United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Human Resources
Management
(PM-212)
20M-3003
November 1990
1990 Blueprint Review
C2.
SPA
210/
1990.1
-------
-------
ffi to
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
NOV 2 I 1990
OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATION
AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
To the Human Resources Community:
In early 1990 we issued the Human Resources Management
Blueprint a broad statement of goals and program objectives for
human resources within the Agency. The Blueprint was formulated
through the work of many individuals, most notably the Human
Resources Officers and members of the Human Resources Council.
Included in the Blueprint is a provision for an annual assessment
by OHRM to determine progress made toward the Blueprint goals and
objectives.
The J.990 Blueprint Review is our first assessment. We
gathered the views of 71 key officials on human resources in the
Agency through individual interviews covering a broad range of
topics including human resources programs, resources and emerging
issues. We selected the 71 officials from the ranks of the Human
Resources Council; Mini Council Chairs in headquarters, the
Regions and laboratories; Human Resources Officers; and Assistant
Regional Administrators. In this Repqrt we have analyzed their
responses, drawn some general conclusions, and provided an
extensive summary of their opinions and suggestions.
This Report provides a broad overview on the condition of
human resources programs and emerging issues from the perspective
of a group of officials who are actively engaged in the day-to-
day challenges of human resources programs and policies. Within
OHRM our program managers will use the Report as a reference point
to gauge the course of their programs and to make adjustments as
needed. We present the Report to the Human Resources Community as
a source of information and a reference point for their continued
action in support of human resources goals.
Sincerely,
Kenneth F. Dawsc
Director, Office of Human
Resources Management
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
1990 Blueprint Review
A report on the findings from interviews with
key Agency officials concerning human resources programs,
resources, and issues
Quality Assurance & Evaluation Staff
Office of Human Resources Management
November 1990
-------
-------
CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction and Background:
What is Blueprint Review and why do it
The FY 90 Review
3. Highlights of findings from the Review
A. Overall views of HR in the Agency
B. Resources to support HR programs
and initiatives
C. Morale and motivation
Page
1
5
7
D. Central direction vs. local control
of HR programs and initiatives
4. Conclusions from the Review
Appendix A:
List of 71 Officials Interviewed for the FY 90
Blueprint Review.
Appendix B:
Summary Findings from the FY 90 Blueprint Review
10
-------
-------
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WHY CONDUCE A BLUEPRINT REVIEW?i The Agency's Human Resources
Management Blueprint describes our "blueprint" for human resources:
including general goals, program models, and roles for managers,
supervisors, and employees. In order to assess how well the Agency
measures up to the Blueprint, the Office of Human Resources
Management began in FY 90 to conduct a Blueprint Review. The
Review is a broad examination of human resources initiatives and
an assessment on progress or problems toward meeting the goals of
the Blueprint.
WHAT WAS THE FY 90 BLUEPRINT REVIEW?: Interviews with 71 key
officials concerning: the effectiveness of HR programs, resources
and funding levels for HR programs, morale, and future HR issues
and problems. The officials interviewed were: members of the HRC,
the Chairs of MiniCouncils, Assistant Regional Administrators, and
Human Resources Officers. The interviews were conducted from
February though April 1990.
MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE FY 90 BLUEPRINT REVIEW:
* EPA tries harder: HR programs and initiatives are
considered generally ambitious, forward-looking and
humanistic, and better than other federal agencies. But,
intentions and results don't always match. Many respondents
cited specific programs or initiatives as underfunded, or
uncoordinated.
Successful programs; most frequently cited are the SES
Candidate Program, EPA Institute, advisory groups like the HRC
and MiniCouncils, and quality of life programs including
fitness centers and day care.
Unsuccessful programs; most frequently cited are the
Performance Management System, the awards system as
ineffective for motivating employees, funding for rotational
assignments, college recruitment, and pre-supervisory training
programs.
* Funding for current HR programs: Rated overall as less than
satisfactory, in terms of dollars (e.g for travel, training,
recruitment) and in terms of FTE (eg. new HR programs and
responsibilities are matched by increased FTE).
-------
-------
Future HR issues or problems in the next 5 years:
Work Force 2000: this report from the Office of Personnel
Management, is often cited by respondents along with the
workforce challenges it predicts. These include a
shrinking pool of skilled workers, and a greater
proportion of minorities and women in the workforce.
Impact of computers; on organizations, employees, and the
nature of work.
* Morale: Rated above satisfactory, both locally and Agency-
wide. The causes of low morale are: poor physical space,
especially at Headquarters, and excessively heavy wqrkloads.
The causes of high morale are: the strong acceptance of the
Agency's or local mission and confidence in the 12th floor
management team.
Central Direction vs Local Control; Respondents consider the
rules and regulations which govern HR generally
unsatisfactory. At the same time, for certain programs
respondents desire more centralized direction: e.g.
supervisory training programs, quality of life programs.
CONCLUSION; Overall, respondents approve of the general direction
of HR, but differ, sometimes sharply, on specific pathways and
approaches. OHRH program managers should examine the Review
findings to determine if adjustments to programs are needed, and
explore in greater detail, as appropriate, Review findings which
bear upon specific program elements.
-------
-------
2. INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
WHAT IS THE BLCJEPRINT REVIEW AND WHY DO IT?
The Human Resources Management Blueprint is the Agency's
general statement of human resources goals. It describes models for
programs to be used by Agency organizations and locations as they
manage human resources and formulate local programs and
initiatives. One part of the Blueprint states:
The Office of Human Resources Management should make an
Agency-vide comparison of the total human resources management
program against this guidance to determine gaps and to devise
approaches to bridging those gaps.
THE FY 90 BLUEPRINT REVIEW
For FY 90, the Office of Human Resources Management approached
this analysis by conducting a survey of key officials in the Agency
who are either managers of human resources programs or actively
concerned with the goals, policies and resources affecting these
programs. The object of the survey was to gather views on the
effectiveness of specific human resources programs, and in
addition, to explore a number of broad topics, including: morale,
current and future resource needs, and the human resources issues
of the future.
The officials selected for our survey were: members of the
Human Resources Council, Assistant Regional Administrators, Human
Resources Officers, and the Chairs of Mini Councils in
Headquarters, Regions, Laboratories, and Research Centers. The
Quality Assurance and Evaluation Staff, OHRM, conducted the
interviews in the spring of 1990. 71 interviews were completed.
The interviews were conducted by telephone and or in person
from February 28 through April 14, 1990. The interviews ranged in
length from approximately 45 minutes to one hour. Prior to the
interviews the respondents received a copy of the interview
questionnaire. Respondents were informed at the start of the
interviews that all responses would be "on the record11 unless they
specifically stated otherwise.
-------
-------
Appendix A lists the 71 officials interviewed for the survey,
Appendix B lists the questions asked during the interviews and
summarizes the responses to each question. As shown in Appendix
B the questionnaire was a mix of rating questions (eg. rate an HR
program's effectiveness from 1 to 5) and open-ended questions (eg.
What will be the major HR issues over the next 2 to 5 years). The
questionnaire included questions on specific HR programs and a
number of HR related issues, including: morale, resources spent on
HR programs, and HR issues in the next 5 years.
Appendix B also divides the responses into four major subgroups:
a) HRC members and Headquarters
Mini Council Chairs
b) Regional Mini Council Chairs
c) Lab and Lab Center Mini Council Chairs
d) Assistant Regional Administrators
e) Human Resources Officers
27 interviewed
7
10
10
16
71 total
Note that the narrative section of this Report focuses on
generalized highlights only. Appendix B however is highly detailed.
The officials we interviewed are largely the same officials who are
decision makers or the implementors of programs or policies. We
decided that the survey findings should be presented to them in
rather extensive detail, so that survey topics or results of local
interest, or issues not discussed in the narrative portion of this
Report could be easily examined and assessed.
-------
Figure #1
Give an overall rating of HR in EPA
Av*rog« rating of 70 official* = 3.5
4 i
t H
3.5
3.7
3.1
3.6
3.4
HRC * Hq MinCs
R«g MiniCs Lob MlniCs ARA*
Ratings * t (Uniot) to 5 (Outstanding)
HROs
-------
5
3. HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS FROM THE REVIEW
3A. OVERALIt^yiEWS OF HR IN THE AGENCY
The participants in the FY 90 Blueprint Review gave HR
programs and initiatives an average rating of 3.5 on a 1 to 5 scale
(figure 1). They commented often that HR in the Agency is "Better
than other federal agencies.11 Throughout the interviews
respondents who gave a rating of 3 or 4 to a particular HR program
would frequently add that "The rating would be higher except
that..." as if any score below a 4 or 5 needed an explanation or
defense. Respondents frequently cited the admirable intentions of
HR programs but they were careful to separate their views on
program intentions and program accomplishments.
The programs or areas rated highly were: the SES candidate
program, the leave bank, the GLO program, quality of life programs
(rated 3.7), the Institute (3.7), HR advisory and support groups
like the HRC and Mini Councils.
The programs or areas rated poorly were: the performance
evaluation system, programs for motivating supervisors (2.6), pre-
supervisory training (2.6), the rules and regulations governing
HR ( 2.5), and current resources to support current HR programs
(2.2).
The distance between expectations raised and products or
services delivered was a common theme in many comments. For
example, although the GLO program was cited as a successful
program, it was also cited as raising expectations for advancement
that are difficult to satisfy. Another example is supervisory
training. Many respondents cited the high quality of the courses
offered, but also cited the lack of any enforceable requirement to
ensure that supervisors attend courses.
When asked about the HR issues in the next 2 to 5 years,
respondents most often cited Work Force 2000 impacts, referring to
the Office of Personnel Management study which predicts a workforce
with a shrinking pool of skilled workers, a higher proportion of
women and minorities, a higher proportion of workers requiring
remedial or basic skills training, and so forth.
Two other issues for the future were: the impact of computers
in the workplace, cited by many; and the need to justify or show
a cost benefit to HR programs, cited by a few.
Computers were viewed as working significant changes in the
the relationships between subordinates and supervisors, and
affecting the nature of work. The need to justify HR programs was
-------
-------
seen as a possible consequence of the Agency's heavy concentration
on HR and a need to show either the general public or EPA's
workforce that the money spent produced results. As one respondent
said concerning quality of life programs "We're pushing the
envelope of tax payers' tolerance, but we've had no flaps yet."
Zn sun, respondents viewed HR programs overall with very high
expectations and rated them on a scale that was equally high, where
scores less than 4 often prompted explanations.
-------
Figure #2
Current budget
-------
7
3B. RESOURCES TO SUPPORT HR PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES
Dissatisfaction with resources was wide spread and deep.
Respondents generally felt that current HR programs are
underfunded, that new HR programs are introduced without sufficient
regard for resource burdens. Figure 2 shows the average ratings
to the question: how effectively do current resources support
current HR programs. Each group rated resources as below
satisfactory.
Rotational assignments were frequently cited as an example of
underfunding: encouraged by Headquarters, but without adequate
provision for travel funds and backfill replacements.
There were also several comments regarding OHRM's imposition of HR
burdens on others. For example, one Headquarters official cited
the tendency of OHRM to "force" Mini Councils to perform HR
projects with no provision for FTE.
Asked to list the HR programs or areas that need increased
resources in the next 2-3 years, respondents cited basic services
currently short on funding (e.g. travel for recruitment, physical
space and plant), as well as Workforce 2000 types of challenges
specifically,recruitment and retention.
Several respondents cited the need for a significant increase
in contracting out HR to meet underfunding of FTE.
There were some officials who considered resources adequate.
An HRO stated that there are sufficient HR resources in the
aggregate but control of the resources is fragmented, for example
between HROs and AAships like OSWER.
Resource level reductions appear to be a "hot button" topic
to the 71 officials. When asked to list HR programs that would
need a decrease in the next 2-3 years many officials had no
comments. Those who did comment cited program areas where resources
saved in one area could be expended in another area. For example,
streamlining HR processing with ADP would allow staff to move from
transaction processing to other areas of HR.
One Headquarters official cited savings from moving the
nonperforming "dead bodies off the payroll." Apparently, in HR as
in environmental management generally, there are limits to the
efficiencies of recovery and recycling.
-------
Figure #3
Morale in your AAship/Region/Lab
Av«rag« rating of 69 officials » 3.4
4 -
2 -
1 -
3.8
3.3
3.2
3.6
HRC * Hq yinC* R*g MlnlCs Lab UlnlCs AftA* HROs
Morale in the Agency
Av«rog« rating of 61 official* * 3.3
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
3.6
3.3
3.5
3.3
3.2
HRC * Hq MinCs
R«g UiniCt Lab UlnlCs AftAs
Ratings = 1 (Unsot) to S (Outstanding)
HROs
-------
8
3C.
AND MOTIVATION
Morale is often in the eye of the beholder. It is not a clear
concept, it cannot be quantified precisely, but it is often a good
indicator of perceptions and a useful starting point for comments.
In the Blueprint questionnaire, two specific questions on morale,
local and Agency-wide, sparked some interesting comment. In
addition, the answers to two questions on motivating and rewarding
employees provided some interesting perspectives on the connections
between mission, work and morale.
As figure 3 shows, the average ratings on morale were all
between 3 and 3.8. The comments on morale centered on the
importance of "mission1* to high morale. One HRO said: "We offer
'noble* work." An ARA stated that Agency-wide, high morale is tied
to the importance of mission, despite workplace stresses. Other
causes cited for high morale were: Administrator Reilly, the push
for Cabinet status, and the "halo effect1* of both.
A good mission, however, can make its own burdens. Numerous
respondents cited burdensome workloads as the cause of low morale.
Physical space, especially at Headquarters, was also mentioned as
a cause of low morale, because poor space interferes with work.
Finally, a question on the programs and methods to motivate
supervisors and employees drew comments citing the importance of
mission and work as primary motivators over awards or performance
ratings. One lab official said: "Scientists are not motivated by
money, but by publication."
Clearly, for a wide spectrum of the Agency workforce, the
mission, their work and their morale are closely interconnected.
The Blueprint Review is hardly the first to indicate this
connection, but the Review confirms many previous findings: for
many in the Agency mission motivates work and work determines
morale. Under these conditions, HR programs must support managers
and employees in their efforts to achieve the mission. HR programs
in isolation can not be solutions to morale problems.
-------
Figure #4
HR rules & regs: how effective?
Average rating of 66 officials * 2.5
4 -
2 -
2.2
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.5
HRC k Hq HinC* R«g Mln!C» Lob MlniCs ARAs
Ratings * 1 (Unsat) to S (Outstanding)
HROs
-------
3D CENTRAL DIRECTION VS LOCAL CONTROL
The questionnaire included a question on how effective the HR
rules and regulations are for administering HR programs. As figure
4 shows the ratings were uniformly low and accompanied by frequent
negative comments on the excessive paperwork, technicality,
complicated procedures, and vagueness of the rules and regulations.
One HRO commented that the degree of detail and documentation
required by HR regulations "insult" supervisors by indicating a
lack of trust in their judgement.
But not all HR rules and regulations were regarded negatively.
Respondents indicated that standardized rules and central direction
may be highly desirable for some HR programs. For example, many
comments cited a lack of clear and enforceable requirements to
complete training as a weakness of supervisory training programs.
Another example is in quality of life programs. These
programs on average were highly rated (3.7), but there were also
comments citing a lack of central direction, national strategy, or
standard criteria for the programs.
Clearly, one person's rules and regs can be another's time
consuming minutia, but the Blueprint survey indicates that in some
areas clear and enforceable rules would be welcomed. Of course,
phrasing the specific rules and requirements to please concerned
parties may be daunting, but it appears to be worth the effort.
-------
-------
10
4. CONCLUSION
The Blueprint Review gathered views and opinions, not facts
and samples, so the findings are subjective and impressionistic.
But, impressions matter and opinions are important, especially for
HR programs and OHRM program managers.
OHRH program mangers will receive detailed briefings on the
findings from the Review, and this Report will be a main source of
those briefings. The findings will assist OHRH's program managers
to adjust program elements as needed or to explore further the
issues raised by this Report.
As shown in Appendix B, the findings from the Review are
extensive and detailed, and there are a good number of other issues
and currents to the FY 90 Review in addition to the findings
discussed in this brief Report. Readers with local or topical
interests may want to examine Appendix B in greater detail.
The principal findings as drawn from Appendix B for this
Report are:
HR key officials are broadly favorable to current HR
programs. They have high expectations however, and they
rate the intentions and products of HR programs on an
equally demanding scale.
* Resources to support HR programs are perceived as generally
inadequate.
* Morale is generally rated as satisfactory and perceived as
strongly grounded on employee support for the Agency's
mission.
For certain programs (e.g. supervisory training, quality of
life) the HR community and managers generally may support
stricter requirements and central direction.
-------
-------
<
X
i
cu
-------
I
u
I
S i
3 5.
tt» . a - - J ^ *
<* c'c^'guwo^^ x
!i*lii3£ii!
^ S «
M 5 7 S
i
i «!i!.« .lil.i
slflSs
x J u S m it
-------
o
to
8
(9 OC
u o
i I
M at
3 X
S 9
m w
i<
u
u . «i o
* t.
« X
It u. ui
£
s
5 u
"
l
9
«
u
CM s K g
c ff J »
I«?«
a at »
t - U
* 1 « .g
«T ? S £
I C _ y
.-S
*
8 2
eo -
-
1
« 3 e
I "8 1 ""
«* O
8=25
S 8- " «
i g £ .
Tl S £
** o in
o
« g s
£ a g *
«
tr
o
4*
3
'.1
8 1 --S
5 « ^
i«5^
.C » »
M «< U O
* B *^
t (A * O
^ I Ix
S "" o« o *
* 1b 2 *rf
*< o g u o
2 , I I?
f ::*§
9 ~ < *
V V IA
ll5
- 8
55 21
<- *
i
111
C ** **
I 5 5
a o *-
E ^
ews
> s g « t> «
* IU * £ f w
« a. C *< *> c
rvi
rom
rvi
The
rang
The
the
i
S
* L.
*^ o>
a o
v> ct
g «
II
1- «
3 K
01
l» V
>. *
f 3
S i
Si
S*
I!
<-
-------
-------
X
M
o
w
cu
0.
u
p
I
CO
o
2
H
o
z
o
Ot
en
-------
CL
LJ
H- "
O -2
o
0)
c °
OT II
a .
c o>
'i S
o> 0
0 Q£
CC
-------
2
S
S
S
ASSISTANT REG
ADNINISTMTOR
?
o -1 5
»
a
o
o
a *
"o
-------
-------
§
u.
S
3
1
i
i
i
*
OJ
4*
*
i
£
M
1
M
i
S** M
OC
3 « &4>u
x > o
= -
-
«* o
*6
u>
g
S
0) *. WO
I] ^5
o e
fcx pio s c« s
5 C <
(9 <
.
~
w 41 K
a " S
C O
* %
i « «
I S
- C
o 5
%
O. o a
g
X
*<»
II
«l
" «
ad +* f
*: in
-------
G>
\
O £
o
en
c
O>
O
«
0) £
(D
~O
ro
ro
ID
ro
V)
O
cc
I
en
<
or
c
O
n
O
II
in
O)
c
2 .£
D> 5
V)
O
C
o
o:
x
K)
-------
I
1
§
i
i
3
Ifc
&
3 x
ui O
:s
5 S
w» s
«« «*
|