In an effort to spice up Inflexion Point, Shannon Flumerfelt and I will occasionally post a point/counterpoint on a particular topic.  This is an experiment so feel free to let us know if this is entertaining or useful.  Here are Shannon’s thoughts about my prior post FedPitch - How Would You Improve Federal Workforce Management.  Take it away Shannon.

Thanks Mark.  As FedPitch gets underway and ideas from the creative platform of the public square are assessed by a panel of experts, I am not sure the best “contestant” will win.  The reason for my apprehension is that while the FedPitch venue may be useful for idea generation, a “winner” has no possible way to operationalize itself.

In looking back two decades or so, corporate America went through this type of FedPitch approach when the conceptualization of learning organizations was first understood and generally accepted via Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline.  During this time, organizations began to understand that by creating cultures where ideas flowed vertically and horizontally, worthwhile innovations might be discovered.  In turn, it became common practice for executives to flock to retreats, for consultants to facilitate brainstorming sessions and for employees to engage in participatory processes.  Peter Drucker helped leaders to understand the value in socialization and interactions that promoted the sharing of tacit information, for example.    

The problem with many of these strategies is that fundamentally organizations do not naturally have the capacity to take a good idea from thought to action, from organizational intelligence to improved performance management.  For to do so requires organizations to the following work:

• Develop shared understandings of the essential ideas embedded in the innovation,
• Take commonly accepted actions on behalf of the innovation,
• Reengineer current systems and processes to accommodate the innovation,
• Develop new standards of performance based on the innovation,
• Evaluate continuously the quality of the innovation, and
• Improve the final deliverables of the organization based on the innovation. 

I do acknowledge that events such as attending retreats, corporate brainstorming and participatory processes are valuable as cultural tinkering initiatives.  But, to create something that is truly improved, more than events are required.  Engagement in a process of improvement is required.  And that work, including the six elements listed above, are much deeper and broader than orchestrating events that remain isolated from the daily work of the organization.

FedPitch, in essence, is nothing more than a singular event.  What is needed for change is an emphasis on process improvement instead.  If the federal government is just now getting to this point of hosting a brainstorming event, my eyeballs do roll back in my head thinking of the developmental work left to do in order to bring actual value added practices forth and eliminate waste by effective employee recruiting, induction, development and retention approaches.  Fundamentally, the problem with strategies such as FedPitch, are that any new ideas, even though they may be stellar, have no chance of being integrated into the current system.  With the fanfare of great performance, such ideas, unfortunately, will be left to die in a silo, just as the audience files out and the stage lights dim. 

Organizations such as Toyota, Danaher, and many others have deliberately used a different system for innovation.  This system, known as lean, allows for idea generation from stakeholders, not unlike FedPitch.  The difference in lean applications is that new ideas are deliberately placed into an organizational learning system that can work towards performance management improvement.  Lean process and production improvement systems eliminates the problematic dynamic of brainstorming as an event and makes it a part of the culture of the organization—a process.

I fear that the current realities of the federal workforce management system are aligned with the tenets of “American Idle” and that the scattershot approach to process improvement in the FedPitch initiative will ring true to that standard.  Instead, I offer the following idea.  Require the government to engage in deliberate and systemic process improvement based on lean thinking and applications and then filter the ideas of the public square from FedPitch into a continuous improvement effort for workforce management.  It is possible for federal workforce management to sing a different tune and become an “American Idol.”

Let’s keep the conversation going.

You’ll have 120 seconds.  No slides or written materials are allowed.  Company logos and paraphernalia are prohibited.  It’s just you, five prominent judges and hundreds of audience members in a tent on the National Mall in Washington, DC.  Your goal?  Come up with an innovative idea or approach to attract, engage, motivate, lead, develop and reward the nearly 2 million members of the nation’s federal workforce.

If this sounds like fun, go to FedPitch and submit your ideas.  FedPitch is an initiative coordinated by 13L in conjunction with The Council for Excellence in Government, Young Government Leaders, The Partnership for Public Service and American University.  

I, for one, intend to promote a concept or two and see if I “make the cut”.  In terms of reality shows, this one touches us every day.  Why not lend some mind share as the federal workforce struggles to reinvigorate and reinvent itself.  Sometimes it’s helpful to stop complaining and start becoming part of the solution.

Let’s keep the conversation going. 

You are highly engaged and committed to organizational objectives. But you feel held back, like your company’s ecosystem is somehow working against you. You also wonder if your job fit and opportunities for growth are appropriately matched to your high level of personal and professional motivation.

According to a new study released by Hay Group’s Insight Research arm, this type of employee - “the frustrated employee” - represents 20% or more of the total workforce. They even captured the voice of this frustrated employee through a quote from a survey respondent:

“I need support, and my manager and his boss are not doing their best to provide it. I am inundated with work, and I end up staying here late each night. I root for the company and I think we are one of the good guys in the industry. I like my job despite this situation and I think things will change for the better eventually. But waiting for that time to come is very challenging. I’m almost ready to throw in the towel.” Hay Group Insight Employee Survey Respondent

Hay added that the finger often needs to be pointed right at the organization for their lack of support for these highly engaged but increasingly demotivated employees. They added that this is symptomatic of broader issues, including the fact that 40% of employees surveyed felt that “the amount of work expected of them is unreasonable and that stress levels in their jobs are a real problem”.

This issue may best be summed up with a quote from Thomas Britt’s 2003 Harvard Business Review Article, entitled “Black Hawk Down at Work”. In his piece, Britt explored frustration among one of the US Army’s most elite units, the Rangers.

“For these high performers, factors they can’t control—role ambiguity, inadequate resources, and overwork itself—can hinder their best work and drive them to seek jobs elsewhere. The ones who stay behind may well be the ones who just don’t care.”

Let’s keep the conversation going.

If a company put out a press release stating that they anticipate filling over 193,000 jobs in the next two years, the public would stand up and take notice. If the firm provided strong benefits, a healthy retirement package, incredible job stability, opportunities in every possible field, positions in nearly every country (not to mention space and sea), one can easily imagine long lines of well dressed applicants with stacks of freshly printed resumes. The one big drawback? Brand equity. Unfortunately, this employer has a major PR problem that is extremely difficult to overcome.

Welcome to the Federal Government.

The Partnership for Public Service (PPS), a nonprofit dedicated to Federal employment, is doing everything it can to change the negative perception surrounding Federal employment. In it’s continuing series Where the Jobs Are: Mission Critical Opportunities for America, PPS drives home the fact that virtually every agency across every occupational field has positions to fill that keep our country running. For example, over 35,000 openings exist or will exist in Security, Protection and International Relations, including:

Department of Homeland Security - 23,746 (including Intelligence Analysis, Contact Representatives, Transportation Security Officers)

Department of Justice - 5,609 (including Correctional Officers, Intelligence Analysis, Security Administration)

Department of Defense - 4,886 (including Foreign Affairs, Intelligence Analysis, International Relations, Security Administration)

Department of State - 4,395 (including Foreign Affairs Specialists, Intelligence, Public Diplomacy)

Agency for International Development - 380 (including Foreign Service, Program Management)

Department of the Interior - 261 (including Park Rangers)

Despite all these great positions, the one challenge that PPS can’t correct is the application process. Many attractive and high potential workers may elect to pass on these jobs out of sheer necessity to earn. The entire onboarding cycle for a new candidate takes upwards of 90 to 180 days, at best. For more complex positions that require background screening and security clearances, this time can more than double. It takes a very dedicated applicant to sit idle for that long, so most go ahead and take “regular” jobs or begin employment with Federal contractors. With the latter, this may mean effectively doing the same job you desire without both the positives and negatives of Uncle Sam’s paycheck.

Unless and until this issue of efficient application processing, screening and onboarding is improved, one of the most prolific employers may miss the best and brightest our country has to offer.

Let’s keep the conversation going.

This is the title of the latest study released by the Partnership for Public Service, a bipartisan non-profit organization dedicated to Federal employees and their agencies. Research was conducted by PPS in conjunction with Grant Thornton, whereby 55 interviews were conducted with Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs - pronounced “Chicos”, as in “the man”) and other key HR leaders from 28 major Federal departments and other small agencies. The findings were released this morning at a forum attended by approximately 80 public sector, private sector and media this morning here in Washington, DC (myself included).

Eight major findings came out of the study:
1) HR and human capital related issues are considered front and center in today’s Federal environment.
2) The General Schedule (GS) pay system is outdated and needs to be modified.
3) Recruiting and hiring are increasingly too difficult for agencies.
4) Performance management is improving in pockets, but has a long way to go.
5) Skills among HR personnel are lacking.
6) The demographic gap between new Federal workers and pending retirees is increasing.
7) The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the President’s Management Agenda (PMA) get mixed reviews.
The HR Lines of Business (HRLOB) initiative, whereby intergovernmental service providers offer consolidated back-office functions, is met with cautious optimism.

During the Q&A portion of the forum, a very good panel comprised of Dr. Ron Sanders (Asst Deputy Director and CHCO, Office of the Director of National Intelligence), Marta Perez (CHCO, Department of Homeland Security) and Michele Pilipovich (Director of Human Resources, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) were asked a series of questions. As an example, the panel was asked about the addressing the skills gaps among the ~20,000 HR professionals working in the Federal government. Sanders focused in three areas of need, namely “cultural anthropologist, systems architect and astrologist”, for HR needs to increasingly reflect the new world of diversity, be prepared to identify connective tissue via systems thinking, and apply foresight in planning for the future needs of the workforce and related agency goals. Perez agreed and spoke of a need for “forwardcasting”, and that the day-to-day transactional activities of HR personnel are limiting their ability to be consultative to the organization at large. Pilipovich provided a small agency perspective, adding that “mastering the basics [of Federal HR] can take years to develop”.

Although I have pages of other notes and findings, my overall impressions are that the CHCOs recognize that today’s employees have a choice and will not dedicate their life to public service. Instead, employees will “vote with their feet”, as Sanders put it, if the Federal government does not materially improve pay-for-performance, HR technology, opportunities for advancement, knowledge share/knowledge capture and service delivery. Another final note is that agencies are not only competing with the private sector for talent, but also battle one another for top candidates, leading some agencies into a perpetual backslide if they cannot find a means to circumvent current limitations to the HR offerings.

Let’s keep the conversation going.

Although it’s not garnering significant attention in the market, a significant battle has been brewing for the rights of Federal Competitive Sourcing.

Historically, federal agencies who desire to contract out the work of greater than 10 employees enter what’s known as an OMB Circular A-76 competition. In this process, the MEO - Most Efficient Organization - is deemed the victor, typically pitting an the Fed’s current workers against their commercial counterparts. Not surprisingly, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has been unhappy with this process from its inception. The administration, however, feels that competition helps improve government regardless of the victor, and sees AFGE’s push for legislative modification as counter productive. On the commercial side we see contractors and consultants who have built business units on how to conduct A-76 competitions and the cost reductions associated with these public-private partnerships.

You now know the backdrop for the cagematch. Let’s meet the players:

1) The Bush Administration - The authors of A-76, the administration was quite unhappy to find that the House intended to make significant modifications to this process in the HR 2829. Their response?

“The Administration strongly opposes language in section 738 that unnecessarily delays, complicates, and undermines the use of public-private competition in determining the most efficient performance of commercial activities. Section 738 undercuts the level playing field for public-private competition by creating uneven protest rights. It also imposes intrusive data requirements concerning the provision of fringe benefits that fail to recognize the various ways contractors effectively provide benefits to their employees and marginalizes the consideration of quality in determining the best provider for the taxpayer. On a government-wide basis, competitions conducted over the last four years are expected to produce nearly $7 billion in savings, with the majority of savings to be achieved in the next 5-7 years. The House is urged to strike this language.”

Throw against the mesh-wire with a wimper, the administration was quickly sprawled out, unconscious, as the bill overwhelmingly passed the House.

2) AFGE - Turning it’s attention to the Senate, AFGE pulled out all the stops. And as of last Friday the 13th, AFGE declared themselves victorious by issuing the following statement.

“The Senate FY08 Financial Services Appropriations Bill, like the House bill, would provide federal employees in all federal agencies with the same appeal rights long enjoyed by contractors to have botched and biased privatization decisions reviewed by independent third-parties…..[and] would also eliminate the ability of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to tell federal agency career managers how many employees and which employees to review for privatization, and when to do so. It would also require that any decision by a federal career manager to conduct an OMB Circular A-76 review be made wholly independently of OMB.”

3) The Contractors - A no show in the public eye. Although one can imagine concerted efforts behind the scenes, neither the Contract Services Association nor the National Contract Management Association issued public statements.

So, it appears that more federal jobs will remain federal jobs, and more competitions will end in protest, likely protracting the process for competitive sourcing while shrinking interest from the commercial sector. Just another day here in Washington, DC.

Let’s keep the conversation going.

In an article published by Business Process Management Today , Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) are investigating nine firms who accounted for nearly one-third of the H1-B visas offered last year. The nine firms represent either the parent or American subsidiary of some of the largest Indian outsourcers in the market, including Infosys, Wipro, Tata, Satyam and Mphasis.

Contention for the precious few H1-B work visas has increased over the years, as organizations are increasingly challenged to secure highly skilled, foreign-based employees. In fact, the volume of H1-B visa requests has overwhelmed US Citizen and Immigration Services, forcing them to release an announcement last Friday stating their data centers are in a backlog for processing.

According to the Department of Labor:

The H-1B program allows an employer to temporarily employ a foreign worker in the U.S. on a nonimmigrant basis in a specialty occupation or as a fashion model of distinguished merit and ability. A specialty occupation requires the theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or the equivalent in the specific specialty (e.g., sciences, medicine and health care, education, biotechnology, and business specialties, etc…). Current laws limit the number of foreign workers who may be issued a visa or otherwise be provided H-1B status to 65,000.

To combat the growing problem, a nonprofit organization called Compete America has lauched a campaign to change the current program and process for H1-B applicants. Regarding themselves as the “Alliance for a Competitive Workforce”, Compete America is supported by some of the largest employers and industry associations in the nation, ranging from Coke and Microsoft to SHRM and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Called into question is both the number of applications made available each year as well as the process by which applicants are selected. Implications of fraud and abuse run rampant as organizations scramble to secure these precious visas.

Let’s keep the conversation going.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) deployed its new Management Competency Assessment Tool, or MCAT, during a briefing to federal civilian agencies yesterday afternoon. In her January 25th memo to the Chief Human Capital Officers, Director Linda Springer stated:

“The MCAT is a Web-based instrument for assessing the skill levels of managers, supervisors, team leaders, and others in key leadership and performance management competencies. It allows an individual to conduct a self assessment and receive a supervisory assessment to determine competency strengths and areas for improvement. Agencies can use the results of the assessments to support their leadership competency gap analysis, succession management, and development efforts.”

According to a Government Executive article published yesterday, MCAT applies a five-level scale across twenty-eight leadership and six performance management competencies. GovExec also reports that the system is not mandatory, which is somewhat surprising given the results from the 2006 Federal Human Capital Survey which show that only 49% of respondents have a high level of respect for their organization’s senior leaders (question 36), with only 38% agreeing that their leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the workforce (question 37).

With employee attraction and retention continuing to challenge both civilian and military agencies, significant enhancements to leadership approaches, accountability and sustainability need to occur. MCAT does represent a positive development, but without required participation, OPM may not see demonstrable results for quite some time.

Let’s keep the conversation going.