sat down. How often, for instance, do you see a catcher overthrow the second basemen after the pitcher has thrown his last warm-up pitch? How about an infielder trying to flip a foul ball to fans in the stands - and coming up 10 feet short?

These were very small things and made no difference in the substance of the game. But when I saw both these things happen within the first few minutes I got a bad feeling about where the team was headed. What followed was a bevy of small things that, when accumulated, did matter. A pitcher, forgetting they had their foot on the rubber and then taking it off (balking in a run). An outfielder overthrowing a cutoff man. A pitcher failing to backup a play (another run). A batter failing to get a bunt down. An infielder shrugging at a sharp grounder that a diving glove might have knocked down. What came through - what became painfully obvious - was that on this night, for whatever reason, a few Nats were not playing at 100 percent. 90 percent seemed acceptable.

When you play 90 percent against a team that is playing 100 percent it doesn’t matter how much skill you have, you are going to get buried.

Mistakes happen, but when a person doesn’t care about whether they make a mistake, even a small one, really bad things will eventually happen. A ball club that doesn’t care eventually loses ball games. An EPA that doesn’t care means we will eventually have more contaminated water, dirty air, and abandoned dumps.

Right now this Agency is on top of its game. We consistently score near or at the top of all federal agencies in virtually every independent review of our operations. (I just found out today we got an “A+” on the latest financial and computer security scorecard issued by a committee in the US House of Representatives.) But to stay on top of our game - to consistently be the very best - we need to keep caring. We need to sweat the small stuff.

About the author: Marcus Peacock is EPA’s Deputy Administrator.

Not long after coming to EPA I was asked to meet with a new group of employees whose purpose was to help first-line supervisors “thrive, not just survive.” Having a group of people who care enough about an organization to get together on their own and figure out how to improve it is like finding a vein of gold. I was anxious to meet them.

They wanted to talk about the most pressing concerns of first-line supervisors. I didn’t know what they would put at the top of the list. I figured it might be lack of resources or training, but the first thing the group mentioned was that the agency was not doing a good job of dealing with poor performers. As they explained it, a poor performer not only affects the work of one person, but also the people around them. In some cases, one or two people can demoralize a whole office.

I have no doubt EPA can do better at dealing with poor performers, but I also think it is a myth that EPA does not already take on this sometimes difficult task. This week one of EPA’s senior managers sent out a memo that I thought did a nice job of addressing this straight up. Here it is, in shortened form:

One of the areas of concern . . . is a belief among federal employees that supervisors do not deal with conduct and performance problems. I understand why this is a common notion; such matters are handled in a highly sensitive and confidential matter. . . . I think it important that we all occasionally hear about what is done to address conduct and performance issues . . . I want to share some information with you about disciplinary actions which have been taken . . . over the last few years.
.
.
.

We are public servants, and as such, we each have a personal responsibility to maintain levels of behavior and performance that conform to the highest ethical standards and which promote the best interests of EPA and the federal government . . . . I expect each manager and supervisor to take appropriate disciplinary and performance actions when necessary. We practice progressive discipline, which means that we try to give employees as many opportunities as possible to correct behavior or improve performance.
.
.
.

[E]mployees have been reprimanded and/or suspended for conduct relating to misuse of Agency equipment, e.g., inappropriate internet use. Employees have also been disciplined, including suspension or proposed removal, for misusing official authority or information for personal gain. Discipline has been taken for inappropriate use of the government credit card or failure to pay the bill after having been reimbursed. Attendance-related problems and/or failure to follow leave procedures have lead to discipline, including reprimand, suspension, and removal. Employees have been disciplined for what I would generally call unprofessional behavior . . . . Finally, discipline is not limited to staff. Some supervisors have found themselves subject to discipline for misconduct.

I thought it important for you to know that the myth that nothing ever happens to employees with conduct and/or performance problems is just that, a myth. Let me assure you that supervisors do not seek out opportunities to take disciplinary actions . . . . Addressing conduct and performance issues is ongoing; we are focusing time and effort to further address conduct challenges and there is room for improvement. I expect supervisors to continue to attend to this critical element of their jobs. Our mission is too important and our resources too limited to do anything else.

About the author: Marcus Peacock is EPA’s Deputy Administrator.

Last week Pope Benedict XVI visited the White House. This reminded me of an encounter a friend of mine, Neil, had with Pope John Paul II several years ago. Neil and his boss entered the meeting room and approached His Holiness. A cleric standing behind the Pope quietly said, “Kneel.” “Hello,” answered Neil. “Kneel!” said his boss, shooting a glance at my friend. “What?” exclaimed Neil, shooting a glance back at his boss.

Sometimes we mean to say something but people hear something different. Sometimes that can get us into trouble.

As a young manager I occasionally asked job applicants if they were married or had kids. It seemed a good way to get to know the applicants better. After doing a joint interview with a colleague, she strongly objected to this. “That has nothing to do with their qualifications for the job,” she said, “Try putting yourself in their place.” It took me a long time to figure out she was right. The question I thought I was asking was not always the question people heard.

To do our job well, we need a comfortable, welcoming workplace. One way we measure whether EPA has such a workplace is by counting the number of EEO complaints employees file each year. “EEO” stands for Equal Employment Opportunity. Any EPA employee who feels they have been discriminated against because of their gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc. can seek corrective action by filing an EEO complaint. Of course, not all complaints are bona fide and not everyone who could file a complaint does, but the change in the number of complaints is a crude measure of how well people are being treated in the workplace.

Here is our record over the past several years:

First, you should know that EPA has one of the lowest “complaints per employee” rates in government (it appears only NASA is lower), although we think we can do better. Second, we have a low rate due to a significant drop in EEO complaints between 2002 and 2003 that we’ve been able to sustain, although it’s been pretty flat since then. When I examined this data a year ago with the Office of Civil Rights our questions were, “What caused the drop?” and “How could we make it happen again?”

We believe that drop happened because in 2002 every EPA senior manager attended mandatory EEO training. We also believe that if we repeat the mandatory EEO training, it will drop again. So the Administrator has determined that every senior manager at EPA will take two days of mandatory EEO training this year.

I went through the course two weeks ago. The many questions and lively interaction in the classroom showed me that the training was needed. I learned a lot and I wasn’t alone. The #1 lesson: you can’t have a good working environment without mutual respect. That doesn’t mean you need to kneel in front of anyone, but it does mean you may need to try on their shoes.