Tag Archive for: Dan Gephart

By Dan Gephart, February 11, 2020

The third page of the Partnership for Public Service report released last week explicitly hinged the federal workforce’s future success on agencies’ ability to do four things:

• Collaborate internally.
• Work closely together with other agencies.
• Engage the public.
• Establish connections with stakeholders from outside government.

Unfortunately, as the Partnership’s report makes clear, those are not four areas where the federal government has a particularly strong track record.

“That’s a tall order,” said Dr. Anthony Marchese (pictured above), the author of DESIGN: An Owner’s Manual for Learning, Living, and Leading with Purpose, as he read through the report’s four recommendations.

Dr. Marchese teaches FELTG’s Leadership Training Courses. That includes the course Connecting, Collaborating, and Creating: Mastering the Art of Meaningful Relationships, which, in light of the Partnership’s report, should probably be mandatory training for all supervisors and managers. [Note: All of FELTG’s Leadership Training Courses align with the Office of Personnel Management’s Executive Core Qualifications.]

“The biggest barrier to collaboration is the absence of trust,” Marchese said. “Healthy collaboration occurs when people work together with others to achieve a common purpose or shared goal. If trust is compromised, communication/information will be limited, people will possess a level of competitive antagonism toward others across the agency which results in battles over who receives credit for successes, fighting over scarce resources, inactive listening, and the reinforcement of existing organizational silos. Leaders who focus first on how to build trust (interpersonal – among employees and supervisors and interdepartmental – across the agency) will drastically increase the likelihood of collaboration.”

If collaboration is the largest boulder holding us back, then communication is the large boulder the size of a small boulder. It’s particularly challenging for supervisors.

“A recent Harvard study revealed that two-thirds of managers are uncomfortable talking with their staff,” Marchese said. “The discomfort wasn’t over having difficult conversations, leading performance reviews, or convincing an employee to stay. Managers simply reported being uncomfortable communicating in general.”

DG: Is that why so many federal supervisors struggle to hold their poor performers accountable?

AM: Both the federal and private sectors often promote great technical experts to supervisory roles without demonstrating key behaviors that are necessary for success. Leading conversations with employees is one of the most important activities of the supervisor. Even those of us with many years of experience may feel uncomfortable having a conversation with a poor performer. But, with thoughtful preparation, there is much that can be done to increase the likelihood of a positive outcome. Two things come to mind.

First, structured conversations lead to better conversations. The second thing is that as supervisors, we need to better understand how people can change behavior or grow their expertise. It is a lot easier to tell someone, “Change X – or else” versus helping to set this poor performer up for success by understanding and using the tools of the “Performance Paradigm.” People learn differently, people are motivated differently, people require different types of reinforcement and accountability.

DG: The country is divided these days, and that divisiveness often causes problems in the workplace. What advice would you give to someone who is leading people with wildly divergent opinions and beliefs?

AM: If I had a choice between a team of like-minded members versus one filled with vastly different types of individuals, I would choose the diverse team every time. A team with “wildly divergent opinions and beliefs” requires more time and patience to lead but with a thoughtful strategy, the outcomes can be incredibly impressive. Think about a team meeting in which the leader has charged the team with the task of solving a complex problem. The team with like-minded members will frame the challenge as well as the course of action quite similarly. The meeting will produce a predictable outcome.

On the other hand, a diverse team will probably have a spirited discussion with multiple perspectives, some healthy debate, and quite possibly, reach a remarkable outcome. Leaders who find themselves leading a diverse team should seek agreement on core outcomes/results, what we call “The What,” also the easiest part. Then create a member-centric strategy that focuses on “The How.” This is where most teams fail. Consider the following:

• Openly discuss and celebrate team differences and explore implications for synergy and conflict.
• Create “rules of engagement” for working with different members (behavioral styles, strengths, personalities).
• Build Safety: Encourage members to speak up, actively listen, not go silent, and avoid multitasking (phones/laptops).
• Check-in periodically: How are we working together? What is working well? Not so well? What needs to change? Remind the group of the core outcomes/results that everyone is after.
• Conduct an end-of-project debrief. Celebrate your accomplishments and retrace the process that got you there. What did we learn from this experience?

DG: What’s the one skill keeping most managers from being effective leaders?

AM: Without any reservation, the leading skill most supervisors lack is the ability to navigate and engage a diverse workforce. There is significant evidence indicating that three-quarters of those with whom we work are different from ourselves. They process information differently. They frame success differently. They communicate and collaborate differently. They respond to conflict differently. Different isn’t better or worse. It’s just different. Unless a leader is skilled at understanding and engaging her own behavioral style and those of her employees, there is a strong likelihood that a tremendous amount of time will be spent using a trial/error approach to learning how to work together. This causes frustration, wastes time and resources, and even encourages early exits. Leaders need to know their people.

DG: An employee has just been promoted and will now be supervising her former coworkers. What advice would give you her as she prepares for her first day leading her former colleagues?

AM: First, breathe. You don’t have to have everything figured out on day one. Making the transition from individual contributor to successful supervisor takes time. The biggest pressure most new supervisors feel is self-induced. As you stand in front of the mirror, ready to head out to your first day, pause for a moment and smile. You can “do anything” but you can’t “do everything.” Your first day might feel a bit awkward. Your coworkers may be feeling the same thing, They might be asking themselves, “How is she going to act now that she is a manager?” “Will we still be friends?” “How are things going to change?” Here are some suggestions to help you have a great first day:

• Be yourself: While your office may have moved locations, your relationships still exist as they did yesterday. Talk to people. Be visible. Keep your door open.
• Listen: People are going to be curious about how things are going to change. As they inquire, let them know that you are going to spend a few weeks asking questions, getting to know the agency and its priorities, and even talking to a mentor. You want to do your homework first. Let your coworkers know that you are open to ideas.
• Read Boundaries for Leaders: Results, Relationships, and Being Ridiculously in Charge by Henry Cloud. As you read the book, conduct a self assessment. Where are your areas of strength? In what areas might you be vulnerable?
• Organize your observations/priorities. You will start to notice new things, even on Day One. Use your phone, tablet, or laptop to keep a running list of ideas. Think about organizing your thoughts into three categories: Leading Myself, Leading My Team, Leading the Agency. At the end of the week (or two), talk with your own manager about what you observed and establish priorities for the year.
• Breathe.

[email protected].

By Dan Gephart, January 7, 2020

When I first started working in the area federal employment law many years ago, I called around, looking for advice. One highly regarded and experienced attorney told me: If you need to understand anything at all about the Merit Systems Protection Board, talk to Michael Bogdanow (see photo).

I’ve been lucky enough to work with Bogdanow, MSPB’s Acting Director of Regional Operations, on a conference advisory board and to see him present many times. Whether it’s case law, procedure, or MSPB history, Bogdanow speaks with intelligence and authority, in his own unpretentious manner.

It makes sense that Bogdanow knows MSPB history. He has lived it. Not only was Bogdanow there at the agency’s inception, he actually worked for several years with the Board’s predecessor – the Civil Service Commission. The Board has faced its share of tests over its 40-plus years in existence, yet nothing like what’s happening now. It’s been three years since the Board lost its quorum, and it will soon be a whole year that the agency has gone without any Board members at all. Meanwhile, the pile of PFRs awaiting Board review continues to grow. (For more on that, be sure to read our earlier interviews with MSPB General Counsel Tristan Leavitt and James Read, Director, Policy and Evaluation.)

Bogdanow noted that Board has “always been ready to meet huge challenges.”

“Within its first three years, [the MSPB] was hit with about 11,000 appeals filed by fired striking air traffic controllers,” Bogdanow said. “And in 2013, three times that number of furlough appeals were filed as a result of sequestration. In both instances, the AJs and the Board worked almost non-stop to assure that the appeals would be decided with as little disruption to the normal workload as was possible under the circumstances.”

There is one thing that hasn’t changed over the MSPB’s long history, and that’s the myth that it’s impossible to fire a fed. That’s where we started our conversation with Bogdanow.

DG: Why do you think that myth persists that it’s impossible to terminate a federal employee, and what can be done to shatter it?

MB: You are certainly right, this is a persistent myth. One of the motivations for enacting the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was that same myth. A lot of changes were implemented in the law to put it to rest, but they did not succeed in ending it, and now more than 40 years later, the same argument endures.

However, OPM recorded a total of 29,785 executive branch employees who were removed for cause in fiscal years 2013-2017, and that number is far lower than the actual number because OPM does not track actions taken by the Postal Service, the intelligence community, and certain other agencies. During that same period, the Board decided more than 44,000 adverse action appeals, and fewer than 600 of them were reversed or mitigated.

I think that a significant part of the reason for the belief that federal employees cannot be terminated is that there are laws and regulations, as well as agency policies and procedures, that establish the system for removing employees, and to agency officials who do not use them regularly, they may seem daunting. In fact, those authorities are guides for how to take and prosecute such actions, and, if followed carefully, the process will become more obvious and yield the result the agency expects. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Board frequently sees lack of proper preparation both before agencies take an adverse action and also in prosecuting the action on appeal that contribute to the perceived difficulty of making a removal action stick. (Needless to say, we see this from both parties.) Of course, agencies must also be prepared to defend themselves against affirmative defenses appellants may bring, most frequently discrimination and whistleblower retaliation claims.

I should note that an MSPB Office of Policy & Evaluation publication in December 2016 found that rather than preponderant evidence, which is the standard required for proof of an adverse action before the Board, “90 percent of proposing officials and 84 percent of deciding officials reported that the standard they used was ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’” the standard used in criminal proceedings. Thus, management’s perceptions of the hurdles faced in taking an action actually exaggerate their difficulty. That same publication noted the three greatest perceived barriers to removal were the agency’s culture toward taking such actions, the level of support given by managers and leaders, and the quality of service provided by the human resources office, none of which is attributable to the systems created by title 5 or to the MSPB.

In short, while nothing will guarantee 100 percent success, I would suggest that better preparation, from before an action is proposed and throughout the appeal process, would help shatter the myth.

DG: Why are removals most often overturned?

MB: MSPB generates statistics on many aspects of the appeals we address, and for adverse actions and performance-based cases, that includes the number and percentage of cases reversed on procedures, on the merits, because of a finding of discrimination, and because of a prohibited personnel practice (PPP) other than discrimination. Those statistics do not break down the categories based on the specific procedural failure or the problem found with the merits of the case. Leaving aside the number of cases reversed because of discrimination or a PPP, which are relatively small, the percentage of cases reversed on procedures is consistently lower than the percentage reversed on the merits.

To me that suggests that, contrary to the view that reviewing authorities like the Board throw procedural obstacles in the way of agencies so that they lose meritorious cases on the basis of insignificant or irrelevant procedures, in fact, it is the agency’s failure to meet its burden of proof that causes most reversals. In my view, agencies’ failure to do their homework by thoroughly investigating before bringing charges and preparing their cases to make the most persuasive presentation to the Administrative Judges and the Board account for a substantial percentage of merits reversals.

Another important aspect of Board caselaw that is frequently given insufficient attention is being sure to bring the correct charge. Because the Board and courts over the years have attached significance to the words used in a charge, and have insisted that agencies prove what they claim, agencies must know that criminal charges require proof of all elements of the crime, and that certain misconduct charges require proof of the employee’s intent. The distinctions between charges such as “theft” and unauthorized possession, between “insubordination” and failure to follow instructions, “falsification” and misstatement or lack of candor, between “threats” and inappropriate conduct, all make a tremendous difference in the proof an agency must present. If an agency has not assured itself that it can prove the specific charge it brought, it is unlikely to prevail.

Is that fair? Ask the employee who may be branded a “thief” when his only misconduct was that he borrowed or had unauthorized possession of government property, or the employee tarred as being insubordinate when he simply failed to follow a supervisor’s instructions.

There is little doubt that over the years, more attorneys have become skilled at raising challenges to adverse actions taken against their clients, which has led to increasingly technical, “legalistic” arguments. Moreover, adverse actions and performance-based actions were both created by Congress, so are statutory in nature, and are reviewable at a US Court of Appeals. As a result, the parties must both be prepared to argue and respond to the due process requirements of statute in an increasingly law-based environment.

DG: Only about 5 percent of terminations are for poor performance, and the rest are for misconduct. Why is there such a disparity?

MB: If your question really is why there are so many more actions taken because of misconduct than poor performance, I’d say that’s because there’s an infinite variety of misconduct on which charges can be based, misconduct is generally pretty obvious, it can be a one-time act, and it tends to get supervisors’ attention more quickly than does poor performance. Moreover, taking an action for misconduct does not require that the agency first take a set of steps to address the misconduct.

However, if you are asking why more actions based on performance are taken under chapter 75 (“adverse actions”) than chapter 43 (“performance appraisal”), I’d venture to say that although the CSRA was intended to make it easier to take action against poor performers, agencies have not found that to be the case. Chapter 43 establishes a system, one that governs not just separating or demoting a poor performer, but also establishing performance requirements, rewarding good performance, appraising performance, and providing an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance before removing an employee. Thus, there are more preparatory steps an agency must take to be able to effect an action under chapter 43. Still, the heart of chapter 43 is found in employee performance standards, which must be written so as to inform an employee of the tasks he must perform and the specific indicia of performance he must demonstrate in order to be rated at the various levels against which he is measured.

Absent valid performance standards, an action under chapter 43 will not succeed, and because a chapter 75 action based on performance may not be sustained if the performance at issue is “governed by and meets” the performance standards, valid standards are one chapter 43 requirement that cannot be ignored. Make no mistake, writing proper, understandable, substantive performance standards is often difficult, but Congress clearly expected that such standards would be implemented for the benefit of both the employee and the agency. In return for doing all of the required preparation before an action is taken, Congress gave agencies two major advantages over chapter 75. First, their action will be sustained if they meet a lower burden of proof, substantial evidence rather than preponderance of the evidence, and second, the Board may not mitigate a chapter 43 action where the poor performance is proven.

Board cases show that not only do some agencies fail to draft sufficient performance standards, but they may also add specific requirements to the process for taking an action under chapter 43 that are not imposed by regulation or case law. For instance, while the statute and the Board require that an employee be given an “opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance” before an action is taken, neither has specified what the opportunity must consist of, how long it must be, or that training is a necessary component. Many agencies, though, add such requirements in their own policy and procedure documents.

Regardless of which of the two questions you are asking, I think the short answer is that taking an adverse action, even one based on performance, is a lot quicker, requires fewer preparatory steps, and can be accomplished even if all of the safeguards set by chapter 43 are not in place.

DG: What information could our readers learn that could make them more likely to pursue a removal for poor performance?

MB: I’m not sure that I know how to answer that question. Agencies have certainly had enough time to get comfortable with chapter 43 requirements, so suggesting that they become familiar with chapter 43 and even some of the legislative history of the CSRA that explains the reasons Congress chose to establish it might not be enough. It is, though, good management practice to comply with the requirements of chapter 43, not just for taking actions against poor performers, but also to do what 5 U.S.C. § 4302(a)(3) requires, to “use the results of performance appraisals as a basis for training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, … [and] retaining … employees.”

Agencies must have performance standards for their employees, and if those standards are valid and accurate measures, the hardest part of the chapter 43 process is already done. Providing an “opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance” as required by § 4302(b)(6), means just providing a chance for the employee to work for a reasonable period of time (which depends on the nature of the work) on his or her regular tasks so as to be able to show the ability to successfully perform those duties – or not. Therefore, the remaining parts of chapter 43 should all be straightforward, and in return, the agency will have a considerably lighter burden of proof if the employee files an appeal, and its action will be insulated from mitigation.

One other thing I would mention: I have often been asked to speak to agency groups about chapter 43, and when I ask why, since MSPB rarely sees appeals from chapter 43 actions, I’ve been told on several occasions that once an employee goes through the chapter 43 pre-action process and is unsuccessful, he recognizes that he is better off moving on to a job he is better able to perform than to fight the action.

[email protected]

By Dan Gephart, November 5, 2019

Last month, we talked with MSPB General Counsel Tristan Leavitt about the adjudicatory and other work that the 200-plus employee agency continues to do despite not having any Board members since February. It’s a few weeks later and the Board still lacks members, while the lack of a quorum has inched even closer to hitting the three-year mark.

This month, we catch up with James Read. The former chief counsel for then-Member Robbins took over as director of the agency’s Policy and Evaluation office a few years ago. Read oversees the group of psychologists, HR specialists, statisticians, and lawyers who fulfill the agency’s statutory responsibility to conduct objective, non-partisan studies of the Federal civil service and other merit systems in the Executive Branch.

DG: How have your unit’s reports been hampered by the lack of a quorum?

JR: We’ve been putting out publications in shorter form since we lost the quorum, but it’s more than just length. The official reports as described in statute go to the President and Congress and are approved by the board, and they typically contain policy recommendations. They are only issued with approval of board members. Our thinking is that to the extent we can provide useful information through research briefs, we should. They are a little lighter on recommendations, but we have been putting out publications.

We have information about sexual harassment in the federal workplace that others don’t have. We’ve been releasing some of it, but an official report is on hold. Almost everything else we’ve been trying to convert to shorter publications.

DG: How do you measure whether a report is successful?

JR: We don’t have a hard measure. We look at the audience for which a report may be intended, and see what effect it had on the audience. Some reports are for policy makers. A successful report would be one that results in change of policy. An example would be our 2014 report that talked about veterans hiring, and a DOD-specific authority that was restricting competition for jobs and had other unintended consequences. Congress took it up and changed the law — and cited our report. That’s an example of success.

Other reports, we intend as educational pieces. Some are intended for managers and new leaders to help educate them. I’ve heard of chief learning officers in agencies using our reports to design in-house training. When that happens, a report did its job.

Sometimes, reports are intended for multiple audiences at the same time. We’ll have practice pointers intended for HR and managers, footnotes and appendices intended for researchers, people trying to replicate the work in their organization. We believe it’s important to show our work, so we remain credible. We’re not just sitting here in an ivory tower contemplating. We have an empirical basis for our findings.

DG: You recently asked for input on what reports people want to see. What kind of input did you get? What reports will you be doing based on that feedback?

JR: (We received) hundreds of ideas. The last time we went out asking for ideas was 2014, so five years on we felt we needed to refresh the ideas. The timing seemed to make sense with the lack of quorum. We went out to stakeholders, unions, chief human capital officers, affinity groups, and individuals. A lot of what we got were variations on themes of what we’ve seen throughout the years: Are whistleblower protections adequate? How can we improve the hiring, classification, compensation and performance management systems? Are they due for overhauls? How does the government adapt to changing expectations of younger workers? What alternatives might there be to the Title 5 system? We’ve been vetting and refining the ideas for several weeks now. Our goal is to have a proposed agenda to present to the new chairman when he arrives.

DG: What has been the most controversial report you’ve done?

JR:  A 2015 report of how agencies use various appointing authorities and the results of the different choices agencies make caused a bit of a stir. The report found Title 5 hiring rules systematically favor men over women. We found, for example, that since the 1970s, women’s participation in general civilian labor force grew from the lower 30 percent range to almost 50 percent, but in many years the government was not even reaching 40 percent.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 states that the Government should strive to achieve a workforce representative of all segments of society. For many years now, women have been earning more bachelor’s degrees than men and they make up almost half the civilian workforce, yet under 40 percent of new hiring is women. This took people by surprise. They thought we were attacking OPM, and that was certainly not the intention. The biggest question raised by report was: What do we do about this?

One side note: We were criticized for not including VA nurses. If we had included them in the percentage of women as new hires, it would’ve been higher. But in a way, that criticism showed our point. We were looking at Title 5 hiring, and the nurses at the VA are hired under Title 38. So staying within Title 5 world, you do see a hiring system that appears to disadvantage women.

DG: Will you follow up on this report?

JR: I’d like to follow up. The last time I looked at the numbers was for FY 16 and they hadn’t budged. It’s a good area for follow-up, not a full-blown report but a dive into the statistics. It may be that to some extent women are making individual choices not to seek government employment in the same numbers as men do, so we need to study the applicant pool.

DG: The Supreme Court will rule this term on whether Title VII covers discrimination based on sexual orientation. You did a report on that a few years ago. However, that report wasn’t controversial. 

JR: There had been questions swirling for years: What’s the source of the prohibition? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? The CSRA of 1978? Something else? We looked at the history of systematic discrimination against gay employees and the gradual change of view to acceptance. Clarity regarding the legal prohibitions was needed, but MSPB had be extremely careful not to come down on one side or another because MSPB is not a policy-making body. Every year since 2000 or so, there was someone in the House who introduced a bill to amend Title VII to prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. We didn’t want to look like we were taking a side in the debate. We were expecting some backlash from the report, and we didn’t get it. The report was well-received.

DG: What other reports have had impact?

JR: There was a pair of related publications from 2015. One was a full report on due process, an official report to the President and Congress. Another report was on adverse actions. Deb (Hopkins, FELTG President) quoted from it in your newsletter recently, and that’s an illustration of its lasting power. In 2014-15, influential voices were saying “the system is broken, and you cannot fire a federal employee. Maybe we should go at-will.” It turned out that many people managing in the system didn’t understand it. They thought you needed a higher standard of proof to fire a federal employee than the law requires, and we pointed out that’s not the case. We developed an outreach program around the publications. The message I tried to deliver was managers need to understand the system and have the will to act, and the support of the agency. We don’t need to throw out rules or abandon due process.

DG: What do you see as the most significant challenge facing the civil service in the next 10 years?

JR: The relationship between Washington and local agencies needs to be recalibrated. I’m not suggesting one direction or another. Look at what happened in ’90s. OPM was cut in half in terms of its resources and authorities were delegated to the field. In the area of hiring, for example, you see the difficulties in the system. Twenty-five years ago there was the symbolic burning of the (Federal Personnel Manual). The rules and the laws upon which they were based were not repealed, however, even as OPM delegated authority to several hundreds of offices that now have the responsibility for developing sound recruitment strategies and rigorous legally compliant assessments, and then evaluating applications. That’s hard for a typical HR office to do that well; the exceptions would be the really big departments with ample resources and expertise that hire many people under same job series on a regular basis. In other words, hiring might not be susceptible to effective scaling down.

The challenge is recalibrating the model of central HR policymaking with local decision-making and execution in such a way that HR can be done better. We’ve been studying the effectiveness of the HR workforce, and are finding that there’s great dissatisfaction among managers and agency leaders on what they are getting from their HR shops. It’s not necessarily the fault of the people in HR. The dissatisfaction may stem from the challenges intrinsic to the current decentralized model.

[email protected]