Deja vu, Part 2 - or, How to Avoid Serial Stupidity
Monday, October 19, 2009
First things first: Sincere thanks to the many of you who took the time to share your thoughts on the coming changes to the federal LR community. I can't honestly opine that they were always pretty thoughts, but hey, some dialogue—at least the kind that restricts itself to words—is preferable to none at all.
Second, I apologize for the link to an out-of-date version of the E.O. That was on me. I failed to provide the most recent version of the E.O. (10/1/09, I believe) to FedSmith for linking—thereby putting them on the spot, and me in the corner sporting a dunce hat.
I promise I'll do better after my blogging PIP. Honest.
Now then, on to the Main Event.
The first Part of this series delved into a review of lessons learned the hard way during Partnership I, and some general recommendations on what needed to be recognized before setting out on the second journey around this track—at least if we expect to achieve better results.
It concluded with a promise to sharpen the focus a bit this time with a look at specifically how the parties could avoid being caught in a replay loop.
I think meeting that objective essentially involves a two-step process. First up, in my never-all-that-humble-opinion (NATHO), is getting into the open a clear-eyed, non-flinching recognition of what went wrong the last time around. I have my own list of candidates, but will ask that you supplement the list with any you feel have been left out—as well as comment on the ones I come up with.
The second step—but the third article in this series, just to keep the numbers as confusing as possible for former English majors—will focus on specific steps the parties might consider to put this iteration on the right track.
So what went wrong?
Well, as Phil Varnak, who posted an excellent earlier article on this site pointed out, not all partnership efforts failed (Labor Management Partnerships and Co-Management). Some apparently worked quite well, and continue to flourish to this day—thereby making Take Two rather pointless for them.
Not having seen these success stories up close, I'm can't say what made them fly while most others flopped—but will look to Phil to help out with that.
What I did see close up was lots of crashing and burning—or, to be more accurate, lots of never getting off the ground in the first place. Why? Here are my six top candidates:
1. Failure to identify the overall goal. Was it to enhance productivity, to reduce conflict, to make union officials happy, all of the above, or what? My impression is that partnership was somehow supposed to accomplish all of that, but exactly how got left out of the plan.
Rather like our recent misadventures in Iraq, our fearless leaders declared "mission accomplished" a bit early; i.e., roughly 3 nanoseconds after cranking out the E.O. But they failed to mention what the precise objective was, how agencies were supposed to get there, or what methods and/or costs were acceptable. Come to think of it, sounds rather congressional in modus operandi, doesn't it?
2. Failure to identify how, exactly, partnership was supposed to fit with statutory rights and obligations. The resulting confusion led quickly to hard feelings when some parties' felt they'd been short-changed, while others felt they'd been gamed into multiple rounds in the negotiation ring. Both may have been right.
3. Dependence on parties ignoring significant statutory rights and responsibilities. Some agencies went so far as to exclude anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Statute from the management side of the table, lest they bring up inconvenient facts that might preclude some of the more over-the-top ideas. Unfortunately, planned ignorance is not a sustainable strategy.
4. Failure to take into account human nature. As illustrated in many of the comments on the previous article, differences and feelings run deep. They are not magically forgotten when someone mandates a coke all around and the bilateral singing of Kumbaya.
Moreover, the powers-that-were ignored completely the inevitable over-reaching that occurs when one party figures it has the upper hand for the moment, and feels it is entitled to get more than even.
It was a serious oversight, and the unwise provisions that soon appeared in agreements and, in some cases, workplace behavior did nothing to create partnership. What it did create was a powerful urge to toss the whole deal—baby, bathwater, tub and plumbing—out at the first opportunity. Which, of course, is exactly what eventually happened.
5. Failure to note the warning signs that all was not copacetic. This happened at all levels. It ranged, for example, from upper management in some agencies, which diligently avoided hearing complaints from hamstrung managers, to OPM—which became the undisputed master of comically hinky numbers "proving" massive cost savings and productivity gains.
"Don't ask, don't tell" took on a second life, as empty suits at all levels worked diligently to avoid discovering—much less reporting—what was too obvious to miss; i.e., that there was no great cultural change underway. Unfortunately, silence is not always golden, and ignorance is not always bliss—not for long, anyway.
6. Placement of too much faith in the faith healers. Overnight just about anyone with a briefcase and a PowerPoint show was overflowing with high-priced advice as to how to Hatfields and McCoys could become bosom buddies.
The magic elixir that was supposed to accomplish this transformation consisted of a pungent blend of eye-glazing lectures, droning recitations from Getting to Yes, and—if one were really unlucky—intervention-style retreats, during which one was prodded to confess to past sins of confrontation, and to vow to embrace partnership forever more.
The fact that few, if any, minds were actually changed while suffering through all these re-education efforts did little to dampen the enthusiasm for such tent shows. At least until a new sheriff arrived in town and partnership carpetbaggers vanished like dust in the wind.
These are just my leading candidates for what I think went awry when partnership was launched with much fanfare and little planning last time. So what do you think? Are any culprits missing from this list? Or are any of my pot shots off target? Sign in and sound off—don't just stew out there in the dark.
ANNOUNCEMENT: One last thing—When the new E.O. is finalized I intend to post a FREE online mini-course addressing it. It will be located on the Fed LR Central web site, and I will also post a link to it on the final article of this series.
I have some ideas of what to include, but I'd like to hear from you what YOU would like to see covered in that course. You can email your suggestions directly to me, or include them in your comments to this article.
Keep on labor relating.
© 2009 D.K. Reischl. Article may be reproduced and/or distributed in its current form if the copyright and contact information is retained intact.
|
Readers' Comments
Posted: October 21, 2009 2:42 PM
Posted: October 21, 2009 1:43 PM
Posted: October 21, 2009 12:58 PM
View All Comments »