Tag Archive: financial


Another small, familiar-sounding step was made Wednesday for federal employees in same-sex relationships.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the 2011 Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S. 1909) in a speedy voice vote that moves the bill to the full Senate.

No changes to the measure were proposed, though Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., asked to be recorded as a “no” vote, and three committee members expressed their opposition by proxy: Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Ron Johnson, R-Wis.; and Jerry Moran, R-Kan.

Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., reiterated that the bill, which he co-sponsored, was unrelated to President Obama’s recent announcement endorsing same-sex marriage.

“I’m sure people will link the two, but the timing really is coincidental,” Lieberman said, noting the legislation has been kicking around in Congress since 2006. He added, “many people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, including myself, strongly support this equality in employee benefits for domestic partners.”

Lieberman cited a Congressional Budget Office report estimating the bill would cost the government an average of $70 million a year and compared that to the $400 billion paid out in total federal compensation each year to show the costs are relatively small. He also emphasized the bill would make same-sex domestic partners of federal employees subject to the anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements that apply to married couples are.

Ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the bill, which she also co-sponsored, would make the federal service more appealing to young people, even those who would not need or qualify for the benefits. “They look at the presence of this benefit as the sign of the employer being a good employer,” Collins said.

The legislation has not had much luck in past Senates: Though Lieberman has introduced variations on the bill into the last four Congresses, according to the Associated Press, the measure has never passed.

Take the Rupert Murdoch Test

ARCHIVES

Well, you have to hand it to News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch. He knows how to generate a story. The twist on the latest Murdoch story, however, is that he’s the subject of it. This week, a British parliamentary panel investigating phone hacking, email hacking and bribery of police officers by his company’s managers and reporters concluded that there was “willful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications” and “that “Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.” (Check out the Financial Times and the New York Times for the back story.)

That’s some pretty strong stuff but it seems more than appropriate when you consider that reporters in Murdoch’s organization, in the interest of scooping the competition, hacked the voice mail of a 13 year old murder victim and the e-mails of British soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I wrote last year, in a post called You Get The Culture You Pay For, the managers at News Corp created a win-at-all-costs culture and then worked to cover up and deny the criminality when it began to come to light.

As the proverb says, a fish rots from the head down. The person at the top ultimately owns the culture that informs the way the people in the organization think, decide and act. Of course, News Corp. is not the only organization in the news lately for scandalous or criminal behavior. The story of Murdoch and his top managers offers, though, a helpful set of questions that anyone can use as a test to determine whether or not their boss is fit to lead. Stepping back to consider these questions from time to time might give you the chance to spot and tamp down trouble in your organization before it spins out of control. At a minimum, they can give you a heads up that you probably need to find another place to work.

Here’s the Rupert Murdoch Test:

  • Do the Ends Justify the Means? The culture that Murdoch fostered was a win-at-all-costs, pulverize-the-competition culture. The implicit (and, perhaps, explicit) message was the ends justify the means. Doing whatever it takes to win often leads to losses (financial, reputational, moral and otherwise) that exceed the gain. If your boss is pushing a win-at-all-costs approach, they’re unfit to lead.
  • Does the Boss Look the Other Way? Those who remember Enron probably recall that while the COO and the CFO were cooking the books, the CEO, Ken Lay, was saying everything was just fine right up until the day the company imploded. Likewise, in the News Corp. case Murdoch has said he was unaware of what was going on with the hacking. It’s just not credible is it? If your boss is looking the other way while bad stuff is going on, they’re unfit to lead.
  • Do They Own Up or Do They Cover Up? No one is perfect and since they’re made up of people, there are no perfect organizations. Mistakes will be made. The question is when the mistakes come to light does the boss own up or cover up? It seems like every week we see another example of the cover up being worse than the crime. If your boss’s instinct is to cover up mistakes, they’re unfit to lead.

So, those are three questions to get us started on determining whether or not a boss is fit to lead. What other questions would you add to the test?

Executive coach Scott Eblin’s goal is to help you succeed at the next level of leadership. Throughout the week, he’ll offer his take on the leadership lessons in the news and his advice on your most pressing leadership questions. A former government executive, Scott is a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and is the author of The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success.

Want to contribute to this story? Share your addition in comments.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

A bipartisan group of senators is asking the head of the U.S. Postal Service to delay the closures of post offices and mail processing facilities scheduled to begin May 15 until after Congress passes legislation reforming the agency.

The Senate last week passed its reform legislation but the House has not voted yet on its version. Senate lawmakers are worried the moratorium on post office closures will expire before the two chambers reconcile their bills. USPS this month plans to start closing post offices and processing facilities nationwide as part of a large-scale effort to eliminate debt and regain its financial footing. The agency is trying to slash more than $22 billion in expenses by 2016.

“We believe an attempt to proceed with the planned closures — to ‘get in under the wire’ while legislation is being considered — would be counterproductive and would violate the clear intent of the Senate,” the letter stated. The architects of the Senate’s postal reform legislation — Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; Tom Carper, D-Del.; and Scott Brown, R-Mass. — sent the April 30 letter to Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.

USPS did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication. Last week, Donahoe largely approved of the Senate legislation, but said it didn’t go far enough. “We believe that there are important and valuable provisions contained in the legislation,” he said. “We would have preferred the Senate allow the Postal Service to move further and faster in addressing its cost reduction goals.” On C-SPAN’s Newsmakers Sunday, Donahoe said he would like to see Congress act by the end of May.

While both the Senate and House bills give the Postal Service more flexibility to contain its costs, there are some major differences between the two versions. Among other provisions, the legislation the Senate passed in a 62-37 vote would restructure the payment schedule related to the agency’s obligation to prefund retirement health benefits, require USPS to negotiate with its unions to develop a new employee health care plan outside the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and transfer more than $11 billion from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund to the Postal Service to help process the large number of USPS employees scheduled to retire in the next few years. In addition, the Senate bill would require the agency to maintain six-day delivery for the next two years and expands the alternatives USPS must consider before closing a post office.

The House version would allow USPS to make a partial retiree health care funding payment in 2012 — roughly $1 billion — and pay the balance in equal installments in fiscal 2015 and 2016; it also would refund about $13 billion in overpayments the agency made to the two federal retirement systems. The House bill would require postal workers to pay at least as much as other federal employees in health and life insurance premiums and keep pay in line with the private sector’s as well as ensure postal employees are subject to the same reduction-in-force authority as the rest of the federal workforce. In addition, the House bill, shepherded by Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Dennis Ross, R-Fla., would establish a task force similar to the Defense Department’s Base Closure and Realignment Commission to study and make recommendations on post office consolidations and closures and establish a receivership-style authority to take over the agency if it fails to pay its bills after 30 days. Language in the House legislation does not include the two-year waiting period on six-day delivery.

USPS, which lost $5 billion in fiscal 2011, has eagerly anticipated what Capitol Hill will provide in the way of a legislative fix to stem financial ruin. From offering thousands of buyouts to employees to closing post offices nationwide, the agency has tried to get a handle on its finances, which have spiraled out of control during the past decade. The agency would have lost nearly $11 billion in 2011 if Congress had not postponed a statutory requirement to prefund retiree health benefits. Pay and benefit costs account for the lion’s share of USPS’ expenses.

The biggest fight between the two chambers is likely to be over how much flexibility USPS should have in closing and consolidating postal facilities and when the agency should switch to five-day delivery.

Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, last week criticized the Senate’s postal reform legislation. “Instead of finding savings to help the Postal Service survive, the Senate postal bill has devolved into a special-interest spending binge that would actually make things worse,” he said.

USA Today published a May 1 editorial ripping the Senate’s bill, criticizing lawmakers for dodging difficult political decisions. “There’s nothing pleasant about cutting jobs and closing post offices and mail processing centers,” the editorial board stated. “But the alternative is forcing taxpayers to subsidize a bloated system that operates at a loss. Unless Congress is willing to make tough choices, the Postal Service’s woes could make the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler look like chump change.” The board called the House bill “closer to what’s needed.”

In an opposing view also published in Tuesday’s USA Today, Lieberman, Collins, Carper and Brown defended their bill. “By a strong bipartisan vote, the Senate passed a bill last week that gives USPS the authority it needs to right-size, modernize and remain competitive,” the senators wrote. “It isn’t a perfect bill, but it would put USPS on a path toward financial stability.”

During the past several years, millions of Americans working for private sector companies and state and local governments lost their jobs, while the federal government kept hiring. But the landscape has changed. Federal positions, traditionally regarded as the most stable, are now at risk under President Obama’s plan to trim $24 billion from the federal budget in 2013.

The private sector is actually showing signs of economic recovery, with the Dow crossing the 13,000 mark this year for the first time since May 2008. Now, as government struggles to retain its value proposition, it risks losing critical talent resources at the hand of more attractive, viable and profitable private sector employment opportunities. As Ted Kaufman, former Delaware Senator, recently said, “At some point, instead of 10,000 [government employees] retiring in one year, you’ll have 40,000 retiring in six months . . . if this economy comes back . . . and people have options.” Agencies face a difficult challenge: retaining top talent in a time of uncertainty and fluctuation while also battling fierce competition from the private sector.

When budgets get tight, agencies must get creative about how to attract and keep the best and brightest professionals. Fortunately, most federal employees are more motivated by the opportunity to contribute to the greater good than by financial rewards, so engagement is an especially important factor in attracting and retaining these individuals. Engaged employees are more likely to persevere in times of difficulty, produce more and higher quality work, stay in their jobs longer, and be more satisfied with their work and organizations.

According to the Corporate Leadership Council at the Corporate Executive Board, an industry research firm, emotional engagement is four times more powerful than tangible rewards when it comes to inspiring positive attitudes and high performance. In a survey of more than 50,000 employees at 59 global corporations, the council found that increasing engagement leads boosts performance up to 20 percent and reduces the likelihood they will leave by 87 percent.

So what produces engagement? It essentially stems from three factors: a sense of purpose, control over the work environment and the ability to do what one does best. Leaders play a critical role in creating a climate that makes engagement possible. Organizations must provide training and hold leaders accountable for demonstrating 10 key behaviors that drive employee engagement.

Paint the big picture. Tell people how the organization works in plain language that everyone can understand.

Connect the dots. Make sure people understand why their work is important to achieving the mission. If this connection isn’t clear, then restate what employees are being asked to do.

Manage the outcome, not the process. Set clear expectations for what success looks like, but allow people the freedom to determine how to achieve those goals.

Don’t be a chicken. Challenge the status quo and take smart risks that will advance the organization’s goals; encourage and reward others to do the same.

Find the sweet spots. Learn what people are good at and help them structure their work to play to their strengths.

Push people outside their comfort zones. Give them stretch assignments that enhance current skills and further develop their competence.

Critique with compassion. Deliver direct and candid feedback in the spirit of caring and genuine desire to help people succeed.

Treat staff like customers. Pay attention to employees; get to know them, find out what’s important to them, show appreciation and fulfill their needs.

Drive healthy interaction. Demand respect and tolerance for others; broker issues but make people responsible for working things out with one another; reward collaboration.

Model engagement. Attack your own work with enthusiasm; allow for and contribute to fun in the workplace.

Agencies need their best talent to do more with less and accept more uncertainty, and an explicit focus on employee engagement is more important than ever. Organizations that proactively develop leaders who foster this work culture will be able to fuel their talent engines to withstand the threats of a challenging economic environment and build the bench strength needed to meet and exceed mission demands.

Elaine D. Pulakos is president of the management consulting firm PDRI. Rose Mueller-Hanson is director of the firm’s Leadership and Organizational Consulting Group.

Two weeks after President Obama signed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, leaders of the Senior Executives Association have written congressional oversight leaders requesting repeal of two provisions requiring federal employees to disclose financial information, calling them “burdensome, complex and, most important, unnecessarily invasive of personal privacy.” At least one recipient has said he is willing to look at the issue more closely.

Carol A. Bonosaro, president of the Senior Executives Association, and William Bransford, SEA general counsel, on April 13 addressed their complaints to the chairmen and ranking members of the House Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees. They said some of the law’s provisions “are detrimental to career senior executives and, as we had previously warned, these intrusive requirements are already having a chilling effect on the recruitment and retention of career executives,” including those in senior-level and scientific and professional positions.

The STOCK Act seeks to clarify an ambiguity in the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act by prohibiting members of Congress and their staffs from trading on information they obtain from their work that is not available to the general public. During congressional deliberations, its scope was expanded to include some 28,000 federal executives, and SEA has been opposed to it all along.

The letters specifically cited Sections 6 of the law, which requires senior executives to file a report “not later than 30 days after receiving notification of a completed financial transaction,” and 11(b), which requires the Office of Government Ethics “to create a public database of financial disclosure reports filed by executive branch employees.” according to the SEA leaders.

“Senior executives could easily fall afoul of the rule without realizing they have done so,” the letters stated. “Many career senior executives use financial advisers or portfolio managers, because, they, like most Americans, do not have time to monitor the constant gyrations of the modern stock market. If a senior executive does use a financial adviser or portfolio manager, he or she might not get word of individual financial transactions within the 30-day window, or have the ability to receive the necessary information to make reports on individual transactions.”

The requirement for a public database, the executives warned, will violate rights to privacy and pose a risk that “supervisors within a federal agency could be subject to unwarranted personal scrutiny by their subordinates, causing tension and problems in the workplace. Many executives are concerned about the very real possibility of identity theft.”

The law also introduces new requirements for disclosure of information on spouses’ and dependent children’s finances. That information, though not planned to be made available on a public website, could be accessed by members of the public filing a request.

The executives warned that association members have expressed concern the STOCK Act will “jeopardize their ability to plan effectively for retirement.”

Few on Capitol Hill responded to inquiries as to the prospects for repeal. A House staffer noted the original House version did not include provisions covering the federal employees, and the expansion was advanced by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va. Neither would comment, nor would representatives of most lawmakers to whom the letter was addressed: Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said he “has always been concerned that some provisions applying to the Senior Executive Service may be overly broad, and he is open to closer examination of the problem.”

(Image via SeanPavonePhoto/Shutterstock.com)

ARCHIVES

Since April is officially Financial Literacy Month, the Office of Personnel Management has been providing information to help employees plan for the future. Some of the tips involve things you might have forgotten about — such as savings bonds and other Treasury securities. The savings bonds my parents and my husband’s parents gave to our two boys as they were growing up helped to pay for a significant part of their education. We weren’t sure at the time how $50 bonds that cost only $25 would ever make a difference, but their value over 20 years turned out to be thousands of dollars in college money.

Another tool that OPM is promoting this month is the Federal Ballpark E$timator. It’s designed to encourage federal employees to think about options for retirement savings so that they’ll have additional sources of income beyond government retirement benefits and Social Security.

One of those key sources is Thrift Savings Plan investments. As of March 31, the TSP had a total account balance of $313 billion — a clear indication that the 4.7 million plan participants are aware they need to save for their retirement. But it turns out that more than half those funds are invested in the superconservative government securities G Fund — if you factor in the portion of life-cycle fund investments that end up in the G Fund.

Why is the figure so high? Is the G Fund really that safe? Many people don’t realize there is a risk in relying on it to meet your retirement goals. It’s called inflation.

Another thing to remember, especially during Financial Literacy Month, is you’re not going to get investment advice from the TSP or from your federal agency. Their job is simply to make benefits available to you and explain how they work.

If you’re not comfortable making decisions about investing for the future, then you might want to hire a professional financial adviser. Here is a link to 10 questions that can help you choose a qualified financial planner.

Tammy Flanagan is the senior benefits director for the “>Federalnewsradio.com, or on WFED AM 1500 in the Washington-metro area.

Want to contribute to this story? Share your addition in comments.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Acting Public Printer Davita Vance-Cooks described as “transformational” the changes she has helped orchestrate at the Government Printing Office, offering the results as “one of many case studies in government operations in an environment of fiscal constraints, intense congressional oversight and justified public scrutiny.”

She detailed the downsizing and reprioritizing required during the current period of austerity as well as GPO’s longer term move from print to digital communications, speaking to a unit of the Association of Government Accountants on Tuesday.

Vance-Cooks, a former health care information technology executive who in January became the first female GPO leader, described its “unique organization and financial structure,” noting the agency, established in 1861, is a “mixture of blue-collar and white-collar workers” and is heavily unionized.

Its three funding sources are congressional appropriations for its own printing needs (the most well-known being the Congressional Record), a separate appropriation for salaries and overhead, and a revolving fund of earnings it brings in from entrepreneurial ventures. Those ventures include production of passport covers with computer chips for reading biometrics, agency smart cards, and general secure credentials such as those used in the Homeland Security Department’s Trusted Traveler program and to manage crowds at Obama’s presidential inauguration and 2012 Super Bowl.

In 2011, Vance-Cooks said the agency “hit a major problem, and was obviously at a crossroads, with declining revenues, rising costs and a shrinking market.” The chief financial officer said if nothing was done, GPO would have to ask Congress for a bailout by 2013.

With the public reading more online and buying fewer printed publications, revenues since 2007 had dropped by 13 percent, she said, while overhead rose by 50 percent. Congress’ session-ending 2011 continuing resolution had a severe impact — “printing is the first to go,” she said. GPO appropriations were cut by 8 percent in 2011 and 6 percent in 2012.

To “do more with less,” she said, the agency embarked on a four-pronged effort to take the existing mission of keeping the American people informed about their three branches of government and make it more specific, creating a digital platform for one-stop shopping.

GPO developed a strategic plan to serve as roadmap from 2011 to 2015, sought to bring costs under control (especially overhead), identified strategic capital investments to support its transformation, and stabilized revenues by improving customer relations and finding new market niches.

The key, Vance-Cooks stressed, was communicating to the workforce, to union leaders and management directly to make them active participants. “You can’t communicate too much with employees,” she said, citing use of an intranet, the Internet, newsletters, town hall meetings and even television monitors in elevators.

“Hard, but necessary decisions” followed, she said. Working with Congress — GPO’s most central customer — it was agreed that fewer printed copies of the Congressional Record and the Federal Register were needed given the popularity of the online versions. The print order came down by 18 percent, saving $300,000 annually, plus another $400,000 saved through cuts in printing other congressional documents, she said.

Internally, changes included holding the line on salary increases consistent with the governmentwide pay freeze; restricting inside and external hiring by requiring each recommended hire to go through executive review; and requiring all travel be justified in writing and subject to budget conditions and executive review.

“This was considered bureaucratic, but it’s highly effective,” Vance-Cooks said. GPO also restricted overtime, canceled recruitment bonuses and student loan aid; and did away with performance rewards, instead introducing “on-the-spot rewards of nominal amounts.” Managers also slashed training, put new controls on contractors and restricted credit card use.

Finally, employees were offered voluntary buyouts with the goal of trimming 15 percent of the workforce. This took careful planning, she said, and each business unit “had to prepare for individuals walking out the door” by coming up with a strategy — presented orally to groups– that would avoid a decline in service levels. “The buyouts were successful. Employees bought into it and the union and management agreed,” she said.

By Jan. 12, Vance-Cooks said, GPO had achieved 95 percent of its goal, and it is further along today. The head count of 1,900 employees is GPO’s lowest this century (it was as high as 8,000 in the past).

For the future, GPO’s transformation produced a task force on long-term strategic investments such as new markets (within the government) for certified security credentials and a task force that has implemented a crackdown on delinquent payments for services provided to other agencies. Everything has to enhance value for the customer, she said. “The days of ‘I wish we could have it,’ ‘Would be nice to have,’ are gone,” she added.

The revamped GPO has emerged with a workforce “with changed skill sets,” Vance-Cooks said, noting her fiscal 2013 budget request is for level funding. “We are now well-positioned to be effective, efficient and relevant” as the agency transforms, she said. “That’s doing more with less.”

A new audit report showing the U.S. Postal Service spent more than $717 million on unauthorized overtime pay in fiscal 2010 and 2011 comes as the Senate prepares to take up key postal reform legislation later this month.

The USPS inspector general’s audit found that field operations employees worked about 1.2 billion hours in fiscal 2010 and 1.1 billion hours in fiscal 2011. Many of those hours were unauthorized by managers and supervisors. In numerous cases, managers failed to check overtime reports.

Auditors said conditions “created opportunities for employees to receive overtime without prior approval, clock-in for work before their scheduled tour began, and clock-out after their tour ended.” Employees told auditors that they worked overtime without authorization, and their supervisors never mentioned it was needed.

“Postal Service policy states that supervisors are responsible for controlling employee access to timecards,” the report stated. “They are required to take all necessary action to restrict employees’ access to the timecards before their scheduled tour begins and make certain employees clock in and out according to their assigned schedules.”

The overtime cost USPS $294 million in fiscal 2010 and $423 million in fiscal 2011. The cash-strapped agency lost $5.1 billion in fiscal 2011. Both chambers of Congress are still working on overhauls of the Postal Service’s business model.

The main House bill, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could save about $20 billion during the next decade, includes a provision that would replace USPS leadership with a control-board like agency if the Postal Service cannot resolve its financial crisis.

“This sort of mismanagement poses questions about whether the agency can reduce costs on its own,” Ali Ahmad, a spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Government Executive, in reference to the latest IG report.

The House has not scheduled debate on the bill, but the Senate could consider its reform measure later this month.

Emily Spain, a spokeswoman for Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., a co-author of the Senate’s 21st Century Postal Reform Bill, declined to comment Tuesday on whether the audit could affect negotiations on the bill.

Spotlight On USPS

 

When a government agency or a business runs into serious financial trouble, it’s often a sign that somewhere along the way oversight fell short. The U.S. Postal Service, which lost $3.3 billion in the first quarter of fiscal 2012 alone and is arguably in the worst financial shape right now of any federal agency or major American company, is not wanting for watchdogs.

The quasi-governmental agency—which operates like a business without the benefit of appropriated funds—takes direction and advice from several bodies with different roles and often competing interests, including Congress, the Government Accountability Office, USPS inspector general, Postal Regulatory Commission and Board of Governors; USPS also must comply with the 2002  Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In addition, hundreds of other stakeholders and customers nationwide weigh in on everything from postal rates to post office closings. That’s a lot of oversight for an entity that doesn’t receive congressional appropriations.

So with all those watchful eyes, how did the Postal Service get to the brink of bankruptcy? Some of the fault lies with the popularity of email, the decline in the use of first-class mail, and the agency’s struggle to innovate in business and technology. There is the issue of flexibility. Postal Service officials, among others, argue that a lack of control over deciding everything from how to pay for employees’ benefits to the frequency of mail delivery is as much to blame as modern technology for its financial troubles.  

The Postal Service has said—albeit diplomatically to avoid ruffling too many political feathers—at least one of its overseers is partly at fault for tying its hands. “Unfortunately, while we have a mandate to operate like a business, the reality is we do not have the flexibility under current law to function as a business,” Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, said in a November 2011 speech at the National Press Club. Flexibility under current law, of course, depends on the dictates of Congress.

The 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act mandated wide-ranging agency reforms, including a controversial requirement that USPS prefund retiree health benefits at about $5 billion annually, making it the only federal agency with that obligation. “Consider this: During the worst of the downturn in mail volume—in 2008 and 2009—the operations of the Postal Service were profitable,” Donahoe said in the November speech. “Our $6.6 billion in losses were due to $7 billion of mandated retiree health benefits payments that no business would have made.” 

The Obama administration favors giving the agency more leeway in restructuring how it prefunds such benefits. Pending bills in the House and the Senate contain a number of provisions that aim to give USPS more room to maneuver and would modify employees’ pay and benefits, but many lawmakers are loath to cede too much oversight.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote an op-ed in the Dec. 18 issue of The Press Enterprise, a Riverside, Calif., newspaper, arguing the Postal Service’s problems stem from its failure to adapt to a modern business model rather than congressional mandates. “The source of these troubles is not a requirement that the Postal Service fund the health care and pension benefits that its employees rightfully earn,” Issa wrote. “The problem is not even that email has taken away the Postal Service’s business. The main problem can be summed up in one word: procrastination.” 

The House committee approved a postal reform bill in October 2011, which provides some flexibility but also retains strong oversight of the agency. For example, the legislation gives the Postal Service the option of eliminating Saturday delivery, would require postal workers to pay at least as much as other federal employees in health and life insurance premiums, and would keep pay in line with the private sector’s. The measure, however, also calls for a receivership-style authority to take over for USPS management when the Postal Service fails to pay its bills for more than 30 days.  

The Postal Service has a somewhat different take on the situation. “While there are several provisions in the bill that we agree with, the bill appears to be based on the assumption that the Postal Service’s challenges result from too little regulation,” the agency said in a June 2011 statement, referring to the legislation the Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved last fall. “The opposite is true. Our financial instability is the result of dramatic loss in volumes, coupled with restrictions imposed by Congress that have prevented the Postal Service from adequately responding to those losses in a businesslike fashion.” 

The agency, which is looking to shutter more than 200 postal facilities nationwide, plans to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs through a combination of layoffs, buyouts and early retirement packages. USPS estimates office closures and workforce downsizing will save billions of additional dollars, but politics has stymied the agency’s efforts so far, and likely will continue to do so. 

In December, USPS announced it would delay closing or consolidating any post office or mail processing facility until May 2012, saying it made its decision “in response to a request made by multiple U.S. senators.” The elections this year will further disrupt closures, with Post Office officials putting some on hold in response to state concerns about disrupting the mail-in and absentee voting. The agency also favors another cost-saving initiative—eliminating Saturday mail delivery—that some lawmakers oppose. 

Ruth Goldway, chairwoman of the Postal Regulatory Commission, doesn’t believe USPS suffers from too much oversight, but acknowledges the logistical challenges when stakeholders have differences of opinion. “We are sometimes frustrated when the Congress or the administration or the inspector general has a different position than we do, but the Postal Service is a creature of our government, so it’s bound to be more complicated,” Goldway says, citing the Postal Service’s large size in particular. The independent PRC, which USPS funds, has broad authority to review postal pricing, service performance, product development and related issues. While the Postal Service is required to report to the body, its recommendations are advisory. But they can carry a lot of weight. 

Goldway gives a hypothetical example of how intricate the web of postal recommendations and oversight can be. “It is tricky,” she says, pointing out that it’s possible for USPS to receive congressional approval on five-day mail delivery, but then receive criticism from PRC on implementation of the initiative. “USPS is given some discretion to try things out, and then we review them,” she says. 

ARCHIVES

>What are you holding on to that you need to let go of? That’s a question I ask a lot when I’m working with leaders who need to get different results. These days just about every leader needs to get different results on a continuous basis. When was the last time you even heard the phrase that “someone is resting on their laurels?” It’s an anachronism. In today’s world, the idea that a leader would rest on their laurels and still expect to be the leader is just silly. There is a constant expectation for new and better results.

To do this, leaders have to learn how to scale. You can’t scale if you’re holding on to things you need to let go of. To get the new results that are expected, you have to pick up on the things that only you can do as the leader. To create the bandwidth to do those things, you have to let go of a lot of the things you’ve been holding on to.

Here’s a simple, three step way to figure out what you need to pick up and what you need to let go of. It’s based on a Coachable Moment called “The 20/80 Analysis” from my book, “The Next Level.”

  • First, get really clear on the results that are expected. A good way to do that is to look out a year from now and ask yourself this question, “If my team and I have a totally kick-butt year, what will it look like?” Jot down the words or short phrases that describe the results in terms of such things as accomplishments, size, growth, financial metrics, customer satisfaction, the way you’re working together, etc.
  • Second, make a list of the 20% of the things you should be spending 80% of your time and attention on to achieve those results. Achieving different results requires different actions. What’s on the short list of things that you need to start spending most of your time and attention on starting now to have a reasonable shot at getting those results a year from now? Those are the things you need to pick up.
  • Third, make a list of the 20% of the things that you have been spending 80% of your time and attention on. As you make this list, put a check mark beside the things that you are an expert in. Those are the things you need to let go of. It’s practically certain that they no longer require your level of expertise. When you’re done with your list, figure out who you’re going to give the check marks to. By letting go of some of your expert items, you create the opportunity for others to grow. It’s also the only way you can scale your leadership to pick up the things that will lead to new results.

Here’s a quick example of how this works in real life. I recently had a manager in one of my workshops who went through this process and realized he needed to let go of preparing the daily news brief for the most senior execs in his organization. He had been doing that every day for several years and realized that it no longer required his expertise. By letting go of the brief and asking members of his team to pick it up, he freed up five hours a week of his time and created opportunities for them to improve their analytical and writing skills while getting more visibility in the organization.

The only way he or any other leader can scale up for new results is if their team scales up with them. You can do that by being clear about the results that are expected and then making choices about what you need to pick up and let go of to get them.

What opportunities do you have to take a fresh look at this or get started?

Executive coach Scott Eblin’s goal is to help you succeed at the next level of leadership. Throughout the week, he’ll offer his take on the leadership lessons in the news and his advice on your most pressing leadership questions. A former government executive, Scott is a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and is the author of The Next Level: What Insiders Know About Executive Success.

Want to contribute to this story? Share your addition in comments.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Powered by WordPress and Motion by 85ideas.