Out of the Loop
by Joe on 2005.11.24 05:18PM EST  |  IP:

I read a very interesting article by Karen Rutzick on govexec.com: “Nonunion employees need a voice in NSPS, observers say”

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1105/112105r1.htm

David Walker, comptroller general of the Government Accountability
Office, explained to a Senate committee that the NSPS Regulations have
provided for a means of collaboration with employee union
representatives, but there is no provision for the involvement of
individual employees in the implementation of NSPS.

An NSPS spokesperson admitted that this leaves 40 percent of the civilian employees out of the loop.

I was also very surprised to learn that the Federal Managers
Association has no official recognition with the NSPS. That could leave
the managers out of the loop with the non union civilians.

I am one of those out of the loop.

GAO made the very commendable suggestion that Implementing Issuances
should be placed on a web site allowing for 30 days of comments, and
feedback surveys should be taken for each issuance.

Prior to the release of the most current regulations there was a public
comment period allowed on the NSPS web site. I participated. I wrote in
numerous comments. They represented my own personal analysis of the
regulations and pointed out what effect the regulations would have on
the careers of the employees and the function of the NSPS. The comments
have now been deleted from the web site.

When the new regulations came out I read them from beginning to end. My
comments were largely ignored. None of them affected the regulations as
far as I could tell. I am not upset that they have been deleted from
the website because I expected that to happen so I saved copies of all
of my comments. If I remember correctly the comments themselves were
supposed to become an official part of the Congressional record. I have
no way of knowing if they did.

I do have to admit that I was disappointed when I read later in Karen
Rutzick’s article that the way NSPS plans to handle communicating with
the out of the loop people like myself is going to be a one way process.

Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England says that as far as
ongoing communication with employees is concerned information will be
passed down the chain via supervisors and through NSPS Web Sites and
printed materials.

Those of you who know what the military chain of command protocol means
may realize that if a person such as myself has a serious question
about a policy that I would then have to pursue it all the way back up
that chain of command to get it resolved if I really needed an answer.
Where I work we are already organizing ourselves along the lines of the
chain of command. This is the structure Mr. England is referring to
when he says that information will be passed down the chain.

If the effort of getting back up the chain of command did not tire or
discourage me, then the contemplation of the possibility of the rapid
administration of an adverse action (much easier and faster to
accomplish in the NSPS) taken against me for daring to question an
official policy would surely dissuade me.

If I were cynical I might suspect that the use of the chain of command
model for communicating with the out of loopers is useful to insulate
those in higher authority from problems or negative feedback, but how
can they lead effectively if no one is bold enough to tell them what
their policies are really doing?

Very few people will risk their personal careers in this kind of
process even if they see something they know is wrong and will affect
the mission. They will stand back and wait for someone else to take the
risk.

I can only hope that someone will.

When I taught high school, one of my mantras to my history classes, as they learned to write essays and research papers, was "Assume Nothing."
And even though it was true then, and remains true today as a rule of nonfiction writing, I seem to have broken it.  I’m embarrassed to say that I fell into one of Washington’s biggest flytraps: whether out of hubris or laziness, I used an acronym where an actual name would make what I said more understandable to all (and that, folks, is after all, what we’re about).  The offending usage: NSPS.
Last night I got an email asking:  what the heck is NSPS?  I was taken aback, but stopped to think about it and realized that a program geared to only two agencies could well fly under the screen of hundreds of thousands of readers. 
So, for those of you who also wondered about NSPS (the number one issue of interest on The Forum), but were too embarrassed to ask, here’s a biased primer, straight off a DOD Web site:
(http://www.cpms.osd.mil/nsps/faqs.html)

Joe has very thoughtfully raised many concerns about NSPS and the ability of managers to implement it fairly.  He suggests training is necessary.

Will training make managers, who are after all, human beings, able to implement this massive change fairly?

Why take the most unwieldy of federal departments and implement these massive changes there?

Have  you seen other instances such as the one described by Joe?

Joe challenges others to take the same risks?  Would you do that?

Will Joe have his job next week?

If you're in an affected office, let us know whether you're looking forward to NSPS and why — or vice versa…..

You make an excellent point Mr. Stier.

Managers will need the resources and training to make the new personnel systems a success.

I have been reading over the regulations for the NSPS, and I have
discovered several questionable policies. In order to understand the
origin of these policies I went back to the Public law which was
supposed to be the source of NSPS authority to clarify the policies for
me.

To my surprise I found that the policies of the NSPS that I was
trying to clarify were diametrically in opposition to the Public Law.
NSPS has policies and agendas which were neither authorized nor
intended in the Public Law. Perhaps they thought no one would read the
regulations, or Congress would not notice because Congress is busy with
other things.

But to return to the point: some of these policies which NSPS
proposes even in opposition to the Public Law will directly affect the
resources managers have to work with.

Managers are indeed caught in the middle. They are destined to
receive much of the blame for future failures through no fault of their
own.

Thanks for your comments. What you’ve
described sheds light on one of government’s biggest challenges: the
need to cultivate effective managers, and not impose management
responsibilities on people who may not be moving along a leadership
track.

It’s in agencies’ best interests to invest in developing strong leaders: our Best Places to Work
research has shown that one of the most important drivers of workplace
satisfaction and engagement is effective leadership. Federal workers
give lower marks to the performance of their immediate supervisors than
workers in the private sector do.

As the discussion continues on management reform efforts such as those
at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, I hope great
emphasis is placed on how these systems would be implemented. Managers
must receive the resources and training they need to be good leaders
and help employees perform their best.

Click on the paperclip below to listen to the inaugural segment of

THE PETERS REPORT

Suffice it to say that Charlie Peters is no computer geek.  Paper
and pen do nicely, thank you.  But that's what makes today
historic.  For today, November 15, 2005, Charles Peters posts his
first Webcast to Understanding Government: The Forum..  Join us
every week for The Peters Report, when Charlie shares his insight
into the relationship between you and your government — and just what
it will take to make it better.