May 1, 2013 at 4:42 pm #178367
This discussion is brought to you by the Federal Communicators Network. No endorsement expressed or implied.
"People don’t even know you exist ... I mean, federal workers are this invisible face."
That's from the First Lady while addressing federal employees at the Department of the Interior last week.
The "people who don't know" seem to be anybody in the United States. Of course, the publicly unappreciated federal employee is an old story. And I don't think our job is to be really visible to the public; our job is to be really useful to them (see these great discussions from Nick Charney and Jeffrey Levy).
But inside our agencies, it should be different, right? After all, every way that we interact with the world outside our walls is largely shaped by what's going on inside. If we're going to keep pushing the notion of customer service, don't our employees need to be well-served themselves?
I'm tossing softballs with those questions — most anyone would nod along and say, "Yes, duh, of course."
Well, then let's take a look at some fed.-wide results from the 2012 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey in categories that represent internal culture and communication; the number after each statement below is the percentage of agreement out of 100:
- I have a high level of respect for my organization’s senior leaders. (61)
- In my organization, leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce. (53)
- My organization’s leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity. (54)
- How satisfied are you with the information you receive from management on what’s going on in your organization? (64)
Much of these perceptions haven't changed in a long time, and they are greatly affected by what's going on outside of an organization's control (sequestration, for example). But if we're so keen on transforming the way gov. delivers service and value to its citizens, I have to wonder:
- When a shutdown or sequester looms, why are we restricted from telling our employees anything but "The President is confident an agreement will be reached"?
- Why do memos about significant policy or leadership changes get out weeks after the fact?
- Do we ever respond to legitimate employee concerns and inquiries with near the urgency or enthusiasm of a media, Hill, or Administration request?
- Or is this just a realization of the you-always-hurt-the-ones-you-love truism — should we be thankful we have a job, shut up, and get back to work?
You tell me: Does government take its employees seriously?
Shameless self-promo: If you think this a worthy topic, please vote for me in the NextGen Speaker Contest at bit.ly/NextGenDH (voting closes May 3). I'd like to present on treating employees like customers, and I need your help making the top 5. Thank you!
For best practices, training, networking, and other opportunities in federal communications, join the Federal Communicators Network.
May 1, 2013 at 7:02 pm #178425
Government takes its employees abstractly. That is, management cares, but apart from line supervisors, is often so far removed as to not have a good sense of the realities, and in turn how to respond to them.
I work in the area of employee surveys. I'm the poor sap who has to read all the (anonymous) comments people submit with their surveys, in addition to working with the checkmark data itself. I have one comment taped to my wall that is 3 solid continuous pages of 10pt Arial Narrow with 3/4" margins all around, and no indents or paragraph separations. It is clearly an outlier, but reflects how deep feelings can run.
For a variety of operational reasons, I end up reading tales of sorrow about HRM tragedies some 8 months to a year after they've happened. I liken myself to a highly-trained paramedic who is only allowed to show up to the scene of the accident after everyone involved has bled out and died. I don't get to save anyone; I just get to count the bodies and cart them away.
What management wants from me are numbers. Now, I am a dyed-in-the-wool quantitative research guy, so numbers that tell a clear story and shed light are an absolute source of delight to me. Every shipment of fresh data brings a sparkle to my eye, and a skip in my step. And I fully understand how management's dance card is so full that there is no time to read these comments, so they want, and need, a quick 3-paragraph summary of the hundreds of pages of misery and frustration I've plowed through. And I know that management are good caring generous people.
But there is something missing.
And that's why I don't broach it in terms of caring or not, in terms of taking them seriously or not, but in terms of abstractly vs concretely/realistically. What we desire is what transpires when people are close. What we all too often get is what happens when people are separated by distance.
And, I might add, the numbers you cite are also a product of what happens when staff are separated from senior management and head office. Keep in mind that most of the federal agencies included in the FEVS results are distributed across the union and sometimes around the world. Their leadership may not know them, as employees, but they don't know their leadership, either. That distance can breed mistrust, or at least reluctance to trust.
May 1, 2013 at 8:28 pm #178423
Government tries to suppress its employees via cumbersome internal processes and policies that disempower and anonymize the individual in favor of the institution. However, social media is available 24X7 whereas employees are only on the clock for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week on average. This means that the average government employee can amplify his/her individual voice via blogs and other social media tools. So, while the institution may not take the employee seriously, the rest of the world often does.
From my own blog, and an recent article that is linked below:
In a new book, “The End of Big: How the Internet Makes David the New Goliath,” author Nicco Mele argues that global cynicism is not only warranted, it’s the inevitable result of social and political changes wrought by what he calls “radical connectivity.” That is, our ability to send vast amounts of data instantly, constantly and globally using breathtaking new tools that “empower the individual at the expense of existing institutions and ancient social structures.” These include government, businesses, entertainment, military, schools, media, religion, and other big institutions designed to protect and sustain people.
May 1, 2013 at 8:32 pm #178421
I want more than a job. I want to make a difference and I want to work for an organization that wants me to want to make a difference ... unfortunately most of that gets lost in paperwork, er, translation.
May 1, 2013 at 8:38 pm #178419
...or the paperwork required to arrange for the translation? (Canadian joke)
May 1, 2013 at 9:04 pm #178417
Hey Dave – very thoughtful post! I commented on Jeffrey's as well.
I think we all have – at some point in our careers – experienced moments when we didn’t feel appreciated in the workplace. But with or without applause, it is still our responsibility to understand our call to duty which is to serve the public. Such is the same with military families and the struggles they face. Do we know the faces and names of every current or former military member (several in my family) who sacrifice to protect us? While unbeknownst to the public, individually we have to remember the oath of office we all take when we enter duty – I keep a copy on my desk. 🙂
It’s not always a rose-colored journey – there will be sacrifices, misunderstandings, and moments of doubt. Yet, there can also be triumphs, satisfaction when the job is done well, and a humble truth that we can master when we realize we have been called to serve and simply to make a difference. Sometimes the thanks comes when you least expect it and sometimes you won't see it. But the truth is, the public isn’t concerned about what makes our internal procedures work or who didn’t get their pay raise. They just need us to do what we have pledged to do.
An unhappy workforce will inevitably produce less than desired results, but I think we all play a role in our environment. So, I don’t know if we are truly ready to answer the posed question until we look further within ourselves. We all know that coworker or two who don't have the highest aspirations and are content to just "get by." Given the circumstances of today’s economy and high-demand for jobs, I’m not so sure we have much to bargain with anymore. But yes, it does make you wonder what really impacts the numbers.
I think we can all benefit from learning what it takes to be happy and “How to Love Your Government Career” (I’m just as shameless as you!) And I do think you raise a valid question!
May 1, 2013 at 9:08 pm #178415
First, I agree with what Mark Hammer said.
But really, there's no such as thing as "the" government with stuff like this, meaning there's no universal answer. Different agencies, and even different parts of the same agency, can have different cultures around employee communications and what I'll call "management forthrightness." And even within a single part, different people can interpret exactly the same thing incredibly differently. So not only would I look beyond gov't-wide stats to see what's happening at particular agencies, I'd take even those with a grain of salt before drawing conclusions.
That said, I think the atmosphere of trust and caring can be driven from the top, and I've seen strong examples of that here at EPA.
To Megan: I'm a reasonably senior manager at EPA, and I can tell you that what I heard in management meetings about the sequester closely tracked what I received in mass emails from the EPA Administrator and Deputy Administrator. I can't speak about other agencies, of course.
I'd also note that sometimes there are very strong reasons not to share everything in the immediate moment, ranging from legal barriers to union negotiations that have to occur before anything is known, and info has to be known before it can be shared. It's unfortunate, but please don't assume that managers are all deliberately hoarding information as power or taking other steps to "disempower" individuals. That's not how I lead or manage, and I know many people who do so in ways that maximize their employees' recognition and ability to lead.
May 1, 2013 at 9:48 pm #178413
Yes there are exceptions in all agencies, but realistically and statistically most government managers are not using social media today, and as a result have minds that think in terms of "old school" and antiquated top-down processes and approaches rather than the social media model that empowers the individual via followers and friends and lists and so forth.
It is very difficult to remove a manager once in a key position, and most orgs just leave them there until a reorg gives them that opportunity, or until they retire, whichever comes first. So the upshot is that there are many managers in key positions in all sectors of government who are really not qualified for the roles given today's new tools and processes for public outreach and online group collaboration, both inside and outside the firewalls, secure and open.
May 1, 2013 at 9:49 pm #178411
You have my vote! The 2013 survey was just sent out yesterday. I think that since we are all part of the "government" it is up to us to take ourselves seriously and learn to appreciate each others' efforts especially during Public Service Recognition Week.
May 1, 2013 at 10:01 pm #178409
The amount of seriousness with which employees are taken increases in direct proportion to our visibility to the public.
Therefore it is in the employees' interest to speak up in ways that enhance our collective and individual brands.
In addition the public trusts us more than they trust our bosses. So it is in the agencies' interest as well to put us front and center.
To me the metric for goals in government should solely be return on investment. Win-win is where the employees' interests and the employers' interests align.
Whoever does not take employees seriously - whoever reduces their input to numbers - is not operating in a state of rational self-interest.
Also I agree with many of the sentiments here, but view the government (as an institution and as its individual leader-components) in a more benevolent light. I don't think "they are out to get us" at all. Leadership and management in gov is a truly thankless job.
May 1, 2013 at 10:29 pm #178407
I would add that the abuse or manipulation of internal government processes is on the rise because of the budget cuts and the "bystander effect". That is, most government employees (and managers) will not get involved in conflicts until pushed to do so by impending deadlines for legal action or other adverse outcomes. Here is an interesting youtube about the "bystander effect" in crowds, and the "monkey-see, monkey-do" aspect of human behavior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac&feature=player_embedded
May 2, 2013 at 12:15 pm #178405
Every Agency has it's own culture and subcultures, as Jeffrey pointed out, that will communicate in different ways. Some managers will share every detail of what's happening. Some will share only at the last minute when it's already become pointless to share the information (b/c others have figured it out already).
Sometimes employees tend to think that management is not sharing information with them because the information management IS sharing is not the specific information the employee wants to hear or is wondering about. For those of us that have internal blogs where leadership can post and employees can ask questions...when you offer that type of service, you create an expectation that you WILL answer and respond to every question. Those of us that deal with social media, daily, know very well that sometimes it's hard to respond to every single comment and sometimes you wait to see an emerging theme of questions to then address several of them at once.
However, to the person who is leaving the comment...if they're asking a question at the same time then they expect to be answered. By not responding, that one employee might:
- get irritated at the lack of response
...which turns into...
- "they don't even respond when you ask them a question" (when talking to a co-worker)
...which turns into...
- "my management doesn't share information with me."
Maybe that's a shortened version of a longer process that leads up to management appearing to not share information. But when people don't have their questions answered, especially when it's on a leadership blog, it can quickly be seen as unresponsive, not caring, not willing to share, hiding something, etc. We know that's not always the case in every instance, though.
The job of a leader is to communicate. Even if there's nothing to say, there's always something to say to keep people informed such as, "Unfortunately, we don't know any other details right now, but we are pushing to get more information on the subject. As soon as we get more details about your questions, we'll post them here."
At least this way leadership can be seen as listening and responding rather than not saying anything at all.
- get irritated at the lack of response
May 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm #178403
The job of a leader is to lead and very often leadership is about doing "nothing" i.e. communicate that nothing is new. We can learn a lot from non-western, non-militaristic views of leadership where sometimes "active passivity" is called for. Great point Scott.
May 2, 2013 at 1:47 pm #178401
I wish this were the case! Government agencies need to be more outward-facing and empower staff to interact with the public. They have to trust them to put them front and center. However, a lot of time leadership seeks to control rather than empower staff. This inhibits communication with the public. It also demoralizes staff who see their talents going to waste.
In many ways, we have a 1950s command and control government in a social media age. There's bound to be a lot of frustration all around - from citizens, managers and staff as they try to adapt to this new era.
May 2, 2013 at 5:02 pm #178399
May 2, 2013 at 5:55 pm #178397
Great comment, Mark (no surprise).
Abstractly is a great way to characterize the mgmt. view of employees in a large, diffuse organization (and to a certain extent, I'm playing devil's advocate above). As you say, it's far more efficient to paint in broad strokes for managers than in fine detail. Some of this will never change so long as senior leaders don't walk into every employees cubicle (being "close", as you say) and tell them what's happening.
And as a data guy, you know that you have to be very careful with results from surveys like these: they are NOT facts or the truth. They are the answers that best represented the feelings of the respondents at the time to the multiple choice questions that were asked. That's an awful lot of extenuating context.
However, part of that "something missing" is urgency -- managers can't do a quantitative check in every 6-12 months, analyze the data 8 months later, and say "We did what we could." That's not true; there are several ways (short web polls, idea sharing/voting, town hall meetings, blog comments, etc.) to get input on a regularly basis and then paint broad strokes with that feedback.
The burden on managers is to look at that feedback and say to employees, "Ok, here's the picture I think you painted for me. And here's my response." Rinse and repeat.
The way I try to characterize the goal of such feedback and communication is to be thorough enough that no one can claim "no one told me" unless their intentionally out of touch/being contrary. And for those (hopefully few) folks, sometimes you just have to move on.
May 2, 2013 at 6:00 pm #178395
While I can only theorize on the bureaucracy behind this Canadian joke, I bet I know what dynamic is at play here: the process of government is treated as more important than the actual mission/service of government.
And to your comment, Nick, my goodness, that is frustrating.
May 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm #178393
Thanks, Bernetta. I like your presentation concept, too, and think that it's an important one at a time when gov. employees are getting beat over the head.
In response to your comment: To a great extent, I don't think we should expect to win the battle of public perception/appreciation.
Government is sort of like air conditioning: When it's working well, we rarely say, "Boy, I just can't get over how nice this a/c is -- I think I'll contact the manufacturer and praise them." When it breaks, however ...
I can accept that. What I can't accept is that sort of dichotomy playing out inside of government. We serve at the involuntary pleasure of the taxpayer. We should therefore deliver the most efficient and effective government that tax dollars can provide. If we can't attract and retain great employees with excellent pay and public glory, we should attract them by otherwise being a great place to work.
May 2, 2013 at 6:48 pm #178391
Scott, I think you're out of touch with what most of the people here are talking about -- but that's a GOOD thing, at least for you and your agency. I mean, your leadership have blogs?? Wow! And people can respond and ask questions?!? Holy Cow!
I'll bet most Feds would LOVE to have the problem facing your colleagues, where one might have to be patient for a few days before getting a personal answer from senior management on a blog comment.
May 2, 2013 at 6:55 pm #178389
Jeffrey, to a great extent, I agree with you (see my response to Mark).
And these problems aren't exclusive to government; see this anecdote from yesterday: http://consumerist.com/2013/04/30/workers-dealing-with-customers-say-theyre-not-getting-enough-guidance-from-management/
Most large institutions have these problems. What I want to know is how we 1.) shift our cultures to want to do better on these issues, and 2.) get more of gov. at the satisfaction levels of the top fives in the Best Places to Work (or, dare I say it, looking even more like those similarly large institutions in the private sector Great Places to Work rankings).
To your final point (and one made by others) -- absolutely. Saying something when you really have nothing constructive/useful/legal to say is not better than saying nothing at all. And every individual does not have a reasonable expectation that their opinion or concern weighs as much as every other opinion or concern.
Much of these perception problems, I'm fact, can be dealt with by senior leaders simply saying, "I heard you, and I'm doing something." I've seen that have a tremendous impact on morale and perception, even when employees don't agree with what's being done. They just want to know they've been heard.
May 2, 2013 at 7:11 pm #178387
Thanks, Terry! I appreciate that, and if nothing else, we can certainly support each other.
May 2, 2013 at 7:12 pm #178385
Government takes its employees abstractly ... so they want, and need, a quick 3-paragraph summary of the hundreds of pages of misery and frustration I've plowed through.
And therein lies some of the problem. Condensing hundreds of pages of misery into a few numbers and a paragraph or two in a 1-page memo enables the abstraction.
Not that you can force management to read the raw comments, or even get them to read a 3-page memo when they've asked for one page -- you need to deliver what you're asked for.
But perhaps you can find ways to make some of the results more concrete and visceral -- and less abstract. Imagine finding a big blank wall someplace and taping up print-outs all the *negative* comments in one grouping, maybe on yellow or pink paper, and next to that a grouping (presumably much smaller) of all the *positive* comments, perhaps on green paper. Then imagine a photo of that wall included as an illustration in your one-page memo. Square feet of angst would make the statistics much more "real" than a bar chart.
That's just an example, but if the problem is -- as you've speculated -- an issue of abstraction, it can't be addressed by reporting it in abstract forms of statistics.
May 2, 2013 at 7:35 pm #178383
Nah. Nothing quite as deep as that. We just have a legal obligation to provide documents in both official languages - English and French. And even though a great many folks are fluently bilingual, for purposes of dealing with the public, dealing with staff or coworkers, or making pitches in management meetings, the officially approved terms for things can sometimes be different than what is used in any given conversation, so stuff generally needs to be "sent for translation", regardless of the level of fluency of the writer. Translation costs money, and much like degrees of parcel delivery service, the cost can depend on the turnaround time you require. I've had papers that never saw the light of day, partly because the translation costs were considered prohibitive. Well, that, and they were bloody long because...well, it's ME, eh?
May 2, 2013 at 7:58 pm #178381
Thanks, Randy and Dave.
I'm going to stretch so hard right now, that the seam in my pants is in jeopardy. (Look out world!)
The issue of abstraction and its unwitting victim - urgency - is not unlike the difference between economic theory and real life. The abstraction is true, and economic theory can be true, but they are truths that march to a different time frame. Yes, markets self-regulate, yadda, yadda, yadda, but they do so over a period of time much longer than my landlord is willing to wait for the rent, or my kids are willing to wait for their next meal, or than the shoes on their feet will last. What people want and need in their lives are not the outcomes of economic models over a 12-year period, but something that impacts on their life right now.
And similarly, the executive summaries, quantitative summaries, "dashboards", accountability frameworks, etc., and the planning retreats they feed, are all well-intentioned, and thoughtful. But they move in the time-frame of abstract thought, and do nothing about one's circumstance, motivation, impact, respect, etc., right now.
There is often no conflict between the truth of one's life as an employee, or as a citizen, and the truth of management's or "government's" ideas, or the truth of economic theory. But there is a big gulf between the time frames that each thinks in terms of. Someone else's plan for my economic or career future may be perfectly in line with what I desire as employee or citizen, but the timelines are not. And often, the difference in timelines, simply because one deals in the abstract and one in the concrete, is such that the folks who deal in the abstract seem disingenuous.
To be taken "seriously", as the question at the heart of the thread implies, is to be responded to in a tangible manner within a timeframe that seems sincere. We treat the turnaround time as symbolic, meaningful, and a barometer of both sincerety AND seriousness. I don't know that it would ever satisfy all that many of us to be told "Hang on, we're working on it", but at the same time one needs some realism about the different time universes occupied by "them" and "us". They're an important divide.
May 3, 2013 at 1:25 pm #178379
Perhaps. But I also think it shows an example to others that just because you "make a blog" for improving internal communications doesn't mean that your problems are all solved. LIke everything else it takes care and feeding.
May 6, 2013 at 6:01 pm #178377
I wonder how teleworking will affect the FEVS numbers? And, is preferring to be close rather than separated, in the context of Mark's comments on Wednesday, a generational characteristic?
May 6, 2013 at 6:33 pm #178375
I know we asked people if they were teleworking, for several cycles of the Canadian equivalent of the FEVS, and we also asked a number of questons about trust in management, but unfortunately telework (yes/no) was not examined as one of the variables to be cross-tabbed with the attitudinal items. I know it could be done, but I don't have easy access to the microdata, or else I'd be able to answer your question for you right here and now.
What I can say, from a quick scan of posted results is that, at least in our context, telework:
- is no more likely for men than for women,
- is not age-related,
- tends to occur most often in the upper mid-level salary bands,
- is more likely for those with more education (especially if >B.A.),. and not unexpectedly amongst what we label as the "scientific and professional" category (which includes lawyers, as well as psychologists, chemists, meteorologists, veterinarians, etc.)
- is more likely for some occupational groups than others; e.g., patent examiners, translators, meteorologists, dieticians, and folks working in the physical sciences, all show noticeably higher leves of uptake than other types of positions
- somewhat more common at HQ or major hubs
- is a little more common amongst mid-career folks than amongst recent hires or long-tenure folks
- is more common amongst persons with disabilities than those without
May 10, 2013 at 7:57 pm #178373
I believe that most large organizations fall apart. Case in point I managed a family reunion for 100 people located between Germany and Peru, but mostly in the states. I found everyone's phone, email, address, birth month, etc and arranged a date and place most could meet. Then I cleaned out the vacation bible school supplies out of the church hall and whiped down and covered the tables. Phew! My sisters...wrote attendees on their name tages in the color of their father's name-Uncle Harry pink, Uncle Dave purple, etc. Which no one could read because of the lightness of the color, and no one "got". Some people's brains are just programmed to manage the pennies.
June 23, 2013 at 2:20 pm #178371
In the DoD world...there are things called PD's. Everyone gets one. Whatever is on that sheet of paper along with your Desktop Guide, that is what you do, day in and day out. If you are a GS 09 or below, innovation is not warranted, you do what you do in 8, and go home. You have no power to change policy, as it has to go way up the food chain. I can surely understand Mark's point. It doesn't make it that far. Ah, the paper tiger. If you work in government, you learn to live with it, in triplicate.
June 23, 2013 at 2:38 pm #178369
- When a shutdown or sequester looms, why are we restricted from telling our employees anything but "The President is confident an agreement will be reached"?
Because...."It's the you'll know when I know." This furlough is handled very differently (DoD), by agency, by command. Our tenant command has an "every Friday, total shutdown." No one works. It solved the problem of the Labor Holiday conundrum where an employee (gets every other Friday-Monday for a 4 day weekend) loses out on the 5 day weekend during Labor Day. The bargaining unit would be involved, there would be grievances, so Friday is a total shutdown. Our command depends on the GS12 in charge of the organization. Our semi industrial office is doing every other Friday-Monday, and those who "chose", we all got together by "grade", WG, GS and worked it out. Our manager was very flexible so it all worked out. No union involved. Other offices told their employees "you pick either a Friday OR a Monday, no Friday-Monday." So....it depends on who you work for. Sadly, the impact will not be felt, because "someone, a worker will always be there." Our tenant command had the "RIGHT IDEA", shut er down, the whole industrial complex, park the aircraft on the fence and I'll see ya on Monday. Close the door turn out the ligths, there won't be anyone there on Fridays or Friday night. (shift work)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.