Tag Archive: management


Progressive Discipline

 

Even when the standards for performance and behavior on the job are clearly communicated, most managers find themselves dealing with a problem employee at some point in their career. Dismissal might seem like the quickest and easiest solution when an employee’s actions disrupt the office. But a disciplinary plan that sets goals for improvement and consequences for failure can protect employees and managers alike.

Progressive discipline is one process for dealing with poor performance or misconduct that features increasingly formal efforts to provide feedback to the employee so that he or she can correct the problem. 

Human resources consultant Susan M. Heathfield stresses “the process of progressive discipline is not intended as a punishment for an employee, but to assist the employee to overcome performance problems and satisfy job expectations.” Progressive discipline is most successful when it allows the employee to become a productive member of the organization, she says. 

In the private sector, the progressive discipline system includes the following steps for managers:

  •  Talk with the employee to ensure he or she understands job requirements and expectations.
  •  Find out whether there are any issues that could be contributing to poor performance. Brainstorm how you can help the employee tackle those issues.
  •  Verbally reprimand the employee— in private—if poor performance continues to be an issue.
  •  Present a written warning to the employee and file it with the appropriate individuals in the human resources or legal department.
  •  Suspend the employee for as many as five days, depending on the severity of the infraction.

The Office of Personnel Management’s Handbook on Dealing With Workplace Violence lays out an example of how progressive discipline can work in federal offices. First, OPM advises managers to discuss potential disciplinary actions with employee relations staff, and the Office of General Counsel if necessary. If an employee’s misconduct does not endanger fellow employees or disrupt the office, then managers should apply progressive discipline before considering official adverse actions. The sequence could start with a reprimand and lead to a warning and then suspension or alternative disciplinary measures as needed. As OPM notes in its guidance, “lesser disciplinary actions involve considerably fewer procedures than the adverse actions listed below.”

Managers who find an official adverse action necessary must be familiar with the attendant laws and regulations. An adverse action can be taken only for conduct that would hamper the agency’s operations. When an adverse action is proposed, the employee is entitled to 30 days’ advanced written notice. A lesser, seven-day notice period is allowed if the agency has “reasonable cause” to believe that the employee has committed a crime and faces imprisonment. 

The written notice must provide reasons for the proposed action. Then the agency must give the employee time to respond and consider the employee’s response. When a final decision is made, the employee must be notified again. If the agency decides to take the proposed action, then the employee must be advised of his or her appeal rights. 

Progressive discipline is win-win for employees, who deserve to be given the chance to rise to expectations, and for managers, who deserve to be protected and supported for firing an employee when it’s warranted. 

Elizabeth Newell covered management, human resources and contracting at Government Executive for three years.

Fifty-four senior executives were honored Thursday with the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award.

Together, the top civil servants have saved the government more than $36 billion, according to a review of their accomplishments by the Senior Executives Association.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Agriculture Department received the most awards, with five awardees each.

Small Business Administration director Karen Mills was set to give remarks at the banquet celebrating the awardees, and several agency leaders, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Office of Management and Personnel Director John Berry, planned to attend.

This year’s winners provided legal advice to Treasury Department officials as they crafted legislation to address the banking crisis of 2008, helped coordinate the U.S. response to the earthquake in Haiti, formulated programs for toxic vehicle emissions, protected endangered animals after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, provided the analysis to intercept a decaying satellite in orbit, and accomplished many other achievements.

Distinguished Rank recipients receive a lump-sum payment equal to 35 percent of their annual basic pay and a framed certificate signed by the president, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

The president has honored top feds with rank awards every year since 1978, when the Senior Executive Service was established.

Click here for a complete list of winners.

Fifty-four senior executives were honored Thursday with the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award.

Together, the top civil servants have saved the government more than $36 billion, according to a review of their accomplishments by the Senior Executives Association.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Agriculture Department received the most awards, with five awardees each.

Small Business Administration director Karen Mills was set to give remarks at the banquet celebrating the awardees, and several agency leaders, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Office of Management and Personnel Director John Berry, planned to attend.

This year’s winners provided legal advice to Treasury Department officials as they crafted legislation to address the banking crisis of 2008, helped coordinate the U.S. response to the earthquake in Haiti, formulated programs for toxic vehicle emissions, protected endangered animals after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, provided the analysis to intercept a decaying satellite in orbit, and accomplished many other achievements.

Distinguished Rank recipients receive a lump-sum payment equal to 35 percent of their annual basic pay and a framed certificate signed by the president, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

The president has honored top feds with rank awards every year since 1978, when the Senior Executive Service was established.

Click here for a complete list of winners.

The Senate passed sweeping U.S. Postal Service reform legislation by a 62-37 vote Wednesday, after months of debate and procedural halts on the measure.

The legislation (S. 1789) allows the agency to offer buyout and early retirement incentives to 100,000 employees; switches to five-day delivery if officials cannot come up with other cost savings within two years; and restructures a requirement that the Postal Service prefund its retirement health benefits with more than $5 billion annually. It would 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. It also expands the alternatives USPS must consider before closing a post office.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a previous version of the bill would cost the government $6.3 billion in the next 10 years, a figure USPS has disputed.

New amendments passed into the bill this week scale back workers’ compensation benefits, curtail USPS executive compensation to a level on par with Cabinet secretaries and addresses the backlog of USPS retirement claims at the Office of Personnel Management.

Labor unions were particularly displeased with the inclusion of the workers compensation provision. The measure, first introduced by S. 1789 co-sponsor Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, would give workers injured on the job 50 percent of their pre-disability pay upon reaching retirement age. Under current law, employees disabled on the job can get up to 75 percent of their basic salaries tax-free, plus medical-related expenses. About half the federal employees who currently receive workers’ comp are postal workers.

The proposal was included in the final bill after an amendment to eliminate it, introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, failed 46-53.

“The Senate has missed an opportunity to make real and positive changes in a program designed to assist dedicated federal workers injured in their duties,” National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley said in a statement.

The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association released a similar statement on the workers’ compensation changes included in the bill.

An amendment introduced late Wednesday by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., however, establishes workers’ compensation for government employees injured by acts of terrorism or in zones of armed conflict.

A provision proposed by Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.V., calling for a new health program for USPS that would give employees benefits comparable to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, passed unanimously. The Postal Service and many lawmakers have previously disagreed on how to structure a new health plan for USPS employees.

Amendments that failed to make it into the bill included a prohibition on collective bargaining for USPS employees and one that would have required eligible employees to retire without buyout incentives.

The bill now will move to the House, where Republicans support reducing delivery from six to five days a week without the two-year waiting period and want to establish a panel similar to the Defense Department’s Base Closure and Realignment Commission to make decisions about closings and finances.

USPS’ moratorium on facility closures expires May 15; another amendment added to the Senate measure Wednesday would require the agency to wait to close those facilities until after a final postal reform bill is passed into law. More than 200 facilities nationwide are slated for closure.

Leaders of agencies garnered low ratings from federal employees on an array of job satisfaction issues in the latest “snapshot” of the ongoing Best Places to Work in the Federal Government survey by the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.

Leadership effectiveness scored only 54 points of a possible 100 in the Federal Leadership Challenge study set for release Thursday and based on data from the Office of Personnel Management’s 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.

Senior leaders received lower rankings than front-line supervisors on such issues as the “ability to generate worker motivation and commitment; encourage integrity; manage people fairly; and promote professional development, creativity and empowerment,” the study said. Senior leaders are “the heads of agencies, departments and their senior management teams.”

But on the upside, the ratings for leadership effectiveness have been trending upward since the study began in 2003, and tangible efforts to improve employee engagement have shown some success.

Still, only 46.3 percent of federal employees governmentwide said they felt personal empowerment with respect to work processes. And 50.7 percent were satisfied with their involvement in decisions that affect their job. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ranked No. 1 in leadership, followed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and NASA. The Homeland Security Department came in last among large agencies, according to the study, done with support from Deloitte and Hay Group.

The success story the study highlighted is the U.S. Mint, part of the Treasury Department. After years at the bottom of the rankings in employee satisfaction and commitment, the Mint’s score in 2011 rose to 68.5 of 100, up from 56.5 in 2010 — a 21.2 percent gain. In a ranking of agency subcomponents, the Mint also jumped from 201st of 224 in 2010 to 57th of 240 subcomponents in 2011. “Executives from the Mint said they have been empowering employees and giving them greater flexibility to do their jobs,” the analysts said. “They have held regular town hall meetings, and visited all of the Mint’s facilities outside Washington, D.C., to hear and respond to employee concerns.”

The study also noted that federal workers are less satisfied than their private sector counterparts in the information they receive about goings on in the organization. In the closest comparable survey question, nongovernment employees scored 14 points higher. “In the private sector, employees rate leaders higher on communication, have more positive views of their supervisors, feel more empowered and may feel more motivated by leaders than their counterparts in the federal government,” the study said.

“Federal employees are struggling with feeling empowered in their work and roughly half do not hold favorable views of their agency’s leaders,” the analysts concluded. “The low scores given to senior leaders in government, and at particular agencies, should be a call to action.”

Telework Data and Defense

The abundance of new studies make it hard to argue that telework isn’t the “it” thing in workplace innovation. Federal telework policies enable savings for employees, their managers and taxpayers. About 120,000 federal workers telework regularly, and many say that number should continue to rise.

But, as with many attempts at change in government, there are obstacles: Changing culture to accept frequent telework and quantifying progress in implementing the initiatives are key among agency challenges.

On the latter point, the Government Accountability Office just released some not-so-good news: the Office of Personnel Management’s data isn’t all that reliable and could use some streamlining for easier agency-to-agency and year-to-year comparisons.

Lawmakers passed a bill in 2010 designed to make telework more prevalent in government. The legislation required OPM to assemble an interagency telework measurement group consisting of officials from several agencies all working to revise data on telework and to define key terms such as “telework,” “employee” and “eligibility,” to promote a common reporting methodology.

But then, backed by the new guidance, OPM changed the requirements in its call for data from agencies, so now it’s going to be difficult to compare 2011 telework data with other years — especially the 2012 data slated to be delivered to Congress in June — and across agencies.

“OPM officials have noted that this could limit OPM’s ability to report agency progress in its first report to Congress,” GAO said.

The difficulties of streamlining the reports are due to agencies collecting telework data with different methods: Some use the systems from the 2011 call for data rather than the updated, revised methods. Agencies’ data collection methods also vary in their reliability. Methods involve relying on estimates, counting telework agreements, and using automated time and attendance records.

OPM officials said they changed and modified the terminology and the period during which telework data was requested. “But if OPM reports progress based on data collected using changing terminology and from different time periods, the agency may reach erroneous conclusions,” GAO pointed out.

For example, GAO described two data call trainings that might not have specified the same reporting instructions — “while some of the information provided at the two training sessions was similar, each session contained some new information, usually in response to questions raised at a previous session.”

The watchdog requested OPM submit a report on its data collection limitations. OPM agreed it should aim to improve its telework data collection methods and provide more information to agencies about the effects of these changes.

In response to the report, OPM pledged to hold frequent information meetings with telework managing officers and other officials.

Defense Defends Telework

The Defense Department announced a new telework policy for its civilians Friday.

The policy requires the heads of Pentagon components to promote telework by removing “artificial barriers” to the program. It requires the department to authorize the practice for the maximum number of positions without compromising mission readiness, according to a statement from the department.

“Telework is a powerful tool, one that helps DoD maximize the agility it needs to operate in all kinds of conditions, while promoting workforce efficiency and quality of life,” Paige Hinkle-Bowles, deputy assistant secretary of defense for civilian personnel policy said.

ARCHIVES

Why is this man smiling? Jeff Neely, the Western Region director of the General Services Administration, is probably asking himself this question. In case you haven’t heard, Neely invoked the Fifth Amendment when he was called before Congress this week to explain why he approved $823,000 in expenses for a GSA management retreat at a Las Vegas casino and resort.

This cheesy photo was taken by Neely’s wife on one of his five government-paid recon trips to Vegas to scope things out before the retreat. She then posted the picture on her Google Plus account. Seriously. (Hat tip to my friends at Government Executive who shared the snap after it was unearthed by ABC News.)

The GSA scandal story has taken off, I think, because most of us cannot believe that any federal manager would approve a budget that included $8,000 for a mind reader, $75,000 for a bicycle building team building exercise and $44 a person breakfasts. Oh, yeah, let’s not forget the $6,000 for commemorative coins and the $8,000 for participant “yearbooks.” (There are recaps of all this everywhere, including the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg BusinessWeek and The Washington Post.)

Maybe I just fell off the turnip truck, but I can’t believe it myself because I know of federal agencies that aren’t even providing free bottles of water or coffee during training events. Honestly, I can’t think of any of my private sector clients that spend the kind of money that Jeff Neely authorized. In a post-meltdown world, it’s just not good form.

So, I won’t venture to psychoanalyze Neely’s motivations in engineering this mess, but I can think of three questions that any leader – public sector or private – should ask themselves before authorizing a mega-bucks budget.

  • Would I spend my own money this way? This seems like a pretty good place to start. Would you go on five planning trips (and authorize three more) if you had to pay out of your own pocket? Would you stay in a $500 to $1,200 a night hotel suite for multiple nights if it was coming out of your wallet? If the answer is no, that’s a warning sign.
  • Am I trying to hide it? Neely must have had some warning signs of his own in planning the meeting. It’s reported that he asked a GSA lawyer to give an opinion on the $75K bike building session but to not write it down because it might “become discoverable.” If that little voice inside your head says, “Let’s make sure we hide this,” that’s a pretty good indication that you shouldn’t do it.
  • What’s my point of reference? It’s been widely reported that Neely directed his staff to make the Vegas meeting “over the top.” In the process, the budget ballooned from $300,000 to over $800,000. Seriously, dude — over the top compared to what? Compared to what other federal agencies do for their management conferences? Compared to what Goldman Sachs does for theirs? Compared to what most people on Planet Earth would find acceptable? Making sound decisions about spending other people’s money requires a point of reference that is grounded in reality.

What other questions should Jeff Neely have asked himself? What’s your take on this story?

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.

Welcoming Wellness

In its most recent annual performance report, the Office of Personnel Management touted the federal government’s renewed commitment to cultivating happy, healthy employees. By the end of fiscal 2011, agencies had kicked off comprehensive wellness programs with the goal of attracting 75 percent participation rates within five years, and OPM had started assessing wellness initiatives to see where there was room for improvement. 

Why should even couch potatoes care about improving and expanding such programs? They lower health care costs, boost worker productivity and make it easier to attract talent, OPM says. 

If the inherent benefits of happy, healthy employees have not yet motivated you to make work-site wellness a priority, then perhaps OPM’s more intense focus on the initiative will give you the push you need. Managers play a crucial role not only in developing and implementing these programs, but also in ensuring they are adopted rather than stigmatized. 

A manager’s reaction to employees’ decisions to spend their lunch breaks at the workplace gym or to take advantage of free screening programs could help determine whether they stay active or leave the benefits unused. The same goes for changes like using a balance ball instead of a desk chair or organizing an office support team for employees who want to quit smoking. Culture has a tremendous impact on the success of wellness initiatives and managers, in turn, have a tremendous influence over culture.

Stress management is another key component of employee wellness, and managers have the power to significantly reduce employees’ anxiety levels.

Organizational psychologists Cary Cooper and Susan Cartwright developed the ASSET Model framework for workplace well-being, now owned by Robertson Cooper Ltd. Employee Wellness Magazine called ASSET “ideal for managers to identify the sources of workplace pressure which they need to actively manage.” It describes six factors that affect workplace happiness: 

- Resources and communication

- Control

- Balanced workload

- Job security and change

- Work relationships 

- Job conditions

While managers do not, of course, have complete control over all these areas, they might have more influence than they think. They can, for example, make sure they base tough decisions on information readily available to their employees so that their choices don’t seem arbitrary. They can allow experienced and insightful employees to get more involved in structuring or planning projects. They can ensure that, even during busy or challenging times, their employees have a reasonable workload aligned with the priorities of the office. 

In addition, managers can handle organizational changes in ways that make employees feel secure. Policy or leadership changes should be well-communicated and employees should be given enough information and training to meet new goals and expectations. 

Fostering employees’ psychological and physical well-being can pay off by heightening their sense of purpose and making them feel better about themselves and their accomplishments. Individual employees will be more productive, motivated, engaged and committed. Your organization is likely to thrive, too, with better attendance, higher retention rates, stronger recruitment records and greater satisfaction with services. 

Elizabeth Newell covered management, human resources and contracting at Government Executive for three years.

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.

The Customs and Border Protection agency racked up more than $62 million in workers’ compensation payments in 2010, due partly to inadequate oversight, according to the Homeland Security Department’s inspector general.

CBP’s poor management of compensation case files, incomplete reviews of bills and Labor Department reports, and missing documentation from claimants call into question the accuracy of millions of dollars in workers’ comp claims during the past five years, the IG concluded in a new report.

“We attribute these deficiencies to CBP’s organizational structure, which may not be suited to effectively manage the number of [Federal Employees’ Compensation Act] cases, and to the lack of policies and procedures that would ensure effective case management,” the IG report said.

FECA provides compensation for wage loss and medical care for those injured or killed on the job, helps employees return to work, and pays benefits to survivors. It covers 2.7 million federal employees and postal workers, and paid out $1.9 billion in wage-loss compensation, impairment and death benefits, and $898 million in medical and rehabilitation services and supplies during the 2010 chargeback year, which ended on June 30, 2010. The funds come from the Employees’ Compensation Fund, and most agencies repay the money through chargeback bills from Labor.

The IG cited specific cases in which CBP failed to properly oversee its workers’ comp program, at taxpayers’ expense. For example, in the agency’s 2009 chargeback bill, there were 110 instances in which the claimants’ Social Security numbers did not match CBP’s records. In addition, one claimant received workers’ compensation totaling $45,581 over two years — after the employee returned to work.

CBP lacked a uniform system for managing cases, using paper and electronic files in documentation, and housing the information in various locations. In its response to the IG report, the agency said it is moving completely to a Web-based system by 2014, and has filed claims electronically in its eComp system since 2009. CBP officials agreed with all the IG’s recommendations for improving oversight of the workers’ comp program.

The agency also has beefed up its review system, James Tomsheck, CBP’s assistant commissioner in the Office of Internal Affairs, said in response to the report. CBP has recouped $3.4 million from other DHS agencies for erroneous 2009 workers’ comp charges and has corrected mistakes related to Social Security numbers, he added. The agency also is developing a plan, to be completed this month, to review all disability cases where medical evidence indicates that employees could return to work. In 15 of 140 case files the IG reviewed, medical reports showed that the employees’ doctors had cleared them to return to work, yet CBP paid those employees $951,195 in workers’ comp.

The IG recommended CBP conduct a workload analysis to ensure it has sufficient staff to effectively manage FECA cases. A 2007 change in policy resulted in 14 injury compensation specialists responsible for managing 11,299 compensation cases on the 2010 chargeback bill — an average of 802 cases per specialist. CBP plans to complete an assessment this summer of its workload and staff to improve claims processing.

Many agencies have struggled with effectively managing the federal workers’ compensation program. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office released a report concluding that the program remains vulnerable to fraud, mostly due to limited access to data.

Under FECA, employees disabled on the job can receive 66 2/3 percent — or 75 percent for those with dependents — of their basic salary tax-free, plus medical-related expenses. The 66 2/3 percent rate is comparable to most state systems, but many federal recipients, including those past retirement age, receive the 75 percent compensation rate. Claimants cannot receive FECA benefits and certain other federal disability or retirement benefits at the same time; they must have benefits reduced to eliminate any duplicate payments. There is no age limit for receiving FECA benefits.

Many have criticized FECA, saying it is too generous and should be reformed so that employees receive lower benefits and return to work faster. The 1916 law has not been amended since 1974.

The House in November 2011 passed legislation that aims to provide greater support for some feds injured on the job and to make the workers’ compensation program more accountable. On the Senate side, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a postal reform bill — also in November — that includes provisions related to FECA. One measure, taken from legislation that Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, introduced in February, would convert employees on workers’ compensation to the appropriate retirement system when they reach retirement age. It also would set the maximum compensation rate at 66 2/3 percent in most instances.

Powered by WordPress and Motion by 85ideas.