14838 London Lane Bowie, MD 20715 Vice President Albert Gore buckley@tmn.com The White House Washington, DC 20500 March 11, 1994 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Subject: Rejection of "Employee Empowerment" by Federal Managers ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Keywords: National Performance Review, empowerment, quality, environmental, Dept. of Energy, radiation experiments, "stop work" authority, leadership, "reinventing government" Summary: In response to the Vice President's National Performance Review, Federal agencies are trying to shift to a culture of Quality and "Employee Empowerment." But old-style managers are resisting this shift by contradicting the directives that "empower" their subordinates; punishing those who try to assert their new authority. One example, at the Dept. of Energy, is described. By using that example, the V.P. and Energy Sec'y. O'Leary can enlighten government managers (esp. at DOE) about the broad scope of Federal and DOE orders on Quality. The response by top leadership, to the situation at DOE, must be immediate if the V.P. is to honor his "personal guarantee" to protect an employee from reprisal. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Dear Vice President Gore: Your effort to "reinvent government" will not work without a shift to "Employee Empowerment." The primary purpose of this letter is to give you an example of how government managers can (and have) quietly rejected formal directives on "Employee Empowerment." The secondary purpose of this letter is allow comparison of your response to this matter with the leadership called for in the Report of the National Performance Review. On March 3, 1993, one year ago, President Clinton began his initiative to "reinvent government" by making you responsible for the National Performance Review (NPR). Six months later, in September 1993, you delivered to him the NPR's report, "From Red Tape to Results: Creating A Government That Works Better and Costs Less." In the last six months, many people in the Federal government have been working hard to implement the 384 recommendations of the NPR Report and, also, to begin the bureaucratic culture change that is needed for sustained results. Last week at a White House press meeting, President Clinton and you celebrated the first anniversary of the NPR's creation by sharing a few stories of federal employees' successes in improving their services and, therefore, saving time and money. However, at the same time, you went on to say: (Page 2 of 11 begins) "For me, the success stories of reinvention cannot be totally captured in dollars saved or legislation passed, important as both are. For me, reinventing government is succeeding when individual public employees get the message and decide that they can do it, and take the initiative..." (source: Washington Post, 3/4/94) And that is indeed true. But even when employees do "get the message", they are very often prevented from changing the status quo by their managers who do NOT (yet) "get the message". And because it can take years and years for many managers in an organization "get the message" (and some never do), it also takes years for the organization's culture to change its way of thinking (and doing). "Changing culture is a lot harder harder than changing rules and regulations. An attitude of powerlessness and complacency pervades the federal workplace. As one veteran of many government reform initiatives observed: `Changing government is a bit like moving the town cemetery. It's much harder to deal with the feelings it arouses than with the relocation itself.'" (NPR Report, p. 66) BUT WHAT IS "THE MESSAGE"? (AND HOW DO YOU "GET" IT?) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The "message", as put forth in the NPR, is that government employees CAN be more effective and efficient if: (1) they are allowed to focus on "CUSTOMERS" (instead of rules), and (2) they are "EMPOWERED" serve those same "customers". Since the NPR Report acknowledges that "it's the people who work closest to problems who know the most about solving them" (p. 69), then it follows that they also have a relatively good idea of who their real "customers" are. Therefore, it's the second part of the NPR "message", on "Employee Empowerment", that is the larger mystery to employees (esp. managers). So how and when do employees get "empowered"? The NPR Report (p. 68) says that for employees to be truly "empowered", they need to be educated in three ways: (1) TOLD of their new decisionmaking power; (2) TRAINED to understand how "empowerment" works; and (3) SHOWN that they will have the "full backing of top management". As you know, the first two steps have been started on a broad scale. As a result of the President's and your efforts so far, government employees understand more about "empowerment" today than they did a year ago. And the formal training in "quality" to be given to each government employee will certainly enhance this understanding. This was exemplified by the Dept. of Energy (DOE) sending its top managers to Motorola University for six days last summer (NPR Report p. 90). WILL MANAGERS "GET THE MESSAGE" AFTER A WEEK OF TRAINING? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Six days of training in "quality", even at the renowned Motorola University, can not fully educate anyone about "quality". The Secretary of Energy agrees: when I asked her about "quality" training during a televised "town meeting on Quality" last year, she said that training would be ongoing; she described it as "a journey," not a destination. (Page 3 of 11 begins) So it is perfectly understandable that some top managers at DOE might not fully grasp the paradigm of "Employee Empowerment". Especially when the training that they received at Motorola University did NOT cover the most fundamental power for quality that an employee can have: the authority to stop his/her work when something is going wrong. "EMPOWERMENT" MEANS EMPLOYEES CAN "STOP WORKING" ?! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The American Society for Quality Control (ASQC), the nation's foremost organization on quality improvement, released a survey last fall that found that the one power given most often to "empowered employees" was the power to "stop work in progress to correct a problem". (See Attachment 1 on the ASQC/Gallup survey: "Teaming Up For Quality.") This situation was humorously captured in the classic episode of "I Love Lucy" where Lucy tries to box chocolates from an assembly-line that accelerates faster than she can. She tries to cope by shoving the chocolates almost everywhere but in the boxes. And although this makes for hilarious TV entertainment, it also illustrates what happens to Quality when an employee *doesn't* have the authority to "stop work." If Lucy HAD been properly "empowered", she could have stopped what she was doing, and then gone to stop the runaway assembly-line. (It'd be boring TV entertainment, but maybe a good training video on Quality.) I think we laugh at Lucy's predicament only because it is an exaggeration of a work situation that we all can identify, i.e., getting caught in busy work that we feel (or are) unable to stop to find a better way. IT'S NOT HARD TO GRASP. WHY WOULDN'T A GOOD TRAINING VIDEO BE ENOUGH? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The situation at DOE calls for more leadership than having just having managers attend training on how "stop work" contributes to Quality. The first half of the reason is because DOE has already told all its employees that they have the authority to "stop work". Here is the relevant language from Secretary of Energy's formal directive: "All [DOE] personnel should identify [substandard] items and processes. All [DOE] personnel should be encouraged by management to identify and suggest improvements. All [DOE] personnel should be granted THE FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK until effective corrective action is taken." (Emphasis added.) ----Department of Energy Order on QUALITY ASSURANCE (DOE 5700.6C) But the other half of the reason is because lower-level managers are blocking this shift in power by telling their subordinates that this "stop work" authority only applies to very rare and limited circumstances. Here is the lower-level management opinion that effectively nullifies the Secretarial Order mentioned above: "...[DOE 5700.6C] is intended to establish a process for stopping work in instances involving A RISK TO HEALTH AND SAFETY." "...[DOE 5700.6C's] stop-work provision was NOT intended to address CONCERNS...THAT DID NOT PRESENT SUCH A RISK." (Emphasis added.) --U.S. Gov't. Memorandum, April 2, 1993, from Assistant Secretary of Energy (Acting) for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (Page 4 of 11 begins) Since "a risk to safety and health" is not "presented" in the day-to-day work of 99% of DOE employees, this policy renders the DOE's Quality order on "the freedom and authority to the stop work" meaningless. And, as such, it makes "Employee Empowerment" largely meaningless, as well. The DOE official who wrote the memorandum has since left the agency, but his successor (a Clinton appointee) has not disavowed the position taken by his predecessor. Therefore, it still stands as a de-facto policy on Quality for DOE's largest program: the 30-year environmental cleanup of nuclear weapons facilities ($6.5 billion/year and 42,000 workers). About forty years ago, an employee conducting radiation experiments for DOE's predecessor agency wrote to his supervisor expressing concerns about the "Buchenwald touch" of his work. Although his memorandum went unanswered, the employee was not empowered to stop his work. The position taken in the memorandum (above) means that DOE's clean-up workers are no more empowered to "stop work" on questionable practices, today, than the radiation experimenters were in the 1940's. So far, no one thing in the DOE's clean-up program is drawing the same level of public attention as exists for DOE's "radiation experiments." It's mostly run-of-the-mill, boring "government waste" resulting, as the NPR Report noted (p. 69), from a "HQ-knows-best" mentality. But there are many DOE clean-up projects that could easily attract "ABC's Nightline" if they are not done right. Imagine hearing a DOE clean-up worker explaining (sometime in the future): "Well, I wrote a memo saying it had a `Love Canal touch' to it, but I didn't get an answer so I had to keep doing it." THE NEW PARADIGM: IS IGNORANCE AN EXCUSE FOR NOT KNOWING? (OF COURSE.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So should the new Assistant Secretary be faulted for NOT knowing that "stop work" applies to "quality" as well as "life-or-death" situations? The traditional "win-lose" mindset of Washington politics says "yes". But I don't think so, because Secretary O'Leary preaches the "win-win" paradigm espoused by author Stephen Covey. It would be very encouraging if the response to this letter reflected the NPR Report: "Along the way, we will make mistakes. Some reforms will succeed beyond our wildest dreams; others will not. As in any experimental process, we will need to monitor results and correct as we go. But we must not confuse mistakes with failure. As Tom Peters and Robert Waterman wrote in In Search of Excellence, any organization that is not making mistakes is not trying hard enough." (p. 9) "Indeed, we must let our managers and workers fail, rather than hold them up to public ridicule when they do. Only if they fail from time to time on their way to success will we be sure they are even trying to succeed. Someone once asked an old man known for his wisdom why he was so smart. "Good judgment comes from experience," he said. And experience? "Well, that comes from bad judgment." (p. 91) IT'S A REAL LEADER THAT RECOGNIZES MISTAKES AND TURNS THEM TO OPPORTUNITY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Since there haven't yet been any acknowledgements of honest "mistakes" by Federal agencies, and because the NPR Report (p. 90) describes the DOE as providing "agency leadership", DOE would maintain that distinction by not being afraid to say that its managers don't know everything about quality, (Page 5 of 11 begins) but they know more now. Secretary O'Leary has already shown that she is a leader who appreciates the value of openness and honesty. In fact, by informing DOE employees that they *already* have "stop work" authority, Secretary O'Leary would be removing a cultural barrier in DOE that currently inhibits openness. If employees know that they really can "stop work" when management ignores their concerns about quality, then employees will be more FORTHCOMING about quality problems. And if managers know that ignoring an employee's concerns about quality will justify a work stoppage, then managers will be more RESPONSIVE to those concerns. Therefore, the authority to "stop work" greatly promotes the Secretary's goal to "celebrate whistleblowing", i.e., to point out problems without fear of reprisal. (By copy of this letter, I hope that the Secretary's Steering Group on Whistleblowing will reach the same conclusion.) REQEST FOR LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The specific case at DOE exemplifies the manner in which Federal managers can (and are) subverting your message of "Employee Empowerment" as it is passed down through each level of the Federal bureaucracy. Having raised this matter to you, a top leader in "reinventing government," I respectfully request your leadership on the following issues: 1. Do you think that "Employee Empowerment" will be enhanced by the power to "stop work in progress" to correct a problem with Quality? 2. Do you think that Quality only applies to work situations involving "a risk to health and safety"? 3. When a high-level manager formally "empowers" all employees, do you think that intermediate managers have the inherent authority to take back or restrict those powers? 4. If your answers to the last two questions are "No", then will you ensure that managers and employees at DOE (and other agencies) are informed about your thoughts on these points? THERE IS AN ADDED URGENCY FOR YOUR RESPONSE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Finally, I would like to point out that there is some urgency in informing one DOE manager, in particular, about the broad application of "stop work" as dictated by the DOE's own Order. Mr. Thomas Grumbly, the (new) Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, has been given the impression by lower managers that a DOE employee's authority to "stop work" is restricted to only to work involving "a risk to safety and health." Based on that advice, he allowed a DOE employee who had cited the DOE's "stop work" authority, to be fired. If you ensure that Mr. Grumbly recognizes this misunderstanding about "stop work", then he will also realize that the fired DOE employee had indeed been authorized to "stop work" in the name of quality. And that should result in the fired DOE employee being re-hired. (Page 6 of 11 begins) "Chief executive officers -- from the White House to agency heads -- must ensure that everyone understand that power will never flow through the old channels again." (NPR Report, page 68) And if you or the Secretary of Energy DO ensure that this misunderstanding is cleared up, you both will have a wonderful example to SHOW (not and just tell) Federal employees that they really do have "the full backing of top management." That, of course, is the final step that the NPR Report says is necessary for employees to realize that they really ARE "empowered" to do quality work. More importantly, you will also be honoring your promise to protect employees who help you in the "quality revolution in government": "I give my personal guarantee and President Bill Clinton's personal guarantee that an employee of the federal government who assists us will not suffer retribution." (USA Today, p. 2B, May 25, 1993) Everything I have read about the concept of "quality" always goes back to the same message: INTEGRITY (i.e., honesty, ethics, "walking the talk", etc.). One must have personal integrity to have professional integrity (even for politicians, as the late Tip O'Neill said in his book). Being fired from a job for refusing to compromise one's professional integrity is not, by itself, "retribution." But if the firing results in financial hardship that causes the loss of his home and the breakup of his family, then it does become "retribution." In the case of the DOE worker who "got the message" but was fired last June for believing in the integrity of the DOE directive on Quality, they are only a few more weeks before he will suffer the real retribution of his firing. At that time, he will "measure the results" of the performance you have promised. PLEASE DON'T LEAVE US HANGING ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Because the overriding issue raised in this letter is relatively straight- forward, I believe it can be resolved relatively quickly. If requested, I will mail or fax the documents needed to corroborate ANY statement made in this letter. On short notice, I can also provide additional information or explanation, in person, in the Washington, D.C. area. I request a call-back from any person helping you to respond, so that they can confirm receipt and request other specifics not presented here. I can be reached at any time at H/W: (301) 464-0936. Due to the urgency of this matter, I request that you ensure a response by April 11, 1994. Respectfully, Stephen Buckley Environmental Engineer formerly with the: Office of Quality Assurance, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program, U.S. Department of Energy (HQ) (Page 7 of 11 begins) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "What a man sees depends on both upon what he looks at and also what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see." -- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (p. 113) by Thomas Kuhn "You say that it's the Institution ... well, you know: You better free your mind instead." --`Revolution' by The Beatles %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% P.S. Besides myself, many Federal employees who are attempting to "reinvent government" will be very interested in your response to these questions about "Employee Empowerment." As Moderator for the Internet discussion group on "Reinventing Government" (REGO-L), I will electronically post this letter and your response so that thousands of "reinventors" will know where you stand on this issue. The mix of REGO-L subscribers is about 50% government, 25% academia, and 25% miscellaneous (consultants, journalists, private citizens, etc.). REGO-L messages are also disseminated by the OPM's Mainstreet Bulletin Board System (BBS), the Total Quality Management BBS, and the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) computer network. I would appreciate it if an e-mail version of your response were sent to me (sbuckley@pandora.sf.ca.us). Many people at the NPR office have been very supportive of REGO-L's ability to share information about "reinventing government." (See Washington Times article, 2/14/94, attached.) All private e-mail to the Moderator is treated in confidence. ||=====\\ ||====== //====\\ //====\\ || \\ || || || || || // || || || || ||====// ||==== || ==== || || || || \\ || || || || || ||===\ //==\\ ==||== || \\ || || || || || || | ||____| || || \\ || || || || || || | || || || \\ ||====== \\====// \\====// || | \\==// \\== (SM) The `Reinventing Government' Information Network ********************************************************************** To add your name to the REGO-L e-mailing list, send this text: subscribe REGO-L yourname to: Listserv@Pandora.SF.CA.us ********************************************************************** (Page 8 of 11 begins) Copy to: ======== Elaine Kamarck, Ofc. of the Vice Pres., The White House, Wash. DC 20500 Bob Stone, Head, National Performance Review 750 17th St. NW (Suite 200), Washington, DC 20006 Michele Hunt, Director, Federal Quality Institute (OPM) 401 F St. NW (Suite 331), Washington, DC 20001 President's Management Council, and the National Partnership Council c/o Christine Varney, Sec'y. to the Cabinet, White House, Wash. DC 20500 U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC 20585 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of Energy (S-1) Rich Rosenzweig, Chief of Staff (S-1) Dan Reicher, Environmental Counselor (S-1) William White, Deputy Secretary (S-2) Charles Curtis, Undersecretary (S-3) Thomas Grumbly, Asst. Secretary of Energy for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM-1) Nancy Weidenfeller, Director, Office of Quality Management (HR-9) The Secretary's Steering Group for Whistleblowing (c/o S.Schneider, FM-70) Mark McDonough, Ofc. of Asst. Inspector General for Investigations (IG-26) Heather Stockwell, Office of Epidemiology and Health Surveillance (EH-42) Frank Hawkins, Head, Nuclear Safety Policy Division (EH-62) Jan Marfyak, Chief Steward, National Treasury Employees Union (PO-9) Other ~~~~~ John Ryan, American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) P.O. Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005 Jerry Moch, Instructor, Motorola University 1295 East Algonquin Rd., Schaumburg, IL 60196-1097 Nicolas Turner, Saturn Corporation (Eastern Div.) 231 Choptank Road, Stafford, VA 22554 Mike Hunter, Covey Leadership Center (National Capital Area) 8000 Towers Crescent Dr. (#1350), Vienna, VA 22182 "Reinventing Government" Mailing List (Internet: REGO-L@pandora.sf.ca.us) (Page 9 of 11 begins) Attachment 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Total Quality Newsletter, January 1994 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SURVEY: GROUNDSWELL OF SUPPORT FOR EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT An ASQC/Gallup survey indicates a groundswell of support for employee involvement that is gaining momentum. Results were based on 693 workers identified as team participants. Some 74 percent answered yes when asked if they had ever been involved in making decisions about significant aspects of their jobs. In 1990, only 66 percent of respondents answered yes. A suprising 83 percent felt empowered to stop work in progress to make something right for the customer. And, 79 percent felt quite secure in their ability to take actions on behalf of customers without adverse reaction from their superiors. ACTIONS THAT EMPLOYEES FEEL EMPOWERED TO TAKE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stop work in progress..................83% Intervene on a customer's behalf.......81% Make exceptions to procedures..........61% Rework product/service.................61% Replace merchandise....................37% Refund money / authorize credit........26% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% To obtain a copy of the ASQC/Gallup survey, "Teaming Up for Quality: Employee Attitudes on Teamwork, Empowerment, and Quality Improvement" call 1-800-248-1946 and ask for Item T732 ($35 for ASQC members; $45 for others) (Page 10 of 11 begins) Attachment 2 The Washington Times FEDERAL REPORT, 2/14/94 "Shy Policy Wonks Scan Network for Reinvention Thrills" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by Greg Pierce The campaign to reinvent government has leaped into cyberspace. A former Energy Department employee has created an electronic meeting place for brainy people --some might call them policy wonks-- who like to curl up with their personal computers on a cold night and ponder, say, the latest breakthrough at a Forest Service "reinvention lab." It's called the `Reinventing Government' Information Network, better known as Rego Net. "I knew there were a lot of people like myself... who couldn't keep up with what was going on," said Steve Buckley, who runs the network from an unfinished bathroom in the basement of his Bowie home. The free service went on-line in October, and the number of "subscribers" has soared to almost 500, Mr. Buckley said. Most of these people live outside Washington and are part of what Mr. Buckley calls "the 1 percent" of Americans utterly fascinated and excited by Vice President Gore's National Performance Review -- mostly academics and government workers. Mr. Buckley, as moderator, culls the latest news from government computer networks and other sources and stores them in his corner of the Internet, the "network of networks" available to computer buffs across the globe. Likewise, subscribers send news of the revolution from their outposts. On a recent day, Mr. Buckley received this message from an Agriculture Department employee in Fort Collins, Colo.: "I consider myself and my group raging converts to the reinvention cause, yet we're frustrated due to a lack of true NEWS on electronic sources of reinvention info. Most, if not all sources, seem long on people waxing philosophic, and short on tangible results that others can latch onto and use. "We hear on and on about the grand and glorious concept of reinvention -- followed by which task force is formed here, and what being reviewed there -- yet results are few and far between." Mr. Buckley's correspondent went on to list two "success stories" from his reinvention lab at the Center for Animal Health Monitoring: contracting out bulk-mail services, saving $6,000 to $8,000 a year, and accepting travel payments from outside groups who seek their help. "We got pretty excited when we received our `first dollar' in the mail (and thought about framing the check)," the USDA employee said of the latter reform. (Page 11 of 11 begins) "Does anyone else share such stories? This is what we crave... Again, thanks for your efforts in linking this up and fueling the excitement." Rego Net user Gordon Kingsley, a 36-year-old doctoral student in public administration at Syracuse University, said, "It's kind of a funny group." The people who use the network are kind of shy," he said. It's definitely "not a chit-chat line." However, Mr. Kingsley, who is in Washington working on his dissertation, praises the network as a learning tool. "It's not only an information source, but it's an information source for people I have contact with," he said. The Vice President's Office of National Performance Review has "set up house" on Metanet, Mr. Buckley said, but it costs $20 "to join the club." Another NPR computer conference is called Net Results, and Mr. Buckley also picks up tidbits from OPM Mainstreet, a computer service of the Office of Personnel Management. "People say they are getting information they're not getting anywhere else, and they are grateful for it," Mr. Buckley said. Rego Net messages actually go to a computer in San Francisco (those with e-mail capability can write to sbuckley@pandora.SF.CA.US). The president of Pandora Systems, an on-line service based in that city, provides access free of charge "because he thought it was a neat thing," said Mr. Buckley, who lost his job as an internal auditor at the Energy Department. He would like to return to the department, but in the meantime there's plenty to discover -- about reinventing government. "I'm trying to heat things up," he said. (end of article) (end of letter)